Repost::Show Notes:: Say It Ain't So [Acid-Alkaline Re-visited]

Original post date: 12/2015

Mike Huckabee,

• Mike Huckabee Thinks Selling Bogus Cancer Treatments will make Him a ‘Heck of a Good President’ 
• Mike Huckabee and the diabetes cure he endorsed that 'no health agency supports'
• Huckabee Defends His Scam Diabetes 'Cure'

Ben Carson,

• Ben Carson’s alternative cancer cure testimonial for Mannatech
• Dr. Ben Carson on Glyconutrients
• Ben Carson’s Troubling Connection

Rand Paul

• Rand Paul Belonged To Fringe Medical Group That Promoted AIDS Denialism
• Rand Paul's vaccine comments expose his greatest weakness as a presidential candidate
• Rand Paul's Vaccine Conspiracy Theories Come Back to Haunt Him - Rachel Maddow Show

Chris Christy

• Chris Christie Advocates ‘Balanced’ Approach to Vaccinating Children

The ACID/ALKALINE (diet) "hypothesis" which is actually the basis for many of the other claims currently "on the market."

As I noted in my initial post on this topic, "[t]his post is based on 8 years of digging for information for personal use. I regret that when I gathered this information I never thought I would be conveying it in any meaningful way and therefore I do not have citations for this information.  Basically these are my "notes" re-written, I am not the originator of any of this information."

Since that time I have been attempting to re-create my original source material or things relatively close.  The basic outline of the entire piece is from the following all mish-mashed together:

• Acid/Alkaline Theory of Disease Is Nonsense by Gabe Mirkin, M.D.Alkaline Diet
• The Alkaline Diet Myth: An Evidence-Based Review
• Alkaline Diet
• The Acid-Alkaline Myth: Part 1
• The Acid-Alkaline Myth: Part 2

I have added further information which is included in the following. Please note I have left out some of the dialogue for brevity,,,

Bad health claims

Melissa Etheridge

I went on the Internet and googled acid and alkaline. There's been a few books written, but no one has really come up with an exact answer because a person's acid/alkaline balance has to do with their own body. But there are foods that definitely produce acid, like red meat, processed food, and dairy. So I cut all of that out, and when I was on chemo I ate purely alkaline foods, which are fruits - especially citrus fruits - vegetables, potatoes, and avocado. I would drink lemon water all day long - it's like Pepto-Bismol in your stomach!

Once you realize how powerful food is, that it can make you better when you come out of the chemo, you want to stay balanced. Instead of eating 70 percent acid, it's 70 percent potatoes, avocados, asparagus, fruits, and these types of wonderful things. Then you realize, I can have that hot-fudge sundae with my kids every couple weeks and it's not going to hurt me. It's about balance. I don't do without anything - I love it all! I just don't do it every day.

Kim Tinkham, the woman whom Oprah made famous, dead at 53

Kim Tinkham WAS a cash-cow for one Robert O. Young.  Young swindled Tinkham of her money until she died in 2010, three years after being dx'd with stage-3 breast cancer.  As noted, Young is NOT a doctor and has faced faced prosecution 3 times, the most recent in 2014.

In other words, our stomach is an acidic environment (a pH of about 3). Food enters the stomach (regardless of its acid or alkaline-producing qualities) and is immediately combined with hydrochloric acid (HCL) before it enters the digestive tract.  Very bad for the body IF there wasn't a naturally occurring means for the body to reduce/eliminate that acidity. Lo and behold, guess what the pancreas does, it secretes a slurry to cancels out the acid the stomach has just introduced into the rest of the body. So, regardless of the food you have just eaten, it will be combined with a highly acid substance and then subsequently a highly alkaline substance.

Our bloodstream and organs control acidity in a very narrow range, anything that changed acidity in our bodies would make us very sick and could even kill.

Think of it this way, what happens when you hold your breath?
Carbon dioxide accumulates in your bloodstream very rapidly and your blood turns acidic. Do it too long you will become uncomfortable or even pass out, which forces you to start breathing again and the pH returns to normal. Or if your kidneys are damaged and cannot regulate the acidity of your bloodstream, chemical reactions stop, poisons accumulate in your bloodstream, and you can die. [1]

The main premise:

When we eat “acid-forming” products our bodies turn “acidic” and illness results. To compensate we then leach calcium from our bones. If we continue to maintain a high acid diet, our bodies will shed calcium and we can end up with osteoporosis, and other chronic diseases.  

There are studies that clearly back that simple response, these are but a few:

Causal assessment of dietary acid load and bone disease: a systematic review & meta-analysis applying Hill's epidemiologic criteria for causality

A causal association between dietary acid load and osteoporotic bone disease is not supported by evidence and there is no evidence that an alkaline diet is protective of bone health.

The acid-base hypothesis: diet and bone in the Framingham Osteoporosis Study

Together these results support the role of base forming foods and nutrients in bone maintenance. The role of protein appears to be complex and is probably dependent on the presence of other nutrients available in a mixed diet. A balanced diet with ample fruit and vegetables and adequate protein appears to be important to bone mineral density.

Low urine pH and acid excretion do not predict bone fractures or the loss of bone mineral density: a prospective cohort study

There were no associations between either urine pH or acid excretion and either the incidence of fractures or change of BMD after adjustment for confounders.

Urine pH and urine acid excretion do not predict osteoporosis risk.

Nutritional disturbance in acid–base balance and osteoporosis: a hypothesis that disregards the essential homeostatic role of the kidney

The nutritional acid load hypothesis of osteoporosis is reviewed from its historical origin to most recent studies with particular attention to the essential but overlooked role of the kidney in acid–base homeostasis,,,.It stemmed from classic investigations in patients suffering from chronic kidney diseases (CKD) conducted in the 1960s.

The kidneys, not bone, regulate blood pH.

When we digest things like protein, the acids are buffered by bicarbonate ions in the blood.  This produces carbon dioxide and salts, which are exhaled through the lungs, and are excreted by the kidneys respectively.  This process is cyclic and is how the body maintains the pH of the blood.  As the kidneys produce ‘new’ bicarbonate ions, which are returned to the blood to replace the bicarbonate that was initially used to buffer the acid.  No involvement from the bones whatsoever.

Dietary Acid Load Is Not Associated with Lower Bone Mineral Density Except in Older Men

These results suggest that, with a possible exception of older men, dietary acid load does not have a measureable negative effect on bone health, regardless of total calcium intake.

Low urine pH and acid excretion do not predict bone fractures or the loss of bone mineral density: a prospective cohort study

The objectives of this study were to determine whether 1) low urine pH, or 2) acid excretion in urine,,,predict: a) fragility fractures; and b) five-year change of bone mineral density (BMD) in adults,,,. Urine pH and urine acid excretion do not predict osteoporosis risk.

Quality of diet and potential renal acid load as risk factors for reduced bone density in elderly women

We found no relationship between dietary acid load and BMD. We also confirmed the role of well-recognized risk factor for osteoporosis.

A second premise one may come across:

Here is another nice analogy from Joe Leech writing at Authority Nutrition:

When you metabolise foods and extract the energy (calories) from them, you are actually burning the foods, except that it happens in a slow and controlled fashion.

When you burn foods, they actually leave an ash residue, just like when you burn wood in a furnace.

As it turns out, this ash can be acidic or alkaline (or neutral)… and proponents of this diet claim that this ash can directly affect the acidity of your body.

So if you eat foods with acidic ash, it makes your body acidic. If you eat foods with alkaline ash, it makes your body alkaline. Neutral ash has no effect. Simple.

Acid ash is thought to make you vulnerable to illness and disease, whereas alkaline ash is considered protective. By choosing more alkaline foods, you should be able to “alkalize” your diet and improve health.

Here is a bit more in depth answer but simplified.  Yes, foods can influence our urine pH.  No, foods don’t influence our blood pH (overall body pH).

Milk and acid-base balance: proposed hypothesis versus scientific evidence

Measurement of an acidic pH urine does not reflect metabolic acidosis or an adverse health condition. The modern diet, and dairy product consumption, does not make the body acidic. Alkaline diets alter urine pH but do not change systemic pH. Net acid excretion is not an important influence of calcium metabolism. Milk is not acid producing. Dietary phosphate does not have a negative impact on calcium metabolism, which is contrary to the acid-ash hypothesis.

Potential renal acid load of foods and its influence on urine pH

This calculation methodology, primarily based on PRAL, allows an appropriate prediction of the effects of diet on the acidity of urine. For practical applicability in dietetic prevention of recurrent urolithiasis or in other fields of dietetics, the additionally determined correlation (r = .83; P < .001) between NAE and urine pH can be used to ascertain NAE target values for a desired urine pH modification.

Here is why, and it falls under understanding "acid-base homeostasis."

All foods leave behind acid or alkaline ash which is determined by the relative content of acid-forming components (ie. phosphate and sulfur) and alkalis (ie. calcium, magnesium, and potassium.).  In general, animal products and grains are acid forming, while fruits and vegetables are alkali forming.   So if we have, let's  say, steak and eggs for breakfast, our urine will be more acidic;  if we have a kale smoothie it will tend towards alkaline.  But bare in mind, our urine is the waste dump of metabolic processes, our bladders are the sealed storage container.  Measuring the urinary pH is nonsense because your blood pH does not change unless you’re seriously ill.

"Proponents of the alkaline diet have put forth ideas about how an acidic diet harms our health."  According to Chris Kesser,  the claim that we can change the pH of our blood by changing the foods we eat, and that acidic blood causes disease (while alkaline blood prevents it), is not true. As mentioned above, the body tightly regulates the pH of our blood and we cannot influence it by changing our diet.   And FYI Scientists have known since the 1930s that the foods we eat do have an effect on our urine pH, but if they were to significantly alter the balance of acidity/alkalinity in our blood, we would die.  In other words, the A/A hypothesis of diet is old news.

"Cancer cells grow faster in an acidic environment"
Destroyed by Science recently put out a nice piece explaining both.

I honestly wonder if pseudoscience sellers deliberately find pieces of science that they can deliberately twist and take out of context in order to sell their products and ideas; or if they genuinely believe in their own intellectual dishonesty. Here for instance, the fact that the acidic microenvironment caused by cancer cells has been hypothesised to lead to more aggressive invasive behaviour during carcinogenesis (9); is used dishonestly in two ways. Firstly, to lead people to believe that their “acidic” body pH has caused them to develop cancer in the first place, and secondly, to believe that they will be able to create an alkaline environment in their body that will be unfavourable to cancer cells, causing them to grow more slowly or perish selectively, leaving healthy cells untouched.

Leaving aside the fact that results from in vitro experiments cannot just be translated to what occurs in a living organism; most studies on cancer cells are done in a medium with a pH of 7.2-7.4 (10) which is not acidic. The reason that these conditions are used is that this also conveniently happens to be very close to the pH of extracellular fluid (blood plasma, interstitial fluid) (11) experienced within the human body. The human body also conveniently has a number of mechanisms that ensure this pH does not go outside a very strict range (7.35-7.41) – if it does, the consequences are dire, as in, death. A blood pH level of 8.5 would be a very bad thing. Lets be honest- whether or not cancer cells can be killed by an extreme environment is irrelevant if the extreme environment is going to lead to the death of a patient. This is really no different from saying “Hey, I can destroy these cancer cells in this test tube with napalm. Who wants in?”.

It’s not the acidic environment that causes the cancer; it’s the cancer that causes the acidic environment
It is as DBS explains a "misappropriation of the Warburg Effect, when cancer cells shift to glycolysis and continue to rely primarily on glycolysis rather than respiration even in the presence of adequate oxygen."

Writing for Respectful Insolence, Dr. David Gorski, aka "Orac" explains it thusly,

He’s [referring to Otto Warburg] a Nobel Laureate, and his discovery of how cancer cells shift to glycolysis and continue to rely primarily on glycolysis rather than respiration even in the presence of adequate oxygen. Indeed, this effect, called the Warburg Effect, is an important difference between tumor cells and normal cells. Moreover, this difference in metabolism is the basis of drugs like dichloroacetate,, a frequent topic of this blog. Of course, even ol’ Otto had a bit of trouble with hyperbole. For one thing, animal cells certainly can undergo glycolysis; muscle cells do it all the time under duress. Long distance runners, in particular, are familiar with glycolysis. That’s why it’s overstating the case a bit to say that “one can scarcely picture a greater difference,” particularly since not all tumors even exhibit the Warburg effect. I can forgive Warburg, though, a bit of hyperbole–although it is known that he became a bit of an eccentric in his later years. In any case, Dr. Young’s invocation of Warburg is especially wrong, given that the lactic acid generated by glycolysis is a result of the alteration in cancer cell metabolism, not a cause. It’s like saying the exhaust fumes from a car are the cause of the car’s motion,,,.

Examining the relationship between diet-induced acidosis and cancer

There is limited evidence to suggest that dietary acidosis alone is sufficient in increasing cancer risk, but it may function in concert with other factors associated with cancer risk. Obesity or metabolic syndrome,,,,.

In conclusion, there are numerous systemic pathways affected by diet-induced acidosis that may be cancer promoting, but a causal role is poorly defined. Moreover, the contribution of diet-induced acidosis in driving carcinogenesis would be difficult to measure especially since the effects appear to accumulate for a long period of time.

Acidic pH enhances the invasive behavior of human melanoma cells

Causes and Consequences of Increased Glucose Metabolism of Cancers

Acid treatment of melanoma cells selects for invasive phenotypes

AV Gish Gallop #1 (Pt 3)

A positive association found between autism prevalence and childhood vaccination uptake across the U.S. population (2011)
(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21623535)

Delong G
https://vaccination-information-portal.com/wp-content/uploads/participants-database/vaccine_and_autism_correlation_us_2011_j_tox_env_health.pdf

This paper has received much attention.  None of it, outside the echo-chamber is good,,,

What Delong does, "[s]he correlated rates of coverage of the government recommended full set of vaccines in the 51 US states including Washington D.C., with registered rates of autism in those states six years later."  As Neuroskeptic notes, Delong's conclusion, "The higher the proportion of children receiving recommended vaccinations, the higher was the prevalence of AUT,,, The results suggest that although mercury has been removed from many vaccines, other culprits may link vaccines to autism. Further study into the relationship between vaccines and autism is warranted."

After doing some statistical magic of his own, NS states. "My conclusion is that this dataset shows no evidence of any association. The author nonetheless found one. How? By doing some statistical wizardry,,, but when the raw data shows zilch and you can only find a signal by "controlling for" stuff, alarm bells start ringing. Given sufficient statistical analysis you can make any data say anything you want."

My take from NS writing, there's no correlation between change in vaccination and change in autism.

Hoping for a bit more clarity as I am 20+ years removed from statistics,,,

One note the Orac makes concerning "just" the abstract, ",,,I can’t resist pointing out a bit of misinformation right in the abstract. For example, the reason for the rapid rise of autism in the U.S. is not really much of a “mystery.” It’s very likely the result of diagnostic substitution in the wake of the broadening of the diagnostic criteria for autism and autism spectrum disorders that occurred in the early to mid-1990s, as Paul Shattuck has shown.  Oh, there may be a genuine increase in autism prevalence over the last 20 years (although even that is debatable), but, if it exists, it’s so small that it’s not even clear that there is one."

The crux of Orac's analysis is design, methodology, and confounders:

Then there’s the design of the study itself. Jumpin’ Jesus on a pogo stick, there’s the design of the study itself! If this is the sort of research design that is considered acceptable and routine in economics and business, no wonder our economy’s in such a mess. First (and most egregious), there’s the issue of why DeLong combined SLIs (see abstract above) with autism diagnoses to do her analysis.
,,,
Then there’s the methodology chosen for trying to find correlations, described here,,, Besides DeLong’s having fallen for the ecological fallacy (group level comparisons rather than individual-level comparisons), she doesn’t provide much in the way of a good justification for why she chose ages 2 and 8 as their vaccine time point and prevalence time point.
,,,
Then there’s the issue of confounders. DeLong tried to control for ethnicity, but in explicably she used the CDC’s National Immunization Survey rather than, say, U.S. Census data to derive ethnicity figures. Other potential confounders examined included family income, other disabilities, and the number of pediatricians in each state.

The take away from Orac's analysis, "DeLong used inappropriate data to reach inappropriate conclusions. She publishes to her audience, not science."

One note of import, this study is ignored: US Department of Education Data on “Autism” Are Not Reliable for Tracking Autism Prevalence, by James R. Laidler

While I could bore y'all to death with other reactions to this paper, it is safe to say that Liz Ditz has provide a fine summation of concerns with the paper.

AV Gish Gallop #1 (Pt 2)

A two-phase study evaluating the relationship between Thimerosal-containing vaccine administration and the risk for an autism spectrum disorder diagnosis in the United States (2013)
(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3878266/)

David A Geier, Brian S Hooker, Janet K Kern, Paul G King, Lisa K Sykes, and Mark R Geier
http://translationalneurodegeneration.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/2047-9158-2-25

What I find perplexing about this paper, for all intents, it starts with the claim that childhood shots contain mercury, a powerful neurotoxin with no safe level of use.  At issue, thimerosal was removed from all recommended children's vaccines since 2001.  (Varicella, inactivated polio, and pneumococcal conjugate vaccines have also never contained thimerosal. Influenza (flu) vaccines are currently available in both thimerosal-containing and thimerosal-free versions.)  Prior to that point it was only in 3 vaccines; it was never present in the MMR.

Since 2010, "Prenatal and Infant Exposure to Thimerosal from Vaccines and Immunoglobins and Risk of Autism" has been available. "This study revealed no increased risk of ASD associated with receipt of thimerosal-containing vaccines. No increased risk was found for subtypes of ASD, including ASD with regression, and prenatal exposure was not associated with a risk of ASD."

Two rhetorical questions: 1] Why are the authors focusing on a ingredient that wasn't in use for 11 years at time of publication?  2] Why are AVers citing this study as relevant in 2016?

A second issue as noted by SW, ",,,the conclusion relies on correlation of source data from the VAERS database. This is a self-reporting & unverified database. Anyone can report and the reports are not confirmed. Authors have declared interests as they are paid to be witnesses in vaccine trials."
__
*One note of import, Mark Geier was engaged as an expert witness to Hooker’s ongoing court case concerning vaccine injury.

AV Gish Gallop #1 (Pt 1)

So initially I was going to make one big post concerning this list, what will now be known as AV Gish Gallop #1. (There are at least four similar lists with many repeat papers that I plan on tackling in some manner.)  This particular one remains unattributed ATM:

I'm not going to broach the pHARMA Gambit, but focus only on the studies presented.

A few points before we begin,

1. I am a layman and therefore rely on those resources that I consider smarter than I.
2. Any personal commentary is just that, my thoughts on said paper.
3. Before you accuse me of ad hom, make sure you know what it means.
4. As noted by a friend, all these papers (not necessarily this particular list) have a common theme: "Thimerosal, Biased researchers, Nothing to do with vaccines, Linky no worky, It's not aluminium in vaccines but aluminium salts, Small scale,,, Ah you know the drill"
5. Many of the papers have repeating authors.
6. Papers published in questionable or low quality journals.
7. Questionable peer review process.
8. And, oft times the papers are severely outdated.

With that in mind, I will be linking to abstracts (and the papers when possible).  When the paper is not available, I will be relying on sources for a portrayal of what is published.  If it is found that source misrepresented what is published, I will correct with adequate evidence of said error.

1]  A two-phase study evaluating the relationship between Thimerosal-containing vaccine administration and the risk for an autism spectrum disorder diagnosis in the United States (2013)
2]  A positive association found between autism prevalence and childhood vaccination uptake across the U.S. population (2011)

Orac gives a fine example of what "dumpster-diving" in VAERS entails

What it is, in actuality, is yet another example of the Geiers [http://www.jpands.org/vol11no1/geier.pdf - his paper purports to show that autism rates had started to dip since early 2003, when the last lots of thimerosal-containing childhood vaccines expired] mining the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) database for purposes for which it was never designed and misusing the California Department of Developmental Services (CDDS) database similarly. First, off, as I pointed out extensively before, the VAERS database is designed only as an early warning system for reporting adverse events thought to be due to vaccines. It is not designed to track the incidence or prevalence of vaccine complications. One reason is that anyone can make entries into it, not just medical professionals, and the results are only checked in the most perfunctory way.,,, Worse, as I described before, the database has been corrupted by litigation, with a dramatic increase of entries linked to litigation claiming that thimerosal caused the plaintiff’s child’s autism.

,,,
The bottom line is that the VAERS database is not a reliable source to determine autism prevalence or incidence, period. It’s too prone to being affected by scares, like the recent hype over mercury supposedly causing autism, and even outright manipulation, and its entries aren’t even examined by medical professionals in sufficient detail to determine whether adverse events reported were or could be reasonably inferred to have resulted from vaccines. Of course, that never stopped the Geiers from diving into that database again and again and again, all without acknowledging the shortcomings of this database. And it actually wouldn’t be all too surprising if reports of autism attributed to vaccines in the VAERS database did indeed fall after 2003, given that it was widely publicized that thimerosal was removed from nearly all childhood vaccines around that time, making it less likely after then that parents would attribute their children’s autism to vaccines.

The Geiers go dumpster-diving yet again

More concerning VAERS,,,

From The Mad Virologist (May 26, 2016),,,

To start with, VAERS is a surveillance system that is designed to alert the FDA and CDC if there is a unforeseen adverse reaction to a vaccine (http://goo.gl/uryjgl). But the catch here is the system is set up to allow anyone to submit a report. In deciding this, the FDA and CDC are trying to prevent underreporting, which in the case of a serious issue could be deadly.Several people have demonstrated how this might swing too far the other way by submitting very obvious fake reports. One person described developing powers much like the Incredible Hulk after receiving a vaccine and another person submitted a report saying that they had developed powers like Wonder Woman (http://goo.gl/XCxVub). So clearly, not every report in VAERS is accurate or the result of vaccination.

But how do researchers properly utilize this system? The simple answer is through verifying the reports and using it as the starting point for a study. A good example of this is the FDA and CDC noticing a potential increase in febrile seizure after the administration of an influenza vaccine (https://goo.gl/cq6wwp). Because they noticed a potential problem, this is the starting point for a carefully designed study to determine if the risk is due to the vaccine and how often it happens. As part of that starting point, reported cases of febrile seizures were verified by checking the medical records.

Unfortunately many people abuse the system and link all adverse events that happen to occur after vaccination, including deaths due to murders, suicides and car accidents, to a given vaccine. Because this happened shortly after vaccination, some people draw the conclusion that the vaccine killed them when it is a tragic coincidence that had nothing to do with vaccination. This type of study is referred to as "dumpster diving" in VAERS and is used to support all sorts of wild accusations about the danger of vaccines despite the lack of actual evidence. I mentioned this practice a few days ago in a post (https://goo.gl/yGlbmj).

So in the simplest terms, VAERS is designed to warn those responsible for the safety of vaccines, in the US, before a huge problem emerges. However, much like vaccine inserts, it does not provide a complete picture of what the potential risks of vaccinations are nor does it show that vaccines cause specific adverse events. It is a highly useful tool if you understand the limitations of the system and what it was meant to do. It can provide researchers a glimpse into what risks might be associated with a given vaccine so that a proper study can be conducted to answer that question. In this way it is highly useful. As a source to show a causal effect, not so much.

Just some notes to share concerning vaccines

Cross post from H&C (9/20/16),,,

For part of another posting I have been doing some information gathering, primarily video and audio presentations.  It concerns Kent Hovind and Mary Tocco and their stance concerning vaccines.  Being that I have touched on their dribble before and I am in the process another posting, I'm not going to go into much detail concern that issue.

What I found fascinating, for lack of better, specifically a interview with Dr. Larry Tyler.  What followers are my notes concerning what he and Hovind presented and my reaction and/or rebuttal. In other words, if presented with the same information in a discussion, how would I counter it? This is by no means comprehensive or in a fully presentable fashion BUT I found the counter information useful.
__
Come on Larry show me something original that hasn't already been stated by someone else. Something new,,, anything. I mean seriously dude, ya got 15 years (at time of interview) of quack medicine experience.

Sorry to say, you are under-qualified and peddle information and "treatments" that are not supported by science. (This guy practiced chiropractic manipulation on a 2 day old child - his own.) The profession isn't based in science and many of the fundamental ideas the profession holds isn't scientifically plausible. It's not so bad that you peddle this crank, but this garbage is what you are taught.

(FYI my uncle was an MD as well as a doctor of chiropractics. He was my primary doctor until well into my 20s till he retired. Thankfully he was an MD first a chiro second. His philosophy, if you want to call it that, was one of chiro being a "therapy" (like massage therapy) not a primary treatment. While he still had some crank views based on the notions behind chiro, they were well balanced by his training as an MD (ie. he didn't try to "fix" an ear infection by cracking my neck).

My second chiro had the same attitude but regretfully I am paying dearly for the learned ignorance built into their field. I don't feel they are responsible for the issues I deal with now, but my "distrust" or hesitation I currently carry is from their philosophy.)

Vaccines are poison-vaccine ingredients

Formaldehyde (CH20) a naturally occurring substance the body itself produces.

At high enough concentrations and with long-term exposures—such as occupationally—formaldehyde can indeed be toxic. The highest risk of toxicity from formaldehyde is from inhaling it in conditions of unusually high or prolonged exposure.

Under normal conditions, the human body is producing and eliminating its own formaldehyde continuously. Our body uses the molecule to build proteins and nucleotides, two of the four most critical building blocks of life (the other two are lipids and carbohydrates).

According to the U. S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA),

The amount of formaldehyde present in some vaccines is so small compared to the concentration that occurs naturally in the body that it does not pose a safety concern.

We humans are efficient at metabolizing formaldehyde. Our body does not distinguish between formaldehyde from vaccines, and that which is naturally-produced or environmental. Either way, our body goes ahead and breaks formaldehyde down and excretes it the same.

Formaldehyde does not accumulate in the human body. Post-vaccination, formaldehyde is gone from the muscle at the injection site within 30 minutes. Any remaining formaldehyde is less than 1% of the existing, naturally-occurring level in the body.

Concerning vaccines are poison-vaccine ingredients - specifically thimerosal (Ethyl(2-mercaptobenzoato-(2-)-O,S) mercurate(1-) sodium)

As the meme notes, equating the three, elemental mercury (Hg) / methylmercury (CH3Hg+X-) / ethylmercury (CH3CH2-Hg+X-), AVers refuse to provide any mechanism to how thimerosal is changed to either elemental mercury or methyl mercury, or how they can be attributed the same chemical properties. Drawing conclusions on thimerosal toxicity from methyl mercury is also flawed.

If you really want to get an AVer's goat, ask them if they have any tattoos.

Concerning vaccines are poison-vaccine ingredients - specifically aluminum.

Concerns about how aluminum affects health arose in the 1960s and 1970s, when it was thought that there may be a link between Alzheimer's disease and exposure to large amounts of aluminum (subsequent research has largely discredited this idea among scientists, yet it persists among fringe scientists and in public opinion). Similarly, anti-vaccine activists blame the aluminum used as adjuvants in vaccines as a cause of autism. Aluminum is neurotoxic at high levels of exposure, such as among patients with renal dysfunction who are undergoing dialysis with an aluminum-containing dialysate, but it takes a lot of aluminum to cause neurological effects. Even then, its effects are not identical to the symptoms of Alzheimer's disease or autism.
,,,
Some vaccines only use parts of bacteria or viruses, rather than the whole thing. Because of this, large amounts of those parts are required to generate an immune response strong enough to produce immunity. That is, unless an adjuvant is used. An adjuvant is something that is added to a vaccine to boost the immune response, meaning that less of the antigens (those bits and pieces of bacteria and viruses) is required. In adjuvanted vaccines, the antigens are essentially stuck onto aluminum hydroxide or aluminum phosphate (aluminum salts). The aluminum salt serves a few primary roles. First, it gets the immune system's attention. First-responder phagocytes at the injection site will binge on some of the aluminum until they die from overeating, releasing particles that signal cell damage. The next line of phagocytes encounter all of this and are more likely to signal an inflammatory response, recruiting immune cells to find out what's going on. Second, because it is not very soluble, the aluminum salt stays put at the injections site for a while, preventing the antigens from being swept off into the bloodstream and diluted through the body. Keeping the antigens localized gives the immune system more time to investigate and get to know the antigens so that the next time you're exposed, your immune system knows what to do and how best to respond in order to keep you from getting sick. Finally, although not related to its adjuvant activity, it helps stabilize the vaccine and prevent the antigens from precipitating out of solution and sticking to the side of the container. (Sorry about anthropomorphizing the antigens, but sometimes you just have to.) Using an adjuvant like aluminum hydroxide means that less antigen is needed to produce an immune response. That means a reduction in the side effects caused by the antigen and the ability to produce more doses of vaccine without needing to increase antigen production.

The biggest concern about the use of aluminum-based adjuvants is safety. If aluminum is neurotoxic at high, chronic levels of exposure, does that mean it is also neurotoxic at the amounts found in vaccines? The short answer is no. Aluminum salts have been used in vaccines for about 70-80 years. Aluminum adjuvant is not used in any "live" vaccine (MMR, varicella, rotavirus), inactivated polio vaccine (IPV), nor in any influenza vaccine in the U.S.

This entire issue concerning VAERS, the vaccine court, and related is a stinky mess that is twisted by AVers. While specifically related to the MMR and measles, Snopes lays out the facts nicely. 

Even if a minute number of fatalities were proved to have resulted from the MMR vaccine, it would still be impossible to accurately contrast that figure with deaths due to a disease no longer spreading in the United States during the period selected. That speculation itself, however, is a big "if." According to the article, their figures for MMR deaths were culled from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), but VAERS does not exist to track specific and proved adverse reactions to vaccines. The purpose of the system is clearly denoted on the VAERS site (in a disclaimer not reproduced by the article spreading the claim):

When evaluating data from VAERS, it is important to note that for any reported event, no cause-and-effect relationship has been established. Reports of all possible associations between vaccines and adverse events (possible side effects) are filed in VAERS. Therefore, VAERS collects data on any adverse event following vaccination, be it coincidental or truly caused by a vaccine. The report of an adverse event to VAERS is not documentation that a vaccine caused the event.

Submission to VAERS alone is not evidence of vaccine-related injury or illness. The overwhelming majority of young children residing in the United States receive the MMR vaccine early in their lives, and a small number of those children have become ill (some fatally) due to reasons found to be unrelated to the vaccine. There is nothing to preclude individuals from submitting VAERS reports of sickness or death that are wholly unrelated to vaccines, and the system exists not to track substantiated incidents of vaccine injury but to identify potential trends in vaccine administration.

As I noted concerning the Cutter Incident,

So based on a very quick search, one finds that within 2-3 minutes Tocco has imbibed in her first set of hyperbole. What I have found is, all told, 220,000 people were infected; 70,000 developed muscle weakness. Of 164 people who developed paralysis in response to the vaccine, 10 died. Though tragic, the global end to polio transmission would have been inconceivable without the vaccine. (Think of the total number vaccinated in the US alone.)

It is also important to remember that in the 1950s, protecting the public from polio was a national project. (It was a national campaign financed by the March of Dimes that made it such.) Every effort was made to see that the vaccine would be widely available to all children and polio would be wiped out. In the U.S., the last case of naturally occurring polio happened in 1979.

While tragic, as all deaths are, it sometimes happens. Medical treatment is not without risk, but how many millions world-wide have been saved.

Big pHARMA-medical conspiracy, ex. Asthma

Although video does not address Tyler’s points directly, the sentiment is the same when an individual forgoes SBM for woo.

I have a piece coming concerning Big pHARMA and the pHARMA shill. As I noted,

If you really believe the world is so devoid of compassion and human decency that scientists would go out of their way to intentionally harm the population; that probably says more about your cynical morals that anything else. I know you aren’t going to change your mind, because every high quality, peer reviewed study is “bought and paid for” and you will discard any piece of evidence unless it agrees with you. If you want my advice, go move away to your own colony and spend your days tickling each others’ confirmation bias until you realise that vaccination has a purpose and that it works. The sad thing is that your parents and grandparents likely had the good sense to vaccinate their own kids; but you won’t vaccinate your own. The chances are that your children are the ones that are going to suffer.

This is what I am left with after listening to Tyler's diatribe especially concerning asthma.

It should be noted that this video I believe came out in 2004 or 2005. Just prior to Hovind going to prison. What is important to note, the "talking points" have not changed in 11+ years. I am not aware of Tyler's views currently and my criticism is solely based on this video.

As I said these are just notes to gain perspective on Hovind's health views but some of the rebuttal information I felt was important to share as I don't know what the final product may be.