Aluminum Adjuvant in Vaccines

Recently SavvyMom posted an article from I Don't Blog titled I Believe in Science so I Immunize My Kids.  While the comments were generally tame, talking about a delayed vaccine schedule. There were some questionable postings and some outright misinformation.  Of course I had to throw my two cents in.

First up, aluminum adjuvants,,,

Aluminum adjuvant linked to Gulf War illness induces motor neuron death in mice

The findings suggest a possible role for the aluminum adjuvant in some neurological features associated with GWI and possibly an additional role for the combination of adjuvants.

The assumption (if I can make such) of the initial post, aluminum is bad because,,,

While not specifically addressing the issue in the above paper concerning GWI, WHO/GACVS did address the use of aluminum as an adjuvant.

However, there are additional concerns with those studies that limit any potential value for hypothesis generation. These include: incorrect assumptions about known associations of aluminium with neurological disease,,, The FDA analysis indicates that the body burden of aluminium following injections of aluminium-containing vaccines never exceeds safe US regulatory thresholds based on orally ingested aluminium even for low birth-weight infants. GACVS concludes that this comprehensive risk assessment further supports the clinical trial and epidemiological evidence of the safety of aluminium in vaccines.

SEE:: Demystifying Vaccine Ingredients - Aluminum

Unsure whether the "question" was addressed to the adversary's satisfaction, another issue was posed.

KHS posted this,

Vaccines containing adjuvants are tested extensively in clinical trials before being licensed. Aluminum salts, monophosphoryl A (a detoxified bacterial component), and squalene (a compound of the body’s normal cholesterol synthesis pathway) are the only materials that can be used as adjuvants in the United States. The quantities of aluminum present in vaccines are low and are regulated by the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER). 

The aluminum contained in vaccines is similar to that found in a liter (about 1 quart or 32 fluid ounces) of infant formula. While infants receive about 4.4 milligrams* of aluminum in the first six months of life from vaccines, they receive more than that in their diet. Breast-fed infants ingest about 7 milligrams, formula-fed infants ingest about 38 milligrams, and infants who are fed soy formula ingest almost 117 milligrams of aluminum during the first six months of life. 

The article then provides a listing of the amounts of aluminum in various vaccines as well as two videos by Paul Offit:



While not the definitive answer I think SSM was wanting (or demanding), the issue of how the .85mg/dose was reached is shown not to be willy-nilly affair.

We shall see if what was presented is enough to show there is actual studies involved, ie aluminum levels are not arbitrary. Or whether this individual is sniping just to be an ass.

As I suspected, when presented with evidence of the "other side" our adversary went quiet.  Now whether this is due to absorbing new information, which I highly doubt, or talking to that brick wall, who knows.

Correction, here I had thought our adversary hadn't made a comment.  Keep in mind what KSH and I both posted; specifically this :

Vaccines containing adjuvants are tested extensively in clinical trials before being licensed. Aluminum salts, monophosphoryl A (a detoxified bacterial component), and squalene (a compound of the body’s normal cholesterol synthesis pathway) are the only materials that can be used as adjuvants in the United States. The quantities of aluminum present in vaccines are low and are regulated by the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER). 

So the data is there, unless you are willing to believe our governmental organizations and scientists are part of a genocidal scheme, one must be willing to accept their science.

This is what SSM had to say, reading comprehension is obviously not his strong suit.

Regretfully the data may not be readily available as many of the papers are behind paywalls, it is there.

Updated aluminum pharmacokinetics following infant exposures through diet and vaccination, is but one example of further information I found with 30 seconds of searching.  From the abstract,

,,,we found that the body burden of aluminum from vaccines and diet throughout an infant's first year of life is significantly less than the corresponding safe body burden of aluminum modeled using the regulatory MRL. We conclude that episodic exposures to vaccines that contain aluminum adjuvant continue to be extremely low risk to infants and that the benefits of using vaccines containing aluminum adjuvant outweigh any theoretical concerns.

Takes real class,,

Just what kind of bottom feeding scum are some individuals.  From information given to me, Paul* is a UK resident citizen working in the psyche/medical field in Aussieland. [10/27 Edit] Being such she is pro-vax and friends with many in the community (I am not one of them, although that may change).

Now, it is obvious that Angela is not friends with this woman.  Why bring her into the conversation? What is the purpose Angela?  Did Paul cite some factoid that countered one of your opinions?  You just trying to piss-off those within the community

Here's the thing Angela, don't make the battle personal or I and many others will continue to call you scum.  I and many others will continue to call you out on your bullshit, publicly. Keep it to issues that we are in disagreement on, but have the science to support your statements.

In my last post concerning your misinformation, not once did you provide proper citation for your opinion.  Do you have the inside track on groundbreaking information we are not aware of, then cite it so we can become edumacated like you.  Your opinion is worthless without proper, accurate support.

I really am at a loss as to what this accomplishes other than to fuck people off.  Care to explain yourself?  Comments are open if you do.

*Please note that name and pronouns are subject to change upon verification of preference.  Also photo is altered to prevent further harassment.

PS What is your fascination with Mumbai?

Repost::A more thorough look,,,I call bullsh*t, if the shoe fits (Pt 1)

Bear with as I transfer some older postings from other blog over to this one :)

When a theory has been confirmed so completely by facts as has the proposition that vaccination effectually performed will prevent an individual from contracting small-pox, or at least so fundamentally modify the disease that it is no longer a serious malady, there is in many minds a natural distaste to fight the battle again or to be constantly defending the position against the attacks of ill-informed or prejudiced persons.

British Medical Journal, July 24, 1897

Just goes to show that the anti-science mentality or science denialism is not just a "right side of the isle" issue.  Not that I considered it as such, but many consider Bill Maher to be a "liberal" because of his anti-religion stance.  Be that as it may, Maher Gish Gallops quite well through the "failures" of Western Medicine, (ie. false in one thing, false in everything) too bad he is mis-informed.

Just how predictable is Maher in his anti-vaxx stance, starting at the 4:25 mark, leading in to what I discuss below, he makes this statement,

,,,that's not true of the medical industry.  They have had to retract a million things because the human body is infinitely more mysterious.  People get cancer, and doctors just don't know why,,, I remember my father had ulcers and they treated it wrong when I was a kid,,,

Now compare Maher's statement (remember, it's 2015) to a 2006 posting over at Respectful Insolence discussing falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus (false in one thing, false in everything):

A particular favorite example of this ploy is to point out how medicine was wrong about the cause of duodenal ulcers, having previously thought them due to diet or other predilections until it was shown over the last 20 years or so that most cases of such ulcers are caused by a bacterium, H. pylori. Never mind that it was science, not alties, that figured out the[ir] own error and that treatments used for duodenal ulcers before the discovery of H. pylori were in fact fairly effective (just not as effective as the treatments we have today and all too often requiring surgery)

Gorski then goes on to explain why FIUFIO doesn't work in science:

The problem is, this principle doesn’t work in science,,, In most cases, being incorrect doesn’t mean the scientists were lying, and it is the totality of the evidence that must be weighed. Moreover, it is not valid to treat all of science as a single source. Science is not a single witness that can be interrogated. Well-accepted scientific theories (like evolution, for example) are supported by many interweaving lines of evidence from many different sources. If you impeach one minor source or piece of data, that does not invalidate the rest of the supporting data,,, when scientists find inconsistencies in the data supporting a hypothesis or theory, they do not reject the entire theory out of hand in this manner,,, they use such anomalous pieces of data or experimental results as a chance to improve our understanding of a phenomenon. They see if the theory can be modified to account for the observation. They make hypotheses about potential explanations of the anomalous observations and then test them experimentally. If they see if a new theory with better predictive power and utility than the old can be developed that takes account for the new observations.

Stated another way FIUFIO is, as a principle of law, meant to be applied to a single witness or source of authority; something we know science is not.  The use of vaccinations and immunization is not based on one scientist or one kind of science. FIUFIO has no effect on other witnesses/authorities, let alone on objective evidence that does not rely on testimony for its validity.   As this comment points out, "applying FIUFIO gets you no further than to refute a single argument; it does not prove any other. " [See comment #2]

In response to another Bill Maher anti-vaxx faux pas, Gorski makes it clear,

,,,[I]f you’re not antivaccine, then stop repeating long discredited antivaccine talking points as though they were scientifically valid. That’s what antivaccinationists do, and if you continue to do such things, then you shouldn’t be surprised when people conclude that you are antivaccine. It’s a reasonable conclusion based on your own words and failure to be educated over the course of many years.

This is why countering the tripe that comes out of Maher's mouth is important.  His arguments are not original and if one were to visit any anti-vaxx site, these exact same arguments used by Maher will be found.  Dissecting Maher’s anti-vaxx stance from a layman's POV is useful; if I can do it, so can you.  It also shows how lazy Maher is being; it reminds all skeptics and atheists that they can be just as irrational as believers in the woo-woo and proponents of pseudoscience if we leave our critical thinking skills at home. 

For someone who considers himself as being rational and skeptical, tooting his own horn about his atheism, Maher certainly seems to be rather credulous about other things that do not fit into his anti-establishment world-view.  What Maher and his anti-vaxx buddies like to forget:

[A]ll scientific knowledge is provisional and vulnerable to be proven incorrect by future experiments or evidence. That self-correcting mechanism of science is not a weakness at all, but rather sciences’ greatest strength, in which present concepts and theories are constantly subjected to testing and attempts to falsify them. Those hypotheses that can stand up to such attempts become accepted as closer to the “truth” than previous understandings (and may even reach the level of being called a theory), and, with each successive iteration, scientific understanding eliminates error and comes closer to the way things “really are."

What it boils down to for me is this, you know who else says she is not anti-vaccine (besides Amy Holmes and Marianne Williamson) Jenny McCarthy!  To just accept Maher's assertion that he is not anit-vaxx, we would also have to accept McCarthy's as well.

Thinking I should have titled this, “Bill Maher, leads the Anti-Vaxx Movement."

Have any of the papers in question been retracted?

https://www.facebook.com/heraldsun/videos/10154266562633171/

To counter the bullshit, I have been doing a bit of information dropping, especially on this comment.

Concerning formaldehyde,

http://vaccine.fyi/antivax-myth-vaccines-contain-toxic-formaldehyde/

This is one of the popular, AV lists allegedly proving a link between autism and vaccines. Currently deconstructing the list that is presented.  If by "treatment" she means shoving bleach up a kids ass, I will respectfully decline.

Two questions were asked concerning aluminum and vaxxed-unvaxxed studies. Again SW a bit faster on the draw than I.

https://thoughtscapism.com/2015/04/10/myth-no-studies-compare-the-health-of-unvaccinated-and-vaccinated-people/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2260220

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2014/09/09/religious-fundamentalists-try-to-prove-fetal-dna-in-vaccines-causes-autism-and-fail/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25126854

http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/ScienceResearch/ucm284520.htm

"More accurate methods of measuring volumes in that minute a range would be techniques called gas chromatography/mass spectrometry, or GC/MS, in which chemicals are ionized (having an electron removed, usually), and the now-electrically charged molecule or chemical is measured by its mass and charge. This is a longer (and expensive) procedure, but extremely accurate. Gas chromatography, the “GC” part, is carried out before the “MS” step, and separates your targeted chemical from other chemicals in your sample.

"Peter Davies, an emeritus professor of plant biology at Cornell, in an interview with the Genetic Literacy Project warned against ELISA as a useful test at very low concentrations,,,"

https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2016/09/20/glyphosate-herbicide-vaccines-frightened-parents-know/

One of the "new" tropes used is the Thompson Debacle concerning the CDC. They like to trot out Thompson's statement via his lawyer.  BUT they leave 2 things out,,, his full statement and the fact that Hooker's re-analysis (which Thompson's statement is based on) has been retracted.

See also:: CDC whistleblower – zombie anti-vaccine trope still lives; Vaccine Whistleblower: BS Hooker and William Thompson try to talk about epidemiology; The CDC whistleblower documents: A whole lot of nothing and no conspiracy to hide an MMR-autism link

So when that doesn't work, they pull their big gun, or what they think is their big gun - CDC Blocks Testimony of Vaccine Whistleblower says World Mercury Project.  What Kennedy et al neglect. The Hazelhurst claim is a civil malpractice case and a simple rule of law. "[M]edical malpractice is assessed based on what is known at the time, not in hindsight."

http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/cdc-refuses-william-thompson-testify/

Some new ammunition the AVers are adding to their arsenal.

What I find odd concerning this letter, it is dated August 29 it is now October 23.  The only public statement pertaining to this issue is via USRTK and Robert Kennedy, Jr..  You would think two months passing would be enough for MSM to catch wind of this accusation or at least some rumblings in the blogosphere.  There is nothing that I can tell.  Not that it means much but it does make you wonder.

I'll be honest, this appears as another Thompson Debacle.

What I have been able to find comes from Gillam's piece,

A group calling itself CDC Scientists Preserving Integrity, Diligence and Ethics in Research, or CDC SPIDER, put a list of complaints in writing in a letter to the CDC Chief of Staff and provided a copy of the letter to the public watchdog organization U.S. Right to Know (USRTK). The members of the group have elected to file the complaint anonymously for fear of retribution.

While Gillam notes that USRTK is a "public watchdog organization", their claim to fame is primarily an anti-GMO organization. What is a food watchdog group doing in the vaccine domain?

As Lynas notes in regards to a previous action by USRTK,

USRTK’s funding is substantial: after all, launching lawsuits against entire universities is an expensive business. USRTK also recently recruited Carey Gillam, an ex-Reuters reporter whose notoriously biased wire pieces obviously indicated an alliance of anti-GMO ideological interests.
,,,
But here the problems begin. OCA has published numerous articles on its website promoting anti-vaccine and other anti-science campaigns. For example, one article claims that the deadly ebola virus “can be prevented and treated naturally”, for example by using “intravenous Vitamin C”. OCA also promotes homeopathy, and publishes numerous pieces claiming child vaccines cause autism.

On its swine and bird flu pages, the Organic Consumers Association makes the following absurd and dangerous statement: “It is important to know how to protect your children and yourself with homeopathic and natural alternatives to vaccines to build your natural immunity to the swine flu.” OCA also publishes 9/11 Trutherconspiracy theory material.

Lynas notes further,

I wanted to give USRTK’s director Gary Ruskin a chance to respond to concerns that its funding from anti-vaccine activist groups might lead people to suspect that USRTK shared an anti-vaccine ideological agenda as well as an anti-GMO one – there are many overlaps in these two campaigns, as I have written before.
,,,
I am still waiting for a response. I tried following up via Twitter, but… crickets.

My adversary in his last posting, closed with this statement, "Only those who are involved know the truth, the rest is speculation."

My question, still unanswered was this, "have any of the papers in question been retracted?"

So as I sit a wait for a reply, not that I will get one, I ponder what may become of the SPIDER Debacle.  Will we once again have to combat utter bullshit, or is reason beginning to prevail?

I was expecting more than a rehash of worn out AV talking points

So like most AV trolls, it seems Angela is a hit and run artist.  Finds her name referenced in some way, drops by and spits her venom.  Doesn't bother to respond when questioned or asked for supporting information.  Like many she is all talk but needs an audience in order to perform; she has to have minions to show off to.

Me on the other hand, I could give two shits who reads my stuff.  I don't do it for the audience, I do it for me.  If someone finds the information useful so be it.  Guess that is why after 16 years I'm still doing it.

But I digress,,,

And FYI Angela I don't do phone or email.  I work out in the pubic sphere for all to see.  So no, I won't be calling you or emailing you as we all know how that turns out.  And I know you follow my antics on twitter so you will be notified of this posting asking for your responses.   Your failure to respond will be taken as you have no response and acknowledgement that the information is rehashed garbage.  And bring your A-game darling.

Anywho, in my last post concerning Angela, she took a few minutes to respond.  While you can read the responses there I thought for shits and giggles that I would compile them into a blog posting.
__

Since you provide no supporting documents in your screed, I am assuming you are referring to the Institute for Science in Medicine founded in 2009 by 27 Founding Fellows including Dr Gorski. I am unsure what the Institute has to do with the initial article in your tirade - Experts denounce clinical trials of unscientific, 'alternative' medicines.

What is this 26 Aug, 2014 non citation referring to? The "quotation" from the article you provide tells us nothing. And the only entry on SBM for that date concerns Wakefield.

One question I would like to pose to you,,,

Why do you have such an issue with this article, calling for an end to "highly implausible treatments", if you are so against the "bad medicine" of vaccination? It would be right up your alley as you believe vaccines are "implausible" preventive measures.

Not to be critical but if you want to be taken seriously you should really provide proper URLs or citations to articles (or blog posts) to avoid confusion.

While you call Scott Gavura's article "disgusting" and state the photo "fake", you offer nothing to refute Scott's presented information.

In his article he documents the case of Heather Dexter, one of many examples available on the inter-web. Are all the documented cases false? What about all the photo's, are they all fake?

Please, by all means, if you can provide well established medical and scientific information refuting Scott's information, I would be happy to read it. Although you would have to provide proper citation to such so I (and others) can find it.

And what exactly are pathologist going to tell Dr Gorski that he already doesn't know? If you read his offerings on SBM concerning vaccines and vaccinations, you will find his writing very well researched and cited with relevant supporting material. You on the other hand provide nothing but opinion.

Thank you for catching my typo, it has been corrected. As a recent stroke victim, my eyes are not as good as they used to be and big pHARMA doesn't pay their shills very well, if at all, to get them completely fixed. I haven't received jack shit since moving to Mumbai a year ago. 

Actually I live in north-central PA, USA, as a PT dishwasher. Currently, although a year from my first stroke, I am still in recovery and unable to work FT. If you want to hear what I sound like you can catch me on BTTP, a weekly atheist themed show I am a co-host. (Thought I would save you the trouble of snooping on my FB page,,,lol,,,although it is public.)

While that is besides the point, it's nice to know that your grammar and typing ability are so perfect that typos are not part of your repertoire. Had you actually read Scott's article you would have realized I was speaking to DTaP and not DtP. 

As you state DtP has not been used in the US since 1996, what you fail to mention is that "t]here are several formulations of vaccines used to prevent diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis. Some are combined with vaccines to prevent other diseases and reduce the total number of shots that someone receives at one office visit. In the U.S., DTaP, Tdap, and Td vaccines are most commonly used. One of these (DTaP) is given to children younger than 7 years of age, and two (Tdap and Td) are given to older children and adults." Regretfully the nomenclature is easily confused.

Please cite where you are getting the figure of ",,,460000 PER CENT increase in whooping cough in USA, since 1996,,,". I can not find this figure in any literature.  Is that a typo? And specifically what age group are you referring to as DTaP is only used under the age of 7? (Tdap is given to older children and adults.)

 Exactly what is your issue with GE or GM vaccines?

Do you or anyone close to you require Humulin? If so might want to rethink that as Humulin is a GE/GM product. Or are you against the use of insulin as well? 

You may want to reconsider this statement, ",,,this untested, untrialled vaccine based more on GMO,,,"

The pertussis vaccine clinical trials conducted during the 1990s were widely regarded as highly successful. The need to conduct the trials was clear. Industry, academia, and US and international governmental partners quickly came together, which resulted in the trials largely starting and concluding in the first half of the decade. In addition to rapidly generating efficacy data that supported the licensure of acellular vaccines in many countries, the unprecedented level of collaboration across these groups laid a foundation for ongoing vaccine development efforts and collaborations in many different areas—a legacy that persists today,,, http://jid.oxfordjournals.org/content/209/suppl_1/S4.long 

See also:: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/100/5/772.long

Although differences were observed in reaction rates among the DTaP vaccines given as a fourth dose, the DTaP vaccines were, in general, associated with fewer adverse events than a US-licensed DTwP. For DTaP vaccines, fever; irritability; and injection site pain, redness, and swelling occurred more frequently after the fourth dose than after the third dose of the same vaccine in the primary series. No DTaP was consistently most or least reactogenic or immunogenic. Although serologic correlates of pertussis immunity are not defined, it is clear that most DTaP vaccines can stimulate comparable or higher serum antibody responses than DTwP for those antigens contained in the vaccine.

Just two of many if you utilize PubMed or Google Scholar.

"Even FDA clearly stated in 2013, that the vaccinated, WERE THE CARRIERS SPREADING WHOOPING COUGH TO BABIES, without symptoms."

First here is the press release you speak of; and here is the study.  Now was that hard providing the proper URLs?

Let's take a look shall we,,,

I'm not quite sure what you are insinuating. Might it be that science was not aware that the acellular pertussis vaccine is not as protective as the whole cell version? We already knew that. 

And, you do realize this study was performed on baboons? As the paper notes, "[a]lthough a variety of small-animal models have been used to study pertussis, none of them adequately reproduce the human disease." It is why this study is important, while animal models don't always cross over to the human population ",,,we recently developed a nonhuman primate model of pertussis using baboons (Papio anubis) and found the disease is very similar to severe clinical pertussis."

And just an FYI, this notion of pertussis vaccination with asymptomatic infection has been documented at least since 2000. It's not something new and exciting.

Or maybe you're trying to say that only those who have been vaccinated carry the disease. Or worse yet, that the vaccine causes the asymptomatic infection. Put another way, vaccines are useless because people still transmit pertussis.

First, let me address the notion of vaccines CAUSING the asymptomatic infection. Because, I think that is what you are trying to say. It is very simple really, it's not possible!! 

Why?

The vaccine contains antigens, but not the whole bacteria. There is nothing alive in the vaccine, so there’s nothing to transmit.

Problem is you miss the big push of what this paper does say. There is less chance of a vaccinated individual contracting pertussis than an unvaccinated individual.  As well as, if you are vaccinated and DO contract pertussis, symptoms are not as severe.  In other words, being vaccinated against whooping cough is not a guarantee that it will prevent an asymptomatic infection, but it will lessen the severity.

Taken all together is shows the importance of attaining and maintaining herd immunity. A concept I assume you do not accept as being real.

Really Angela I am quite disappointed. For all your bloviating, you got nothing. No originality in thought what so ever from someone of your alleged background. 

This is what "moving the goalpost" looks like

They never learn

So it seems our friend Angela Coral Eisenhauer is up to her ole tricks.  Now mind you, she is reported to be a florist out of WA, Dr. David Gorski is an MD and PhD:

https://www.facebook.com/angelaoffer/posts/1179148742173711

1] Article to which she is referring by Gorski and Novella; notice the date August 20, 2014. Experts denounce clinical trials of unscientific, 'alternative' medicines https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/08/140820123248.htm

Experts writing in the Cell Press journal Trends in Molecular Medicine on August 20th call for an end to clinical trials of "highly implausible treatments" such as homeopathy and reiki. Over the last two decades, such complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) treatments have been embraced in medical academia despite budget constraints and the fact that they rest on dubious science, they say.

2]  Here is Scott's article concerning whooping cough.  Again this article is over a year old but as with all SBM writings, it is well cited with relevant statistics and supporting data.  Compared to Angela's little tirade that has no citations supporting her contentions.  Scott even addresses the issue of "waning immunity".

• http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd-vac/pertussis/default.htm
• http://www.cdc.gov/pertussis/surv-reporting.html
• https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15876927/

Naturally acquired-immunity isn’t superior, or even lifelong – for pertussis, immunity is short lived and will wane within years. It is no more “true” than the immunity provided by vaccination. Yes, the vaccine’s effectiveness will also wane, but you don’t need to endure the infection, and the risk of permanent harm and death, to get the benefit. You simply need to be immunized.

I could find no reference to her alleged conversation with Gorski.

3] Is this the same Sin Hang Lee that has no understanding of molecular biology in regards to human papillomavirus L1 gene DNA fragments?

• https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/beware-hpv-dna-in-gardasil/
• http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/01/09/dr-sin-hang-lee-is-at-it-again-with-the-gardasil-fearmongering/

4]  Considering Scott's statistics concerning the DtP DTaP* vaccine are from the CDC, I not quite sure what Angela is bitching about.

*Please note my original entry contained a typo where I mistakenly entered DtP instead of the DTaP as mentioned by Gavura clearly in his article.  Thank you to Angela for noting my error and bringing it to my attention.

Finally, further along in the conversation, one twatwaffle had the audacity to compare the acceptance of vaccine use to domestic violence saying that it is worse.

So like Vane and her bogus FOIA against Kevin Folta, Angela is harassing Dr Gorski.  Doesn't she realize better attempts have been tried. Our doctors, scientist and researchers should not have to deal with these blatant attempts at harassment because they choose to educate the public on their own time.

H/T::  We Love GMOs and Vaccines

UPDATED::Twatwaffles got their feefees hurt for breaking the law

#VaxXed #BoycottIKEA
(VaxXed StoriesChannel #VaxXed #VaxXedStories) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3cIMdvtc5I

Surprisingly IKEA has released a statement concerning the bus debacle:

A clip procured by Reasonable Hank:



H/T::  Peace, Love, and Threats from anti-vaxxers
+++++

https://www.facebook.com/IKEAUSA/

Scientifically Literate

Going Vegan Isn't the Most Sustainable Option for Humanity — NOVA Next | PBS

If you’ve decided to go vegan because you think it’s better for the planet, that might be true—but only to an extent.

A group of researchers has published a study in the journal Elementa in which they describe various biophysical simulation models that compare 10 eating patterns: the vegan diet, two vegetarian diets (one that includes dairy, the other dairy and eggs), four omnivorous diets (with varying degrees of vegetarian influence), one low in fats and sugars, and one similar to modern American dietary patterns.

What they found was that the carrying capacity—the size of the population that can be supported indefinitely by the resources of an ecosystem—of the vegan diet is actually less substantial than two of the vegetarian diets and two out of the four omnivorous diets they studied.

Going Vegan Isn't the Most Sustainable Option for Humanity — NOVA Next | PBS

See also::  Carrying capacity of U.S. agricultural land: Ten diet scenarios

Parasitic Wasps Genetically Engineer Caterpillars Using Domesticated Viruses - The Atlantic

The answer is yes. Last year, Sean Schneider and James Thomas from the University of Washington found evidence of bracovirus genes in the genomes of the silk moth and the monarch butterfly. The duo described the wasps as “accidental genetic engineers,” implanting the genomes of their caterpillar victims with their own (viral) DNA. In other words, one insect was genetically modifying another with viral genes, via a sting.

“What’s kind of funny is that such a species as iconic as the monarch has been genetically modified by the parasitic wasp virus and can thus be considered as a natural GMO,” says Drezen, in an email. He, together with Salvador Herrero from the University of Valencia, has now found similar genes in a wider range of butterfly and moth species, including important pests like the beet armyworm and fall armyworm. And they’ve found that these sequences may not just be passive hitchhikers.
,,,
Michael Strand says that the team haven’t conclusively shown that the viral genes play an active role in the moths; the data, he says, are “suggestive” but not conclusive. Herrero acknowledges this, and is trying to get more unambiguous proof. He plans to disable the transferred viral genes by editing them, to see if their caterpillar owners more readily suffer from baculovirus infections. In other words, he plans to genetically modify the moths to show that the wasps have been doing so all along.

Parasitic Wasps Genetically Engineer Caterpillars Using Domesticated Viruses - The Atlantic

See also::  Recurrent Domestication by Lepidoptera of Genes from Their Parasites Mediated by Bracoviruses

Natural GMO? Sweet Potato Genetically Modified 8,000 Years Ago : Goats and Soda : NPR

So why does an 8,000-year-old GM sweet potato matter? The example might be helpful for regulators and scientists looking at the safety of GM crops, Jaffe says. "In many African countries, some regulators and scientists are skeptical and have some concerns about whether these crops are safe," Jaffe says. "This study will probably give them some comfort. It puts this technology into context."

But the study won't assuage many consumers' worries about GMOs, Jaffe says. "A lot people's concerns aren't just about whether what the scientists have done is natural or whether the crops are safe to eat."

Many people worry about whether GMOs increase the use of pesticides and herbicides. Or that some companies use the technology to make seeds intellectual property. "In these instance, you have to look at the GMO on a case-by-case basis," Jaffe says.

In the case of sweet potatoes, at least, the world seems clear on all those fronts.

Natural GMO? Sweet Potato Genetically Modified 8,000 Years Ago : Goats and Soda : NPR

On the scientific method