I’ve frequently written about what I like to refer to as the “toxins gambit” with respect to vaccines. Basically, in the hard core (and even soft core) antivaccine crowd, vaccines are feared as being loaded with all sorts of “toxins,” such as aluminum, formaldehyde, mercury, and various chemicals that are dangerous enough separately, but, when combined, “poison” young babies, resulting in their becoming autistic, acquiring asthma and autoimmune diseases, or even dying of sudden infant death syndrome. Of course, many of the scary-sounding chemicals to which antivaccinationists point actually are in vaccines, but, as Paracelsus put it, the dose makes the poison, and the amount in vaccines is very much low enough not to pose a health threat. Also, formaldehyde is a product of normal metabolism present in the bloodstream of infants at a level much higher than what any vaccine contains.

So fearful of contamination of the precious bodily fluids of their babies are antivaccinationists (and, let’s be real, it really does boil down to just that in many cases) that it’s not enough to demonize vaccines based on the harmless ingredients that do make them up. They have to go beyond that and demonize vaccines based on what isn’t even in them. Right now, that misinformation takes the form of what looks on the surface like a real scientific paper. That’s what’s happening right now with a paper by Antonietta Gatti and Stefano Montanari in the International Journal of Vaccines and Vaccination entitled New Quality-Control Investigations on Vaccines: Micro- and Nanocontamination. It’s a paper I found through an article being circulated in antivaccine circles by the Children’s Medical Safety Research Institute (CMSRI), an group made up mainly of antivaccine cranks, in an article entitled Dirty Vaccines: New Study Reveals Prevalence of Contaminants. Note the “dirty vaccines” title. That is very much a matter of faith in much of the antivaccine community, that vaccines are “dirty,” hence the rants about DNA, monkey cells, formaldehyde, and the rest in vaccines. The article cranks the fear mongering up to 11 right from the beginning:

Every Human Vaccine Tested Was Contaminated by Unsafe Levels of Metals and Debris Linked to Cancer and Autoimmune Disease, New Study Reports

Researchers examining 44 samples of 30 different vaccines found dangerous contaminants, including red blood cells in one vaccine and metal toxicants in every single sample tested – except in one animal vaccine.

Using extremely sensitive new technologies not used in vaccine manufacturing, Italian scientists reported they were “baffled” by their discoveries which included single particles and aggregates of organic debris including red cells of human or possibly animal origin and metals including lead, tungsten, gold, and chromium, that have been linked to autoimmune disease and leukemia.

Wow. Sounds really, really scary, doesn’t it? The authors, after all, used electron microscopy, specifically a Field Emission Gun Environmental Electron Scanning Microscope equipped with the X-ray microprobe of an Energy Dispersive Spectroscope to detect the possible presence of inorganic, particulate contaminants and identify their chemical composition, to examine the vaccines and found all sorts of scary-looking stuff! My first response was: Unsafe levels. You keep using that term. I do not think it means what you think it means. My second response was: Baffled? Only if you have no idea what you are doing and talking about. You’ll see why in a moment, when I take a look at the paper you’ll see something that looks like a perfectly normal scientific paper. However, if you look at the publisher that publishes it, MedCrave, there are warning flags:

MedCrave is an Open Access Publishing website that contains ample scientific research information on categorized topics. MedCrave is a huge Online Publishing Library, where anyone can view, share and download research papers. The subjects covered here are vast, and every paper here is approved by the Editor and is peer reviewed. Unlike other Online Publishing Groups, MedCrave is the place for developing your educational standards and making yourself well acquainted with the latest research and development in all the fields. The authors of the research papers contribute a lot in making us one of the finest Online Publishing Groups and they also build up their prestige in MedCrave and the readers benefit from the reputed papers. The research papers from MedCrave also have an added visibility from all over the world. There is no charge viable for using MedCrave in any way.

This is what MedCrave means by peer review. Look at its flowsheet, and you will see that it looks as though there is almost no way for your paper to be rejected, period. In fact, I laughed at the flowsheet, having never seen anything like it in any legitimate scientific journal. Not surprisingly, MedCrave is included on Beall’s List of Predatory Publishers, basically a list of “pay to publish” open access journals who charge significant sums to authors to publish their work but whose editorial oversite and peer review are—shall we say?—lacking.

But what about the paper itself? Basically it’s a lot of fear mongering rooted in either biological ignorance or intentional deception (take your pick—there is no third option, although I concede it could be a combination of the two). I’ll show you what I mean. The authors show this photomicrograph of crystals of saline solution and aluminum phosphate and corresponding energy dispersive X-ray spectra (EDS spectra).

Aluminum crystals, chosen for maximal scariness.

Aluminum crystals, chosen for maximal scariness.

They write this about the photo:

Figure 1a shows a layer of crystals of Sodium chloride (NaCl) embedding salts of Aluminum phosphate (AlPO4) in a drop of Gardasil (anti-HPV vaccine by Merck) as the EDS spectrum (Figure 1b) shows. Saline is the fluid base to any vaccine preparation and Aluminum salts or Aluminum hydroxide [Al(OH)3] are the adjuvants which are usually added.

Looking at the area outside these precipitates but inside the liquid drop, we identified other things: single particles, clusters of particles and aggregates (organic-inorganic composites) that are due to an interaction of the inorganic particulate matter with the organic part of the vaccine.

Wow! That looks scary, doesn’t it? Basically, though, the authors are looking at a big aluminum phosphate crystal, given how the samples are prepared for electron microscopy:

A drop of about 20 microliter of vaccine is released from the syringe on a 25-mm-diameter cellulose filter (Millipore, USA), inside a flow cabinet. The filter is then deposited on an Aluminum stub covered with an adhesive carbon disc. The sample is immediately put inside a clean box in order to avoid any contamination and the box is re-opened only for the sample to be inserted inside the FEG-ESEM chamber. We selected that particular type of microscope as it allows to analyse watery and oily samples in low vacuum (from 10 to 130 Pa) at a high sensitivity.

When the water and saline the vaccine contains are evaporated, the biological/physical components emerge on the filter and it is then possible to observe them. This type of microscope

I’m not an expert in electron microscopy (EM), but I know that samples for EM generally have to be examined under vacuum. That’s why, in the case of biological samples, you can’t look at living cells. If you take a liquid sample and put it under even low vacuum, it evaporates. What’s left? Crystals and precipitates. Also, as you might imagine, EM is very, very sensitive. So it’s going to pick up incredibly tiny, biologically irrelevant amounts of everything. Antivaccinationists are obsessed with “purity”; so even these tiny amounts of “contaminants” will alarm them, and CMSRI knows that. Whether the authors of the article themselves know this or not, I don’t know or care, but I do care that their article is now being used to frighten parents.

What follows, then, is a series of photomicrographs of all sorts of particles that they found after evaporating 44 vaccines from four different countries, as listed in Table 1 of the paper. If you look at the other tables, you’ll see that the authors list all sorts of scary-sounding metals and compounds ranging from tungsten to aluminum to silicone to gold, to zirconium, all, ominously, “embedded in biological substrate” (i.e., precipitated proteins, which is what you would expect to find if you evaporated a vaccine, along with the minerals from the salt solution). The key table in the paper, however, for a chemist (my undergraduate major was chemistry before I went to medical school, and I took a considerable number of biochemistry and biochemistry-related classes during my education, both undergraduate and graduate) is Table 3. Look at it. More importantly, look at the numbers of precipitates found per sample. It ranges from two to 1,821.

O.M.G.! 1,821 particles! Holy crap! That’s horrible! The antivaxers are right that vaccines are hopelessly contaminated!

No. They. Are. Not.

Look at it this way. This is what was found in 20 μl (that’s microliters) of liquid. That’s 0.00002 liters. That means, in a theoretical liter of the vaccine, the most that one would find is 91,050,000 (9.105 x 107) particles! Holy hell! That’s a lot. We should be scared, shouldn’t we? well, no. Let’s go back to our homeopathy knowledge and look at Avogadro’s number. One mole of particles = 6.023 x 1023. So divide 91,050,000 by Avogadro’s number, and you’ll get the molarity of a solution of 91,050,000 particle in a liter, as a 1 M solution would contain 6.023 x 1023 particles. So what’s the concentration:

1.512 x 10-16 M. that’s 0.15 femtomolar (fM) (or 150 altomolar), an incredibly low concentration. And that’s the highest amount the investigators found. In reality, what they actually found is that vaccines are incredibly pure!

Yes, I know that I’ve simplified the calculations and that particles are not molecules [as has been pointed out in the comments]. I did it not to be perfectly scientifically, chemically accurate in a way that I’d do if I were in the lab doing an experiment. I used this example just to illustrate how a large number like 1,821 is not so very large at all. Then remember that 1,821 was the largest number of particles found in any vaccine. The vast majority of them contained many fewer particles, sometimes single digits numbers. Moreover, I note that the authors of the paper don’t report the concentration of the particles anywhere in their paper, an unconscionable and likely intentional omission that led me to look for an exercise to estimate and illustrate just how small these numbers are. I realize it’s an imperfect example; so let’s look at another, one that our friend the Skeptical Raptor uses:

Therein lies the most problematic issue with the data. The numbers are well below the level of biological activity, if these various chemicals even have biological activity (most don’t). For example, the authors found 1569 particles or precipitates in one drop of Cervarix (an anti-HPV vaccine). Sounds horrific right? Except that one drop of vaccine contains around 1.39 X 10^21 individual molecules. This so called contamination approximately 0.0000000000000000000719% of these so called contaminants.

In that Cervarix sample, the researchers found aluminum hydroxide, one of those scary sounding compounds. Let’s say every one of those 1569 particles was aluminum hydroxide, it would mean that around 0.000000000001 ng of aluminum hydroxide in a vial of vaccine. That is simply biologically irrelevant. Even if the aluminum hydroxide was found, it’s level is so low, that the human body wouldn’t notice it. You breathe in more aluminum on a normal day than you would ever find in a vial of vaccine.

Let me repeat for emphasis. The investigators think that what they found is that vaccines are contaminated with all sorts of inorganic metals. What they really found is that the amount of inorganic contamination is so low as to be biologically irrelevant. In fact, what they found is that vaccines are incredibly pure products.

And I didn’t even get into a very good question that our scaly friend asked: What were the controls? What would you find if you carried out the same analyses on tap water, for instance? It could very well be that syringe used to draw up and deposit the specimen could be the source of the “contamination.” Hell, it could just as easily be the cellulose matrix on which the specimens are deposited for analysis that were responsible for the “contamination.” I’m familiar with those filters, as they are commonly used in molecular biology. They are not ultra-pure. How were they stored? Often filters can pick up dust from the air. Whatever the source of the particles observed, without controls, there’s no way of knowing if the source was the vaccines or not. It could be that vaccines are even more pure than this study shows!

Now, knowing this, go and read the discussion and conclusion of this paper. You will laugh, and you should laugh. The investigators deserve nothing but mockery for this idiocy, such as:

We come across particles with chemical compositions, similar to those found in the vaccines we analyzed, when we study cases of environmental contamination caused by different pollution sources. In most circumstances, the combinations detected are very odd as they have no technical use, cannot be found in any material handbook and look like the result of the random formation occurring, for example, when waste is burnt. In any case, whatever their origin, they should not be present in any injectable medicament, let alone in vaccines, more in particular those meant for infants.

Other forms of so-far unknown contaminations have recently been observed and, in any case, vaccines contain components that could themselves be the cause of adverse effects. It is a well-known fact in toxicology that contaminants exert a mutual, synergic effect, and as the number of contaminants increases, the effects grow less and less predictable. The more so when some substances are unknown.

Yes, laugh, because what Gatti and Montanari actually showed is that the level of inorganic contamination in vaccines is minuscule, suggesting that the manufacturing processes used to make them are very, very good at making sure that vaccines are pure, given that none of the vaccines contained more inorganic particles at a concentration higher than 0.15 femtomolar. But also get angry at the deception and cry that there will be parents taken in by this ridiculous paper, as groups like CSMRI spread it far and wide with terrifying language about “contamination.” Given that the CMSRI’s scientific advisory board includes antivaccine “scientists” like Christopher Shaw, Yehuda Shoenfeld, Richard Deth, Stephanie Seneff, and Vicky Debold, along with some others I’m not familiar with, it’s not at all surprising that CMSRI loves it. It also amuses me to no end that the “scientific board” didn’t see the obvious problems with this paper.

That’s because it’s all about antivaccine fear mongering, not science.

Comments

  1. #1 Chris Hickie
    February 2, 2017

    A drop of about 20 microliter of vaccine is released from the syringe on a 25-mm-diameter cellulose filter (Millipore, USA), inside a flow cabinet. The filter is then deposited on an Aluminum stub covered with an adhesive carbon disc. The sample is immediately put inside a clean box in order to avoid any contamination…

    …except you’ve drawn it up into a syringe and then put it through a filter, both of which were not controlled for in this “analysis”, as you’ve noted.

    Looking at the standards for reagent water purity (and I will preface with stating I trained undergrad as a physicist, so things didn’t get much more complicated for me than hydrogen and, rarely helium), there are standards for purity per ASTM D1193-06. Given that the highest level of purity (ASTM Type 1) allows 50 mcg/L of TOC (total organic carbon) and 1 mgc/L each of sodium and chloride (as well as 3 mcg/L of silica), it does sound like vaccines they looked at were, as you note, incredibly pure.

    What a worthless journal the “International Journal of Vaccines and Vaccination” must be to have accepted this rot.

  2. #2 Dangerous Bacon
    February 2, 2017

    “Looking at the area outside these precipitates but inside the liquid drop, we identified other things:”

    I love it when they talk all technical-like.

    I nominate this one for Italian Science Paper of the Year.

  3. #3 Eric Lund
    February 2, 2017

    I’d be willing to bet that, if somebody were to use the same protocol to analyze homeopathic remedies, they would find similar or higher amounts of “contaminants”. Because as mentioned above, there were no control samples on things like distilled water. And as I’ve mentioned before, there are limits on how pure distilled water can be made.

  4. #4 Dorit Reiss
    February 2, 2017

    Can the next paper by this group be about contaminants in MMS, chelation remedies and the most commonly used biomed supplements, please?

  5. #5 Dorit Reiss
    February 2, 2017

    Thanks to Magdalen, on Skeptical Raptor, for highlighting the horrible references. The first one to a website.

  6. #6 Terrie
    February 2, 2017

    No, see, you have to look at it homeopathically. Those tiny amounts are super dangerous, because they’re so small. *rolls eyes*

  7. #7 doug
    February 2, 2017

    I note that many of the samples examined were well past their expiration dates, some by a dozen years (2004). I wonder if the fools understand that the reason for expiration dates for such products is that they are known to be less than perfectly stable. Elastomer closures on vials are subject to degradation over time. Even USP Type 1 glass is going to add contaminants to contents given sufficient time.

    I wonder if they are aware that many parenteral products, including several vaccines, are suspensions, not solutions. Send ’em a bag of total parenteral nutrition goop. That ought to keep ’em occupied for quite some time.

  8. #8 Michael J. Dochniak
    Minnesota
    February 2, 2017

    @Orac,

    You destroyed “them” on this one!

    But, as you brilliantly suggested the vaccine packaging could contaminate the solution. I wish I would have thought of that sooner than 10 years ago. 🙂

    Let’s be friends now okay?

  9. #9 Lawrence
    February 2, 2017

    Another prime example of individuals not understanding science…or even simple measurements.

  10. #10 Snoopie
    February 2, 2017

    So, you are saying they were wrong?

  11. #11 LPS
    February 2, 2017

    If they looked at Garasil there better be particles in the formulation. The capsid proteins in the vaccine should self assemble into virus-like particles to elicit an immune response.

  12. #12 Khan
    February 2, 2017

    The publisher’s description of the journal reads like a cheeto tweet.
    I kept expecting “huge” or “bigly”.

  13. #13 Narad
    February 2, 2017

    Saline is the fluid base to any vaccine preparation

    Yikes. The diluent for MMR, e.g., is sterile water.

  14. #14 Snoopie
    February 2, 2017

    I mean, ORAC, not a terrible article on your part except for this quote you lifted off of Skeptical Raptor (lobotomized propagandasaur):

    …that Cervarix sample, the researchers found aluminum hydroxide, one of those scary sounding compounds. Let’s say every one of those 1569 particles was aluminum hydroxide, it would mean that around 0.000000000001 ng of aluminum hydroxide in a vial of vaccine. That is simply biologically irrelevant.

    Now, what they are saying at Skeptical Raptor is highly disingenuous.

    The amount of elemental aluminum in a vial of Cervarix, per data sheet, is .5 milligrams.

    http://www.medsafe.govt.nz/profs/datasheet/c/Cervarixinj.pdf

    Now let’s play with the Skeptical Raptor number to see how deceptive they are:

    0.000000000001 ng

    1(10⁻¹²)ng Al(OH)₃

    And one nanogram is (10⁻⁹)g correct?

    1(10⁻¹²)(10⁻⁹)g Al(OH)₃

    (10⁻²¹)g Al(OH)₃

    So even if Sceptical Raptard didn’t go right out and say it, they implied that this is the amount of aluminum hydroxide in Cervarix. At least some readers would get that impression.

    And how much is there really?

    Well, the data sheet has .5mg Al³⁺:

    .5(10⁻³)g Al³⁺

    Converting into Al(OH)₃ now:

    .5(10⁻³)g Al³⁺ × (78g Al(OH)₃/ 27g Al³⁺)

    1.444(10⁻³)g Al(OH)₃

    This is the real amount of aluminum hydroxide in Cervarix.

    The numbers side-by-side:

    Sceptical Raptard: (10⁻²¹)g Al(OH)₃

    Product Data Sheet: 1.444(10⁻³)g Al(OH)₃

    http://www.medsafe.govt.nz/profs/datasheet/c/Cervarixinj.pdf

    Big difference.

  15. #15 Snoopie
    February 2, 2017

    Micheal Dochniak, what do you think about the Skeptical Raptor quote?

    Disingenuous yes?

  16. #16 doug
    February 2, 2017

    It would be really nice if the clueless idiots who publish this stuff would, just once in a while, not down-sample and/or compress the images to the point of illegibility. As far as I’m concerned, the blame lies very squarely on the publishers. If the originals as submitted were illegible, then the publisher should have flung them back to the source with a rude note. If the publisher mangled them then the publisher is incompetent and culpable.

    The methods section of the paper is utterly useless and would have been equally satisfactory if it simple said “we did some stuff.” Millipore makes more than one type of cellulose filter. Identifying it by diameter is not helpful. Who made the syringes and needles used? We don’t even know if they were standard disposable medical products or Hamilton syringes (which would be the standard for precisely measuring 20 µL, but reusable therefore requiring meticulous cleaning. Why evaporation if the interest is particulates? The standard is filtering through a membrane filter. “Flow cabinet”? How well filtered was the air through the cabinet? And as has been pointed out – where were the controls?

  17. #17 Narad
    February 2, 2017

    Go away, Fucklesworth.

  18. #18 Lawrence
    February 2, 2017

    Looks like odious troll has returned….

  19. #19 doug
    February 2, 2017

    I see fuckelsworth is back again again.

  20. #20 Michael J. Dochniak
    Minnesota
    February 2, 2017

    @Snoopie (#15),

    You’ve got a scoopie, snoopie (aka. Sherlock).

    Nicely written post but my cell phone is out of energy so I can’t verify your calculations in post #14.

  21. #21 Narad
    February 2, 2017

    Looks like odious troll has returned….

    And Travis didn’t even take the time to find the Unicode mult cross while cutting and pasting all the sups and subs.

  22. #22 Snoopie
    February 2, 2017

    I can’t believe that ORAC would lift a quote off that idiotic website….

    Sceptical Raptor?

    A website with a corny mascot?

    A fμcking dinosaur. What’s next? Corny puns?

    Sceptical Raptor is hungry for donations. Sceptical Raptor’s teeth are sharper that Occam’s Razor, ready to tear through the soft belly of pseudoscience.

  23. #23 Snoopie
    February 2, 2017

    Stalking pseudoscience in the internet jungle

    LOL!!!

    http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/

  24. #24 Snoopie
    February 2, 2017

    Skeptical Raptard says:

    You breathe in more aluminum on a normal day than you would ever find in a vial of vaccine.

    Okay now, this is just ridiculous.

    Dorit, can you explain this? Can you show us the calculations for this one?

  25. #25 Richard
    February 2, 2017

    #14, ‘Snoopie’
    OK, you caught an error with regard to the amount of aluminum adjuvant in Cervarix (an understandable error, since not all vaccines contain aluminum). So what? Even a few milligrams of Al(OH)3 is perfectly harmless from a toxicology point of view — it is the same order of magnitude that even an infant gets into its body every single day, without any harmful effects whatsoever.
    Furthermore, aluminum hydroxide is nigh insoluble, and remains on the injection site for quite some time, only being cleared slowly by the body — and this is exactly what should happen, because this triggers a proper immune immune response with only a fraction of the antigen needed otherwise. This persistence is also the cause of the ‘knot’ that sometimes appears at the injection site — a known and harmless side effect.
    The aluminum hydroxide from a vaccine does not enter the bloodstream in any significant amounts, and it most certainly does not enter brain in any measurable quantities. let alone harmful quantities.

  26. #26 Orac
    February 2, 2017

    Sorry, guys. It was an experiment. I was pretty sure it was Fendlesworth from the first post, but I wanted to do an experiment to see if I was correct. I’m becoming a lot more confident in my ability to spot Fendlesworth right from the beginning now.

  27. #27 Lawrence
    February 2, 2017

    https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/phs/phs.asp?id=1076&tid=34

    And odious troll is still odious.

  28. #29 MikeMa
    February 2, 2017

    How dare he/she/it use Snoopie as a name. Too close to Shultz’s beloved aviator.

  29. #30 Lawrence
    February 2, 2017

    I will say, he certainly is persistent…

  30. #31 Sarah A
    February 2, 2017

    I’d be willing to bet that, if somebody were to use the same protocol to analyze homeopathic remedies, they would find similar or higher amounts of “contaminants”.

    But, but, but, homeopathic remedies aren’t injected! Everyone knows that injection instantly delivers any substance straight to the very core of your being, tainting your precious bodily fluids forever! I mean, it’s not like we have some sort of built in defense mechanism against foreign substances that break the skin. /sarcasm

  31. #32 MarkN
    February 2, 2017

    Thinking of controls, does anyone know offhand of the tested ‘purity’ of normal saline?

  32. #33 Dan Welch
    February 2, 2017

    My favorite is when they say vaccines are “laced” with these things, invoking the imagery of deliberate and malignant tampering.

  33. #34 Julian Frost
    Gauteng East Rand
    February 2, 2017

    @Eric Lund:

    I’d be willing to bet that, if somebody were to use the same protocol to analyze homeopathic remedies, they would find similar or higher amounts of “contaminants”.

    I read somewhere (but can’t remember exactly where) that homeopathic remedies were subjected to analysis and they found pieces of glass in them, most likely from the succusions.

  34. #35 Narad
    February 2, 2017

    I will say, he certainly is persistent…

    Note that the sad attempt to start slipping in UK/Canadian spellings started before this instantiation. It’s like Gerg in reverse.

  35. #36 Michael J. Dochniak
    Minnesota
    February 2, 2017

    Orac writes, (~#26),

    Sorry, guys. It was an experiment.

    MJD says,

    Why do you use the word “guys” when you clearly mean all others?

    This is an inappropriate continuation of “gender supremacy” that alienates more than 50% of the human population. Well, maybe just the 300,000 +/- 100 females that frequently visit and make comments here at RI.

    Understand, I don’t want to be an Orac minion if “gender supremacy” is the accepted language here at RI. 🙁

  36. #37 herr doktor bimler
    February 2, 2017

    As far as I’m concerned, the blame lies very squarely on the publishers.

    MedCrave are low-life grifters even by the standards of predatory / parasitical publishers. Beall’s Blog is closed now, but All Praise the Wayback Machine, which archived his post on MedCrave and the comment thread that followed!
    https://web.archive.org/web/20161222210911/https://scholarlyoa.com/2016/11/03/medcrave-update-its-still-a-dangerous-predatory-publisher/

    Like other publishers in the industry, they are favoured by cynical reality-obfuscating fraudsters who have a few k$ to spend on promoting their collection of Alternative Facts. The idea is that once the stuff has been puke-funneled through a simalucrum of a real journal, lazy journamalists are likely to assume that it does carry the imprimatur of peer-review.

  37. #38 herr doktor bimler
    February 2, 2017

    The paper came up recently on one of Sylvie Coyaud’s comment threads, and I had wondered about mailing a link to Orac:
    http://ocasapiens-dweb.blogautore.repubblica.it/2017/01/25/o-tempura-o-morays-tarantino-finelli-cont/comment-page-1/#comment-1039043

    Of the two authors, Gatti has carved out “nanodignostics” and “nanoforensics” as her own personal scientific discipline, where there are no competitors to cast shade upon her work. She edits the MedCrave mockademic dumpster “Journal of Nanomedicine Research”.
    http://medcraveonline.com/JNMR/JNMR-04-00075.php
    The FBI would envy her miraculous ability to always find nanoparticles, in any “nano-autopsy” she performs, which always confirm her theory on how the victim died.

    Though Elsevier are no less cynical and predatory — they published the Gatti-Montanari tome:
    ht_tps://www.elsevier.com/books/case-studies-in-nanotoxicology-and-particle-toxicology/gatti/978-0-12-801215-4
    .

  38. #39 herr doktor bimler
    February 2, 2017

    Other author Montanari proves to be an anti-chemo, vaccines=autism alt-med nutbar with prior form for crankery:
    http://www.stefanomontanari.net/sito/blog/archivio.html

  39. #40 Richard
    February 2, 2017

    QJulian Frost, #34

    I read somewhere (but can’t remember exactly where) that homeopathic remedies were subjected to analysis and they found pieces of glass in them

    Most likely it was this story.

    Then again, they can just claim to be offering ‘low potency homeopathically diluted glass’. Given that these clowns dilute-‘n-shake anything up to and including shipwreck debris and light of Saturn, diluted glass sounds pretty normal in comparison…

  40. #41 Christine Rose
    Ann Arbor
    February 2, 2017

    I don’t know how to use an electron microscope, but even I would not conclude that vaccines are full of poisons based on this. Can someone explain how the authors learned to use an EM yet did not learn to divide first?

  41. #42 Lawrence
    February 2, 2017

    While maybe some individuals might take offense, but I had thought that the word “guys” had become a more gender-neutral term to describe a group of people.

  42. #43 sirhcton
    February 2, 2017

    No one will be surprised to find that the web site is not liked by the Web of Trust (WOT) add-on: http://www.mywot.com/en/scorecard/medcraveonline.com?utm_source=addon&utm_content=warn-viewsc .

  43. #44 Gilbert
    February 2, 2017

    they can just claim to be offering ‘low potency homeopathically diluted glass’

    Meh; Belladonna for baby??

    Certain brands of “homeopathic” teething products contain belladonna, a toxic chemical, and shouldn’t be used, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration said Friday.

    The company that makes Hyland’s homeopathic teething products has refused to recall them so the FDA said it was issuing a warning.

    http://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/homeopathic-teething-aid-contains-toxic-belladonna-fda-says-n713311

  44. #45 herr doktor bimler
    February 2, 2017

    Gatti and Montanari have previously reported nanoparticles in the blood of leukemia patients, and in thromboses / scar tissue.
    And in bread and biscuits!
    ht_tp://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10408390802064347?journalCode=bfsn20
    And in ice-cream, Mandrake, children’s ice-cream!

    They are worried about chemtrails (possibly one source of the nanoparticulate contamination), and geo-engineering, and global warming. Perhaps the chemtrails are causing global warming… I am not clear of the details.

    There are hints of a scandal about how they came to have a personal electron microscope. There appears to have been a fund-raising campaign to buy one (led by Beppe Grillo), with the idea of documenting contamination from military bases and dirty industries across Italy… but it all ended in recriminations, mutual accusations of fraud, and toys out of the cot.

  45. #46 Lighthorse
    February 2, 2017

    @herr doktor bimler, #37:

    favoured by cynical reality-obfuscating fraudsters who have a few k$ to spend on promoting their collection of Alternative Facts.

    I wonder how long before we see an actual, even peer-reviewed, journal with that or a similar name. The Journal of Alternative Facts (JAF). Kinda has a nice ring to it, but then so do some toilet bowels.

  46. #47 Michael J. Dochniak
    Minnesota
    February 2, 2017

    Lawrence writes (#42),

    … I had thought that the word “guys” had become a more gender-neutral term to describe a group of people.

    MJD says,

    Male “gender supremacy” allows such thinking but will not consider the opposite i.e., I had thought that the word “gals” had become a more gender-neutral term to describe a group of people.

  47. #48 doug
    February 2, 2017

    MarkN
    In the US, the United States Pharmacopeia probably has a spec for purity of saline. I may be able to dig up at least the major points.

    USP 32 specs the following for some impurities in sodium chloride (used at 0.9% w/v for normal saline):
    Heavy metals 45 ppm maximum
    Aluminum 0.2 mg/g max; footnote: If for use in peritoneal dialysis, hemodialysis or hemofiltration solutions.
    Magnesium and alkaline earth metals 0.01% maximum
    The table this came from does not show a separate allowance for aluminum for other uses; the three uses noted would be higher risk than others because of the volumes used.
    USP will also have a specification for water for parenterals. High purity water is much “easier” to produce at point of use now than it was many years ago, but the USP standard isn’t spectacularly high. You can buy a litre of Sodium Chloride Injection USP for a couple of dollars. A litre of high purity lab water will run to tens of dollars.

    ++++
    With regard to particulates, standard filter needles have 5 µm filters. Such needles are recommended for draw-up from glass ampules – contamination with glass particles commonly occurs when the ampule neck is broken. As far as I know, filter needles are almost never used for draw-up from elastomer-stoppered vials. I do not know why 5 microns was established as the norm, but I suspect it is somewhat arbitrary and a compromise between removing particles known to be undesirable and the time taken for draw-up (it can take quite a bit of time to draw up the contents of a large ampule unless the needle is very large; filter needles are all around 18 gauge which is the largest in common use so reasonable in cost).

  48. #49 Denice Walter
    February 2, 2017

    In other news…

    One of Orac’s occasional commenters, James Lyons-Weiler, has a new book out about autism ( see TMR for raves).

    I wonder if we’ll get free copies to review?

  49. #51 Chris Hickie
    February 2, 2017

    Speaking of which, RFK, Jr. is at it again. http://www.ecowatch.com/cdc-mercury-vaccines-kennedy-2226257805.html

    That’s a heapin’ pile of horse flops from Kennedy. I’m heartened that “Dr. Bob” wasn’t used as the faux expert physician (I think Sears’ attorney told him to shut up and stop doing anything that might rile the CA medical board), but annoyed that Kennedy uses the newest anti-vaccine pediatrician–one odious Paul
    Thomas MD, FAAP who has his own “alternative” vaccine schedule he claims prevents autism but forgets to tell us how in 2012 he got in trouble with the Oregon Medical Board for prescribing narcotics. Yeah, a real “expert” that Thomas is. And if you’re playing anti-vaccine shill bingo, Kennedy’s article pretty much plays them all.

  50. #52 herr doktor bimler
    February 2, 2017

    There are hints of a scandal about how [Gatti and Montanari] came to have a personal electron microscope
    See here:
    http://www.messinaora.it/notizia/2013/12/18/montanari-grillo-e-il-microscopio-della-discordia-ma-i-metalli-pesanti-nel-cibo-ci-sono/19771

    As far as I can tell, it all started about 2006 when Gatti and Montanari complained that the University of Modena had stopped them from using its EM for their research into toxic emissions. Grillo launched the campaign to raise €378,000 for a new EM that would allow the vital work to continue.

    All culminating in accusations that Gatti and Montanari are using their toy not for environmental activism, but for a profitable business selling analyses through their company Nanodiagnostic Ltd.; and accusations from Montanari that Grillo just raised all that money for them as a way of exploiting them for political gain. Lawyers and defamation suits are involved. Meanwhile the original EM at the University of Modena is still available to Gatti, but only for University work.

    I wonder how much the whole story was an inspiration for Mike Adams and his contamination-testing lab-coat cosplay.

  51. #53 Orac
    February 2, 2017

    Understand, I don’t want to be an Orac minion if “gender supremacy” is the accepted language here at RI. ?

    You should be careful what you ask for. Orac is a kind and benevolent overlord and might just grant you your wish.

  52. #54 Dangerous Bacon
    February 2, 2017

    Paul Thomas, the “Vaccine-Friendly”* pediatrician, recently wrote a review of an antivax book (which he liked, natch) in which he repeated the trope that vaccine makers have complete immunity from lawsuits, and claimed that it was nearly impossible to get a monetary settlement from the vaccine court.

    Thomas has a book out called “The Vaccine-Friendly Plan” which involves avoiding or delaying the great majority of childhood vaccines.

    Speaking of recent (!) additions to the antivax literature, there’s now a reprint of a golden oldie, “The Horrors Of Vaccination” (1870) by none other than Chr. Charles Schieferdecker Schieferdecker (I am not making this up).

    Some of Schieferdecker Schieferdecker’s complaints have a modern ring:

    “We protest against the transplantation of an an-
    imal virus, taken from a diseased brute, into the
    blood of our children ; the operation is nauseating,
    barbarous, and unnatural. It is our opinion, that
    the purity of the blood is the supreme basis of our
    well-being ; but it is made impure, and becomes the
    source of diseases, when it is mixed with this beastly
    poison…
    Dr. Hebra, professor of Therapeutics at Vienna,
    and author of a ” Manual on Skin Diseases,” enum-
    erates some twelve life endangering, anomalous dis-
    eases liable to occur to a person under vaccination.”

    https://www.amazon.com/Horrors-Vaccination-Chr-Charles-Schieferdecker/dp/3743325403/ref=sr_1_33?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1486069326&sr=1-33&keywords=vaccination

    Get your copy before they sell out!

  53. #55 viggen
    Boulder
    February 2, 2017

    O.M.G.! 1,821 particles! Holy crap! That’s horrible! The antivaxers are right that vaccines are hopelessly contaminated!

    No. They. Are. Not.

    Look at it this way. This is what was found in 20 μl (that’s microliters) of liquid. That’s 0.00002 liters. That means, in a theoretical liter of the vaccine, the most that one would find is 91,050,000 (9.105 x 107) particles! Holy hell! That’s a lot. We should be scared, shouldn’t we? well, no. Let’s go back to our homeopathy knowledge and look at Avogadro’s number. One mole of particles = 6.023 x 1023. So divide 91,050,000 by Avogadro’s number, and you’ll get the molarity of a solution of 91,050,000 particle in a liter, as a 1 M solution would contain 6.023 x 1023 particles. So what’s the concentration:

    So, as someone who deals with molarity pretty much all the time, I have to step up a little bit here. I think you’re skipping a step or two in calculating molarity.

    At least from what’s written, it’s not clear to me how big these particles are or how identical they are –I may go and look at the paper, but I really don’t know that it’s worth spending the time. ‘Molarity’ really only matters if you’re talking about molecularly identical species. If these particles are precipitates, then they are probably non-identical solid objects which have condensed out of solution during the evaporation process and are composed of a much more numerous small molecule (like a salt). To get to an initial molarity we really need to understand how small the particles are and what the molecular weight and density is of the fundamental chemical/salt… a large number of big particles would mean a higher base molarity of the original analyte which crystallized into the particle than the same number of a smaller particle. Are the particles micron sized or tens of nanometers? This would count for a factor as big as 10^9 in calculating molarity, which would take us from femptomolar clear up to high micromolar or low millimolar! We know little about the magnification: I can’t read it very well, but is that scale bar 2.0 mm? If so, the particles are relatively big. If the particles are just insoluble plastic beads or dust, it’s hard to count a molarity at all because any object like this is non-identical and has essentially no molarity (being the only one of its kind)… for such objects, usually colloids, we use mg/mL for concentration or weight percent.

    Otherwise, the whole argument being made by this paper seems very screwy and poor quality to me. Hard to tell if the particles are from an outside source or got formed during evaporation with the precipitates… which are also particles. Can’t tell in the EDS if any spurious signals might have come from shooting the electron beam through the sample into the substrate, which can happen, especially if you’re probing at energies high enough to see some of these metals (I hit silicon from a substrate once when I was probing for titanium). Nothing about what they’re saying seems particular clear to me or interest worthy.

    • #56 Orac
      February 2, 2017

      I wondered how long it would be before a chemistry pedant showed up. 🙂 Yes, I realize this was simplified. That doesn’t change the main point: That none of this is biologically relevant, particularly given that many of these were expired vaccines, some very expired, and given the lack of controls with, for instance, distilled, deionized water.

  54. #57 JustaTech
    February 2, 2017

    I’m going to raise another complaint with the paper: “About 20 microliters”. About? About? You just guessed at the volume of something you’re preparing for electron microscopy?
    How about you use the right tool for the job, like a pipette (!) and actually know how much you are using?
    I regularly pipette 5 microliters with confidence, and they’re telling me “about”. Humph.

  55. #58 herr doktor bimler
    February 2, 2017

    Biologists may like this from the paper:
    Figure 7: Image of an area in a Repevax drop where the morphology of red cells (red arrows) were identified.

    If a sample has dried in vacuum and still looks like a red corpuscle, then it wan’t a red corpuscle. I’m guessing that it was really detritus from the nano-miniaturised submarine, the Proteus.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fantastic_Voyage

  56. #59 Old Rockin' Dave
    February 2, 2017

    “MJD says,
    Why do you use the word “guys” when you clearly mean all others?”
    Old Rockin’ Dave says,
    Has MJD run out of discredited points about the topic at hand that this is what MJD picks on to criticize?
    Old Rockin’ Dave also says.
    Why does MJD constantly refer to himself in the third person? Is he quoting someone who shares his initials? Or possibly does he have the type of dissociative disorder in which patients are incapable of recognizing themselves in the mirror or feel as if they are observing their bodies from a distance?
    Old Rockin’ Dave further says,
    Has MJD never heard a woman in all female group address said group as “guys’? Perhaps MJD doesn’t get out much?

  57. #60 Panacea
    February 2, 2017

    International Journal. Hmph.

    When I started teaching at a regional campus of a Major University (a nice way of saying a little college bought up by a big one but under the same banner for email) I started getting “Call for Papers” and Call for Presenter emails from this that or the other International Journal of Official Sciency Stuff.

    Of course, the idea of presenting in a foreign country was pretty attractive: good for my tenure bid, gets me more faculty development money for the year, travel I can deduct. Then I started noticing all the spelling and grammatical errors. I started thinking about scam emails. Googling these “journals” quickly exposed the predatory nature of these offers.

    Ever since, whenever I hear anyone say “International Journal” of any thing, I take a hard, hard look.

  58. #61 Can't remember my 'nym
    or where I am
    February 2, 2017

    @ Old Rockin’ Dave #58 – Hahahahaha! I love your response.

  59. #62 Michael J. Dochniak
    Minnesota
    February 2, 2017

    @ Old Rockin’ Dave (~#58),

    Keeping it simple, I learned in kindergarten that “guys” pee standing up, and sitting down, while “gals” only pee when their sitting down.

    Therefore, “gals” should never be called “guys”.

  60. #63 Politicalguineapig
    February 2, 2017

    MJD: Oh, knock it off! You’re winning no friends by pretending to be concerned about anyone else’s feelings. You’re a Trump voter (so, anti-semitic, probably racist, and certainly a despiser of women), an anti-vaxxer, too stupid to understand half the things you prattle about, a man who hates his own son, and you think everyone else is stupid and an easy mark. Over correcting doesn’t help; it just makes you look like even more of a slimeball. I’m sorry I called you a weasel earlier, because clearly, I was insulting the weasels.

  61. #64 Michael J. Dochniak
    Minnesota
    February 2, 2017

    @PGpig (#63),

    I’ve been commenting for five years now.

    The words “Respectful” and “Insolence” are not compatible by nature and therefore have caused much uncertainty when commenting.

    Therefore, Orac is the architect of this unfortunate situation and any anger or frustration you may be experiencing is understandable.

    • #65 Orac
      February 2, 2017

      Oh, quit whining.

  62. #66 doug
    February 2, 2017

    JustaTech
    I suspect, but we’ll never know because the methods section is so bad, that they used standard disposable medical syringes and needles and simply ejected a drop from the needle tip. As you probably know, that is moderately difficult due to sticktion of the plunger and the surface tension of the fluid (probably fairly variable depending on surfactant content of the vaccine and whether or not it was a solution of suspension), so I would expect substantial variability in droplet size. To get 50 drops per millilitre, you need a tip of quite small diameter. It used to be considered that a millilitre would yield about 15-16 drops with an “eyedropper.” Not only do they fail to adequately describe how the drop was dispensed, they make no mention at all about how the sample was removed from the vial. I would expect decapping would be prone to adding particulates.

    And what the heck is “adhesive carbon”?

    Herr Dok, I looked at those images and was quite baffled. I recall RBCs being rather more consistent in size. An why on Earth would they be clustered? Perhaps they were three little RBC siblings holding hands while crossing the street, only to suffer the dreadful fate of Wanda June just before her birthday.

    Maybe the method used can’t detect it, but those vaccines are all blissfully free of nitrogen. So much for those horrible foreign proteins.

    Titling the paper New Quality-Control … is a bit rich considering the apparent lack of quality in the methods.

  63. #67 Politicalguineapig
    February 2, 2017

    MJD: The words “Respectful” and “Insolence” are not compatible by nature and therefore have caused much uncertainty when commenting.

    Dude, it’s sarcasm. Also, every once in a while, Orac has been mostly respectful to people who appear deeply misguided.

    MJD: Any anger or frustration you may be experiencing is understandable.

    Condescending prick. I get frustrated when I am dealing with idiots. Unlike you, I understand Orac’s intent perfectly, and he has nothing at all to do with my current state of mind.Mostly, I dislike that my whole country turned into evil soulless idjits overnight. Because of the dude YOU voted for, btw.

  64. #68 Wzrd1
    February 2, 2017

    Gilbert @44, on the ProMed mailing last the other day, Hyland finally announced that they’d no longer distribute atropine, erm, I mean Belladonna teething products in the US.
    The rest of the world remains in danger, obviously.

    Tis a pity that hurricane Sandy spared that facility.

  65. #69 Old Rockin' Dave
    February 2, 2017

    MJD:
    I’m guessing that you went to kindergarten several decades past. Things have changed since then. Sometimes you just have to change with them.
    L. P. Hartley says:
    “The past is a foreign country: they do things differently there.”

  66. #70 Old Rockin' Dave
    February 2, 2017

    “Therefore, Orac is the architect of this unfortunate situation and any anger or frustration you may be experiencing is understandable”.
    That brushing that you hear is MJD picking nits.

  67. #71 vinu arumugham
    United States
    February 3, 2017

    1. Orac did not provide any references showing how much of any of these contaminants is safe.
    2. What about catalytic effects of the contaminants?
    3. Aluminum became a immunologist’s dirty secret because, it was a contaminant that made vaccines work better (in some ways).May be we will discover that these contaminants too have an effect?

  68. #72 Dorit Reiss
    February 3, 2017

    I think it’s perfectly culturally acceptable to refer to a group of people as “guys” (or even “dudes”) today. Regardless of their plumbing.

  69. #73 Chris Preston
    Australia
    February 3, 2017

    MJD, I find myself agreeing with PGpig. What on Earth have you done?

    On James Lyons-Weiler, his new book is publushed by Skyhorse -who would have guessed – and he is flogging it on every comment thread on the internet. I have been rude about it once or twice.

    The paper in question: Person with an electron microscope uses it to drive in screws. If you look at dried drops of water with an electron microscope all you are ever likely to see are the impurities left behind. Absolutely no surprises there. Sadly Gatti thinks they have discovered a gold mine. To understand how much junk this paper is, read the disclaimer at the end.

  70. #74 Julian Frost
    Gauteng North
    February 3, 2017

    Go away Fendlesworth.

  71. #75 Leigh Jackson
    February 3, 2017

    Junk science; junk journal. Fraudulent science; premier journal. Etc. Mad world, my masters.

  72. #76 Orac
    February 3, 2017

    Yeah, Fendlesworth has taken to impersonating regular commenters now. If the e-mail you use is publicly accessible (e.g., you use a university address to post here), you could potentially be a victim. I think he’s figured out that I’ve gotten pretty good at recognizing him in his first benign-seeming comment that he posts in order to get me to approve it and let him comment. There have been a lot of attempts over the last couple of days, and I’ve denied them all. What bothers me is that it’s certainly possible that one or more of those attempts might have been someone other than Fendlesworth trying to post. I doubt it, but the longer the increased vigilance goes on, the more likely it is that I’ll inadvertently shut out new commenters who aren’t a Fendlesworth sock.

    In any case, keep an eye out for posts by regulars that don’t sound like them. Help each other out, in case the person being impersonated doesn’t see the comment impersonating him or her.

  73. #77 gaist
    February 3, 2017

    Yeah, Fendlesworth has taken to impersonating regular commenters now.

    Such a class act, that one.

  74. […] I love it when an antivax “study” meant to show how “dirty” vaccines are backfires so specta… […]

  75. #79 sirhcton
    February 3, 2017

    @ #54 Dangerous Bacon

    Paul Thomas . . . claimed that it was nearly impossible to get a monetary settlement from the vaccine court.

    That is pretty easily refuted. From an earlier post (http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2017/01/13/no-robert-f-kennedy-jr-is-not-a-vaccine-skeptic/comment-page-1/#comment-454062), responding to #11 in those comments:

    Since 1988, over 17,732 petitions have been filed with the VICP. Over that 27- year time period, 15,312 petitions have been adjudicated, with 5,143 of those determined to be compensable, while 10,169 were dismissed. Total compensation paid over the life of the program is approximately $3.5 billion.

    With more than a third of the petitioners receiving compensation at an average of $700,000 including lawyers’ fees, that does not seem like impossible odds to me. Maybe his math skills are part of his problem.

  76. #80 Narad
    February 3, 2017

    With more than a third of the petitioners receiving compensation at an average of $700,000 including lawyers’ fees

    I doubt that the mean is the best metric here. Moreover, dismissed claims also receive attorneys’ fees.

  77. #81 sirhcton
    February 3, 2017

    It was not meant to be a detailed study, but a quick look. I believe that average I calculated may actually include lawyers’ fees for dismissed claims. But most relevant is that 17,732 claims were filed and 5,143 of those received compensation. Thomas’ reported claim, even allowing for hyperbole, was compensation was “nearly impossible.” With over a quarter (which is what I should have typed, rather than a third) getting compensation, I would suggest that is not impossible odds, even figuratively.

  78. #82 herr doktor bimler
    February 3, 2017

    The vaccine-court process is simultaneously (1) hopelessly unfair and loaded against claimants, as shown by how few claims are accepted, and (2) proof of the dangerous, damaging nature of vaccines, as shown by how many claims are accepted.

  79. #83 Chris Preston
    Australia
    February 3, 2017

    Fendlesworth alert in aisle 82.

  80. #84 Orac
    February 3, 2017

    Actually, that’s not Fendlesworth. I know that for a fact. Be careful not to let your Fendlesworth detector get too sensitive, lest you lose specificity. 🙂

  81. #85 JP
    February 3, 2017

    I know HDB ( or… Smut… somebody) quite well and can easily tell the difference.

  82. #86 herr doktor bimler
    February 3, 2017

    Harrumph. I can be annoying and offensive on my own without someone else’s imitations.

  83. #87 Chris Preston
    February 3, 2017

    Annoying enough for a Kiwi.

  84. #88 Militant Agnostic
    A short drive from Banff
    February 4, 2017

    HDB @45

    They are worried about chemtrails (possibly one source of the nanoparticulate contamination), and geo-engineering, and global warming. Perhaps the chemtrails are causing global warming… I am not clear of the details.

    You have it backwards, the global warming conspiracy causes chemtrails. On my morning commute I drive by a
    billboard that promises to enlighten you.

  85. #89 Chris Preston
    February 4, 2017

    If a sample has dried in vacuum and still looks like a red corpuscle, then it wan’t a red corpuscle.

    The authors state:

    We selected that
    particular type of microscope as it allows to analyse watery
    and oily samples in low vacuum (from 10 to 130 Pa) at a high sensitivity.

    They say it was evaporated. I was under the impression that red blood cells were solid, and nearly all hemoglobin and water.

    They weren’t freeze-dried, and they likely had retained some water. What strikes me is the correct scale. The “red blood cells” in the electronmicrograph are about 7 microns in diameter; this is what you would expect from a red blood cell.

    The biconcave disk morphology can be seen in the electrograph: [fig 7b, the scale is 10 microns]

    Compare and contrast with an electronmicrograph of known red blood cells here.

  86. […] when an antivax “study” meant to show how “dirty” vaccines are backfires so spectacularly, Respectful Insolence am 2. Februar […]

  87. #91 Old Rockin' Dave
    February 4, 2017

    ” I learned in kindergarten that “guys” pee standing up, and sitting down, while “gals” only pee when their sitting down.”
    Not entirely true. Women also pee squatting when there is no porcelain available. Also there are bathroom fixtures that allow women to pee standing up. So there are no hard and fast rules. Judging from your response, I’ll bet your first reader, like mine, was about Dick and Jane.
    “Look, Dick, oh look. See Spot. See Spot sniff the tree. Why is Spot sniffing the tree?”

  88. #92 herr doktor bimler
    February 4, 2017

    They say it was evaporated. I was under the impression that red blood cells were solid, and nearly all hemoglobin and water.

    Flexible (to go through capillaries) little sacks of cytoplasm. At osmotic equilibrium with their environment (hence bursting in water, or collapsing into little stars in strong saline). Also, sickle-cell trait.

    To an unprejudiced eye, the artefacts reported by Gatti and Montanari are obviously the fossilised vertebrae of very very small ichthyosaurs.
    https://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2013AM/webprogram/Paper232163.html

  89. #93 Jazzlet
    February 4, 2017

    ” I learned in kindergarten that “guys” pee standing up, and sitting down, while “gals” only pee when their sitting down.”

    Women not only pee squatting, but if they have a Sheewee or similar product they pee standing up, saves a lot of hassle when out walking from nettles etc, not to mention the fun to be had confusing anyone who does happen upon you while you are so engaged 🙂

  90. #94 Gilbert
    February 4, 2017

    When I was growing up, i’d always heard that girls’ locker rooms and restrooms were much nastier than the guys’ because of low-precision hovering so as not to touch the seat.

    Which came first. The hovering so as not to touch a nasty toilet or the nasty toilet due to hovering?

    Anywho,

  91. #95 doug
    February 4, 2017

    I’d go with the ichthyosaurs. Above and to the left of the bottom-most white arrow in Figure 7b you can see what is clearly the remains of a soft-shelled egg that has hatched.

    If their microscope is supposed to be able to identify elements, why no reading of iron from the things that are supposed to be RBCs?

    We don’t know that the three things identified as having RBC shape are biconvex. All we see are the tops and the proportions are wrong, at least for mammalian RBCs – too much like mini doughnuts. Again, there is more size variability that would normally be expected with three random mature RBCs – not impossible, but pretty unlikely. Such shapes could equally well be produced by anything that formed tiny globules that first appeared like domes that “fell” in the centre with loss of water. They look to me like they were part of the blob that likes under the red arrows. It seems too coincidental that they are all rather oval with their long axes more or less parallel and normal to the blob. The smallest looks fully detached from the blob, the middle partially detached and the largest still part of the blob. Their idiotic incompetence a preparing the images (jpeg’d after addition of the arrows for criminy sake) doesn’t help. To me, the suggestion that they may be RBCs simply fits with the generally sloppiness of the paper. (Every time I look at it I find something else – this time pressure in Pascals in one place and bars in another; 20[space]microliter in the very same sentence as 25[dash]mm.)
    The vaccine in question is a suspension, which by definition contains insoluble particles.

  92. #96 doug
    February 4, 2017

    ^should be “lies under” not “likes under”

  93. #97 Chris Preston
    February 4, 2017

    I did find this sentence to be redundant:

    No
    satisfactory explanation or, in many cases, no explanation at all has been given and it seems that those adverse effects happen on a random and stochastic basis.

    I could be wrong, but I always took stochastic to be nearly synonymous with random.

    And Doug, I think the EDS spectrograph was for the white arrows and not the red ones. Look at Figs 1-5: they all have white arrows to indicate where the EDS spectra were taken, and say as much in their respective legends. The red arrows make their first appearance in Figure 6:
    The red arrow indicates the organic layer (less
    atomically dense) that covers the Cerium particle.
    And the white arrows in Fig 7, I would assume, still refer to the points in which the EDS spectra was taken.

    And while the miniature ichthyosaur theory is very convincing, but the authors did not post any electronmicrographs of other miniature ichthyosaur bones. The skull would be conclusive, and could very well have ended up in a different batch of vaccines.

    I’m going to leave this an open question. I personally wouldn’t be worried about being injected with red blood cells, even from an opossum, and would be more concerned about the tungsten, aluminum, and lead particles.

  94. #98 herr doktor bimler
    February 4, 2017

    Compare and contrast with an electronmicrograph of known red blood cells here.
    The image is from SEM — which is to say that the RBCs were preserved in some way (e.g. cryopreservation) and sputter-coated with a thin layer of heavy metal, to maintain their shape. Which is not an option when element analysis is the goal.

    • #99 Wzrd1
      February 4, 2017

      Aw, you beat me to it!

      We had transmission electron microscopes in my junior high and high school and I prepared many a grid with samples that needed a metallic coating to preserve cellular shapes.
      Alas, by the time our children went to the same schools, even the light microscopes were long gone. 🙁

  95. #100 Chris Preston
    Australia
    February 4, 2017

    Posts 87, 89 and 97 are not me.

  96. #101 Chris Preston
    Australia
    February 4, 2017

    I was alerted to this because someone used my e-mail address to post, which led to a notification.

    • #102 Wzrd1
      February 4, 2017

      Why, I nearly feel left out! 😉

      Oh well, it is pretty hard to impersonate me.

  97. #103 herr doktor bimler
    February 4, 2017

    Possible non-Chris on another thread.

  98. #104 herr doktor bimler
    February 4, 2017

    Their idiotic incompetence a preparing the images (jpeg’d after addition of the arrows for criminy sake) doesn’t help.

    Figure 7b features a faint rectangle overlaid upon the image (slightly above the centre, just to the right of the putative RBCs). Perhaps an artefact of the Photoshop process.

  99. #105 Narad
    February 5, 2017

    Posts 87, 89 and 97 are not me.

    A word to the wise: Just because you’re using your real name, you don’t have to use your real E-mail address. Fer chrissakes, people, mail Orac from the real one, have that key (which is all it is) revoked, viz., banned, and notify him of a new one.

    Problem solved modulo Gravastink, which shouldn’t be much of a hurdle to redo with the same “avatar” for those who insist upon being well tracked across sites.

    Hell, it’s simpler than calling Travis’s dad, the public servant, to suggest that his idiot son’s activity might need a smackdown.

  100. #106 Narad
    February 5, 2017

    Anyway, on the antivaccine-crazy front, I just got around to looking at a few on the comments on this STAT item.

    Some of them are recognizable verbatim churn, but I’ll be damned if I know how I missed out on the “CDC SPIDER” routine.

    Then again, it seems to have taken Rappoport and Mikey three months to pick up on it, so perhaps I’m not that far behind.

  101. #107 herr doktor bimler
    February 5, 2017

    Or you could wait for the real Orac and forget the arse-wipe pretending to be him.

  102. #108 Narad
    February 5, 2017

    and you all shall get a new password

    That reminds me of a story. (Pattimmy is in there, too, but it’s mostly as odd anti-anti-bourgeois stage dressing.)

  103. #109 Julian Frost
    Gauteng East Rand
    February 5, 2017

    Die in a fire, Fendlesworth.

    • #110 Orac
      February 5, 2017

      Lovely. While I was sleeping, Fendlesworth decided to impersonate me. Well, that was easily taken care of anyway, a very brief annoyance.

      Oh, well. If any of the several comments appearing to come from regular commenters that got blocked were legitimate, I’m sorry. I’m pretty sure I got them all correct, but I can never be 100% sure. If any of those new commenters whose comments I did not allow were not Fendlesworth socks, I’m also sorry. I’m pretty sure they all were, but you never know. Until Fendlesworth tires and moves on, unfortunately new commenters have to be subjected to “extreme vetting,” to borrow a term. Which is probably part of what Fendlesworth wants.

  104. #111 gaist
    February 5, 2017

    It is tragic to think how empty somebody’s life must be that these kinds of petulant antics feel so relevant to them after so many months.

    Well, ever, actually, but especially tragic if they can’t stop wasting their life like that.

  105. #112 Alain
    February 5, 2017

    Narad@105,

    I hear ya.. I do remembers a comment of yours regarding key == value. I guess my value is hard to dig out 🙂

    Alain

  106. #113 herr doktor bimler
    February 5, 2017

    On the original topic: two important points about the authors of the study:
    1. They think that tungsten and wolfram are different elements. Does this compatible with competence? How likely is it that they have any idea what they’re doing?

    2. They mainly use their donated electron microscope for selling dubious body-fluid tests to hypochondriacs. That is to say, grifters.
    http://www.nanodiagnostics.it/en/pathologies-of-unknown-origin/

    I am wondering whether their claims deserve a detailed deconstruction. It would be easy to over-think it.

  107. #114 Wzrd1
    February 5, 2017

    A quick search showed some images of red blood cells in desiccated condition.
    http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/red-blood-cells-coloured-scanning-electron-high-res-stock-photography/140584832

    Yep, looks just like the image – in a pig’s eye.

  108. #115 Tsu Dho Nimh
    February 5, 2017

    Did they examine slides with pure micro-filteres distilled water made in the same way to see what contaminants they were introducing?

  109. #116 Alison
    February 6, 2017

    @Richard #40.
    Thank you for the biggest laugh I have had amidst the horrors of the new US administration. My husband and I had tears running down our faces as we read the link about the Rays of Saturn. The notion of people solemnly recording such symptoms as “seductively eating a sandwich” was more than we could bear!

  110. #117 Alison
    February 6, 2017

    @MJD #64,
    I am obligated to point out that pedantry obligates its originator to establish very carefully that he (or she) has not exposed himself (or herself) to pedantry in return. Their, there, and they’re are not interchangeable.
    I await the obligatory reply from yet another commenter decrying my use of the Oxford comma or some other gaucherie.

  111. #118 WolfgangM
    Vienna
    February 6, 2017

    I had a brief look at this nasty paper. On page 4 it is claimed that Engerix B has no Aluminium, but found Al(precipitates) . It is well known that Engerix-B is a recombinat Hep B vaccine, which is agjuvanted with Al(OH)3 with 0,5 mg Al 3+. So if you have a nearly insoluble Al-salt, you will find it.

    On page 8 they wrote that Al PO4x 2H20 is the Adjuvant of Gardasil. In two different samples they found many different traces- including Aluminium Salts. However the Adjuvant of Gardasil is Aluminiumhydroxyphosphatesulfate. Why was sulfate not detected?

    As commented in #113 they believe Tungsten and Wolfram are different elements.

    Obviously the authors have no idea, what they are doing, they do not have controls such as Al-adjuvants alone, and obviously they have not validated their methods.

    fake science !

  112. #119 WolgangM
    February 6, 2017

    Herr Doktor Bimler wrote in post #52
    “There are hints of a scandal about how [Gatti and Montanari] came to have a personal electron microscope
    See here:
    http://www.messinaora.it/notizia/2013/12/18/montanari-grillo-e-il-microscopio-della-discordia-ma-i-metalli-pesanti-nel-cibo-ci-sono/19771

    As far as I can tell, it all started about 2006 when Gatti and Montanari complained that the University of Modena had stopped them from using its EM for their research into toxic emissions. Grillo launched the campaign to raise €378,000 for a new EM that would allow the vital work to continue.

    All culminating in accusations that Gatti and Montanari are using their toy not for environmental activism, but for a profitable business selling analyses through their company Nanodiagnostic Ltd.; and accusations from Montanari that Grillo just raised all that money for them as a way of exploiting them for political gain. ”

    Beppo Grillo is the head of the political party 5 stars in Italy. But he is also an antivaxxer and HIV denialist.
    And therefore he has followers, who claim to be a “researcher and scientist”

    And the result of the research:

    ” Immunisation makes you gay,

    homosexuality is a disease a micro- form of autism”

    sorry it is in German – but even the greatest nonsense will find a newspaper to publish this bullshit.

    http://www.20min.ch/panorama/news/story/27468141

  113. #120 A. Schaefer
    February 6, 2017

    On page 8 they wrote that Al PO4x 2H20 is the Adjuvant of Gardasil. In two different samples they found many different traces- including Aluminium Salts. However the Adjuvant of Gardasil is Aluminium hydroxyphosphate sulfate. Why was sulfate not detected?

    Well, the solubility product constant for Al(PO₄) at 25°C is
    9.8 x 10⁻²¹, and Al₂(SO₄)₃ is so soluble that it’s solubility is expressed in grams per deciliter (36.4 g/dL at 20 °C). This would give me the impression that the (SO₄)⁻² ion dissociates almost completely and wouldn’t necessarily be found in conjunction with the aluminum particles. I would guess the majority of the (SO₄)⁻² was spread evenly over the filter paper and/or had passed through the filter paper.

    As commented in #113 they believe Tungsten and Wolfram are different elements.

    Either that, or the translator was smoking something good. Here is the original Italian paper Nuovo controllo di qualità Indagini sui vaccini: micro e Nanocontamination

  114. #121 Johnny
    127.0.0.1
    February 6, 2017

    Hey, Travis, did ya ever get your car registered?

  115. #122 Bayes
    February 6, 2017

    I’d like to add this fresh new nasty paper (Montanari S and his wife Gatti AM as co-authors)

    Visani G et al.
    Environmental nanoparticles are significantly over-expressed in acute myeloid leukemia
    Leuk Res. 2016 Nov;50:50-56. doi: 10.1016/j.leukres.2016.09.004. Epub 2016 Sep 3.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27669365

  116. #123 doug
    February 6, 2017

    Did they examine slides with pure micro-filteres distilled water …

    If you follow the link Orac posted you can see the whole paper.
    If they used any sort of control they failed to mention it. The methods section of the paper is incredibly poor and lacking in detail.

  117. #124 doug
    February 6, 2017

    It’s so cute when Travis tries to pretend he understands stuff and writes something that demonstrates a complete lack of understanding: “etc. etc. passed through” – good gods he’s dumb

  118. #125 herr doktor bimler
    February 6, 2017

    I’d like to add this fresh new nasty paper (Montanari S and his wife Gatti AM as co-authors)
    Visani G et al.
    Environmental nanoparticles are significantly over-expressed in acute myeloid leukemia

    Nice! As someone points out on PubMed Commons, they are applying t-tests and MANOVA to count variables… which is a statistical abomination… while the concept of “multiple comparison correction” is foreign to them.

    They previously reported the same results to a predatory conference:
    http://www.frontiersin.org/Community/AbstractDetails.aspx?ABS_DOI=10.3389/conf.FBIOE.2016.01.01084&eid=2893&sname=10th_World_Biomaterials_Congress
    where the information is slightly more accessible. We learn, in particular, that

    The particulate matter (engineered or nanosized by-products) identified in the blood has probably an environmental origin, but some chemical compositions may belong to nanotechnological-surfaced implants.

    “Engineered” and “nanotechnological-surfaced” is their way of blaming Chemtrails.

  119. #126 Narad
    February 6, 2017

    Again, the SPEWS approach is highly effective, and what collateral damage there is, is a feature rather than a bug.

  120. #127 herr doktor bimler
    February 6, 2017

    Beppo Grillo is the head of the political party 5 stars in Italy. But he is also an antivaxxer and HIV denialist.
    And therefore he has followers, who claim to be a “researcher and scientist”

    He is also a werewolf, according to Montanari, who self-published a book on Grillo’s skin-walking tendencies. I am not making this up.https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-0Wfm4EqWAIE/WJcLKcGU2XI/AAAAAAAAUyo/8PnmgA9BmUQYx_grDVzUPYPTkANp2wFrACLcB/s1600/grillo.jpg

    You would think that an anti-vaxxer (and chemtrail loon) like Montanari would work well with Grillo, but ultimately there are egos involved, and unaccounted-for donations.

    decrying my use of the Oxford comma
    The Oxford comma is an abomination.

  121. #129 Janox
    February 6, 2017

    The answer from Montanari (the second part is written in english):

    http://www.stefanomontanari.net/sito/blog/2959-sono-troppo-forti-per-me.html

  122. #130 herr doktor bimler
    February 6, 2017

    And therefore [Grillo] has followers, who claim to be a “researcher and scientist”
    And the result of the research:
    ” Immunisation makes you gay,
    homosexuality is a disease a micro- form of autism”

    Vanoli came up at RI a few years ago:
    http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/04/05/who-can-quack-the-loudest/

    I’m still not sure that Vanoli “claims to be a scientist”. It looks like some HuffingtonPost writer was the first to dignify him with that title, and lazy churnamalists have been recycling it as a fact ever since.

  123. #131 herr doktor bimler
    February 6, 2017

    The answer from Montanari (the second part is written in english):

    The English translation works best if read aloud in the voice of Daffy Duck. However, a Yosemite Sam voice is also good.

  124. #132 herr doktor bimler
    February 6, 2017

    The particulate matter (engineered or nanosized by-products) identified in the blood has probably an environmental origin, but some chemical compositions may belong to nanotechnological-surfaced implants.

    “Engineered” and “nanotechnological-surfaced” is their way of blaming Chemtrails.

    I suppose the implants could alternatively have been left by those anal-probe aliens.

  125. #133 doug
    February 6, 2017

    from Montanari’s reply: “More than 40 years spent on research taught us the basics of the trade.”
    After forty years I would expect performance beyond the basics. I would expect ability to prepare a paper that would not get a third or fourth year student a lot of red ink and a poor grade.

    Do these predatory journals charge authors by the word?

  126. #134 Janox
    February 7, 2017

    @herr doktor bimler
    Excuse me for my bad english, sir.

    • #135 Wzrd1
      February 7, 2017

      English has been a frequent jest of mine, for few are its masters.
      A language that is exemplified by its rules being violated incessantly.
      So, comparing your usage of the language against my own, I’ll fall back to another jest.
      One not quite truthful, hence, the jest.
      I speak two languages, English and bad English.*

      *The realty is, I can curse fluently in seven languages. Finding cardinal directions on a map, about as well. Finding a bathroom, not so much. 😉

  127. #136 herr doktor bimler
    February 7, 2017

    @herr doktor bimler
    Excuse me for my bad english, sir.

    Your English is fine, Janox! And whoever translated Montanari’s rebuttal into English — was it you? — worked marvels in capturing his literary ‘voice’.

  128. #137 Bayes
    February 7, 2017

    If you liked the previous paper by the two nano-scientists (Montanari and wife) about the nanoparticles in AML patients, maybe you’ll also appreciate this one (well, this it’s just Gatti without Montanari):

    Roncati L, Gatti AM et al.
    The first investigative science-based evidence of Morgellons psychogenesis
    Ultrastruct Pathol. 2016 Sep-Oct;40(5):249-53. doi: 10.1080/01913123.2016.1190434. Epub 2016 Jun 7.

    So, are 387000 euros for a microscope worth enough to delucidate the nature of the fibers found at home, in the washing machine of the Morgellons reported case ?
    ( I apologize for my english, anyway, I hope make sense)

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27269255

  129. #138 wolfgang;
    Vienna
    February 7, 2017

    Since the authors come from Italy they should follow the nomenclature from the European Pharmacopoeia.regarding the name vaccine.

    And as example the correct name of Tetanus vaccine is Tetanus Vaccine (adsorbed), or Influenza vaccine (split virion inactivated) and all the other vaccines in Table 1 which were analysed.

    But because they are anti-vaxer, they have their own nomenclature and name all vaccines as “anti-Tetanus vaccine” or” anti-flu vaccine”.

    Also #6 in Table 1 is called an Adsorbed anti-Tetanus Vaccine – but this is not a vaccine at all, but a Tetanus Immunglobulin (Trade name .Tetabulin) .

    So the authors do not know the difference of passive immunization with human immunglobulin ( Tetabulin i.m ). and active vaccination with a normal vaccine.

    Shame on you!

  130. #139 Erwin Alber
    Thailand
    February 7, 2017

    In 2011, the US Supreme Court has declared vaccines “unavoidably unsafe.” I would say that this is an accurate assessment considering the fact that the US Vaccine Injury Compensation Court has awarded over $3 billion in compensation for cases of vaccine-related injuries and deaths since the late 1980s. To cause injuries and deaths, the vaccines obviously either contain dangerous toxic ingredients, or else harmful contaminants, or both. I would say it is both. Feel free t have every recommended vaccine, but there is absolutely NO WAY I would let anyone with a vaccine come near me or any child of mine.

  131. #140 Lawrence
    February 7, 2017

    Obviously Erwin didn’t bother to read the 2011 Supreme Court decision, where the majority specifically refuted the term “unavoidably unsafe” when applied to vaccines.

    Also, a person might have a reaction to something, which in no way or form makes that “thing” a toxin or poison.

    If a person is allergic to shellfish & dies from eating it, does that mean all shellfish are toxic or poisonous?

    Also, if you parse the actual compensation numbers, you’ll find that the chances of serious vaccine reaction are a magnitude smaller than the chances of being struck and killed by lightning.

    • #141 vinu arumugham
      United States
      February 7, 2017

      For a lightning victim or vaccine victim, all those probabilities and statistics mean nothing. For them, the wave function has collapsed.

      The only question left is, are we doing enough to improve vaccine safety? The answer is absolutely, NOT.
      Is there a plan outlining when the injuries listed on the vaccine injury table will be addressed? Where are the new, safer vaccines?

  132. #142 Lawrence
    February 7, 2017

    http://encyclopediaantivaccinemovement.blogspot.com/2014/01/erwin-alber.html

    Always nice when we get such auspicious guests…..

  133. #143 Christine Rose
    February 7, 2017

    I’m really afraid that someday people like Erwin–really, people like Erwin’s children–are going to find out the hard way what it really means to get measles, mumps, and rubella. Three billion dollars over 30 years is nothing. To add to irony, many of the vaccine injured would likely have the same people who were hit the worst by the diseases they didn’t get.

    Life is about choices and chances. Don’t choose the odds of finding out what it’s like to watch your child grow up with shingles, or deafness, or impaired vision, all because you can’t understand the odds.

  134. #144 Narad
    February 7, 2017

    Obviously Erwin didn’t bother to read the 2011 Supreme Court decision, where the majority specifically refuted the term “unavoidably unsafe” when applied to vaccines.

    It’s an article of faith – even Mary Freaking Holland has tried to sell this one. Just to be clear, it was the Bruesewitzes that tried to make the claim, not Wyeth. The idea was that it could have entitled them to a case-by-case evaluation back in state court.

  135. #145 Lawrence
    February 7, 2017

    He does live in Thailand – I’m sure he’s seen many of these diseases up close, though I’m sure he won’t admit it.

  136. #146 Lawrence
    February 7, 2017

    Anti-vaxers take a lot of things, where are thoroughly debunked and false, on faith….

  137. #147 Narad
    February 7, 2017

    I’m really afraid that someday people like Erwin–really, people like Erwin’s children–are going to find out the hard way what it really means to get measles, mumps, and rubella.

    I suspect Errwyn’s problem is more likely to wind up involving antibiotic resistance.

  138. #148 Julian Frost
    Gauteng East Rand
    February 7, 2017

    I’m really afraid that someday people like Erwin–really, people like Erwin’s children–are going to find out the hard way what it really means to get measles, mumps, and rubella.

    Those are bad. Diphtheria and Pertussis are even more vicious.

  139. #150 JustaTech
    February 7, 2017

    Hey vinu, fun fact: humans are *terrible* at building long-lasting immunity to pertussis, regardless of the form of exposure. That’s right, even a wild-type case of pertussis won’t necessarily protect you from another infection.

    Oh, and if a person gets pertussis and becomes very sick and requires IV fluids, those fluids might include gelatin!

  140. #152 Politicalguineapig
    February 7, 2017

    Vinu: Wow, that’s a new low for you rectally sourcing things. Yes, the pertussis vax doesn’t last very long, and that’s a real problem, but the people who say it causes MS are lying, about everything. If they told you the date or made a statement about the weather it’d have to be triple-checked.

    (I assume you’re referencing CIA Parker there? She’s such a doubtful source I don’t even believe she has a kid, let alone a grandkid.)

    Secondly, as far as the diptheria vaccine goes, that’s about the oldest vaccine still in use today. I think we’d have noticed a problem by now.
    (And even if there were, you give a parent a choice between baby dying RIGHT now, and a small risk fifty years later.. I guarantee you most parents are gonna go for the small risk fifty years later.)

  141. #153 Vaccine Papers
    February 7, 2017

    Orac is mostly correct about the Gatti et al. The lack of controls is a fatal flaw. They should have used pure water samples as controls, prepared in exactly the same way, by the same people, using identical tools on the same day.

    Also, the use of evaporation for sample preparation is concerning because dissolved salts will form crystals as the water evaporates. Montanari said in his response that the samples were not evaporated, but this makes no sense, because electron microscopy requires high vacuum.

    Another issue I dont think has been mentioned is the filtration efficiency of the flow hood. Did they use a HEPA hood or an ultra filtration hood? Some (many?) flow hoods use filters that have rated efficiencies down to 0.3 micron. But they report particles down to about 0.1 micron. And the filtration specs of the flow hood are not mentioned in the paper. So thats another problem.

    The promotion of this paper is a fail by vaccine activists.

  142. #154 herr doktor bimler
    February 7, 2017

    electron microscopy requires high vacuum

    Not necessarily, with the kind of EM used here. But in this paper the authors are explicit that they did use the “low vacuum” setting. I am not sure that Montanari has actually read it.

  143. #155 from Italy
    Italy
    February 7, 2017

    There exists an interview in Italian with someone who worked at nanodiagnostics, Montanaris private laboratory. The former collaborator mentions various facts:
    1. In 2009, they had one microscope which no-one knows which state it is in these days, but which in any case is not suited for for studying anything at nano-scale.
    2. They have or had a second microscope, financed by donations, that seems to be a very complicated device. I have no knowledge of microscopes, but the ex collaborator says while he was working there it was hardly ever used, since they didn’t have the staff to operate it. Furthermore, they didn’t accept the producers conditions for ordinary maintenance of the device, so when something was wrong costs were high and often they didn’t fix it at once. So this second microscope for nano-scale observations remained in the basement, most of the time unused.
    3. The former collaborator describes only Gatti as a researcher. Montanari himself is doing the PR for their cause. He doubts whether it is actually admissible that Montanari be named co-author, since he does no research whatsoever.
    4. Samples were prepared under non aseptic, contaminated conditions, often at the nearby university of Modena, and transported in little paper packages to the laboratory where they were again handled in a non contamination-free manner. The ex-collaborator remembers one situation in which he dropped a sample and it fell to the floor. He tried to convince Gatti not to use it for analysis, but it was used all the same with the subsequent declaration of having identified “hot particles” which certainly stemmed from an incinerator (they are very affiliated politically and some years ago the construction of incinerators was a widely discussed matter in their town and province, so they kindly offered themselves to make analyses).
    5. The former collaborator mentions three times throughout the interview that he would not describe what is happening at the laboratory is “scientific research”, as “this implies basic principles which in this case are quite disputable”.

  144. […] a characteristically sarcastic post entitled, “I love it when an antivax “study” meant to show how “dirty” vaccines are bac…,” he references the hoary principle attributed to Paracelsus that “the dose […]

  145. #157 vaccine papers
    February 7, 2017

    herr doktor bimler-

    Yes. Thank you for the correction. Forgot about ESEM.

    The paper says the samples were evaporated, but it also says they used ESEM.

  146. #158 JD
    February 7, 2017

    Another issue I dont think has been mentioned is the filtration efficiency of the flow hood. Did they use a HEPA hood or an ultra filtration hood? Some (many?) flow hoods use filters that have rated efficiencies down to 0.3 micron. But they report particles down to about 0.1 micron. And the filtration specs of the flow hood are not mentioned in the paper. So thats another problem.

    Wow. The best criticism against the paper so far was made by Vaccine Papers.

  147. #159 shay simmons
    February 7, 2017

    Anyone using Parker as a source should be advised that she thinks MS can also be caused by falling asleep in the sun.

  148. #161 TBone
    USA
    February 8, 2017

    Why build then attack this strawman when all you have to do is look at the INSERT for the HepatitisB vaccine they give infants in their first 24 hours. One of the statistically significant side effects is Pharyngitis! Caused by…wait for it…Streptococcus virus.

    I’ll say it again. Statistically significant streptococcus in your allegedly uber pure vaccine. Fully disclosed and admitted by the manufacturer, and accepted by the FDA for APPROVAL. So WTF is the point of this strawman you’re fighting with EM and salt crystal traces? You have a full admission of contamination from the manufacturer. You’re a joke for claiming anything else with your idiotic junkscience.

    But wait it gets worse. Streptococcus has a 2-3 week incubation interval. The monitoring window for most of these vaccine studies is often only 2-4 weeks. So beyond the statistically significant reported cases, how many cases went unreported (who even expects a vaccine to give them strep) or presented after the monitoring window closed? You don’t know because all you can do is fight strawmen when the genuine article is telling you you are flat out wrong. Also note that vaccine studies do not allow children, pregnant women, people with autoimmune diseases or invalids. But then they give the vaccine to these people afterwards. How many of them do you think got strep if healthy people got it at a statistically significant rate? Its gross.

    You want to know about another clear case of contamination? Merck is currently being sued by none other than the DOJ in Texas (much to the FDAs chagrin) because the Mumps component of the MMR does not work AT ALL. And in order to cover that up, Merck bullied 2 employees into spiking clinical trial samples with rabbit blood which contain natural antibodies to mumps. They have data, e-mails, samples and federal whistleblower protection. But nothing to see here right? After all the TV networks, 70% of whose ad budget comes from big pharma, haven’t said anything.

    Integrity thy name is Vaccines! Don’t make me laugh or puke. You people are delusional. You wrecked your kids because you listened to the TV. Accept it and try giving all this attention to them instead of these hilarious and embarrassing strawmen that ‘contradict’ things that the vaccine makers admit openly. The downtrend of nearly every disease we vaccinate for was steeper BEFORE the vaccines were introduced. In 50+ years MMR has only reduced deaths related to these diseases from 0.30 to 0.15 per 10000. Orders of magnitude less than the % of people that got strep throat from a Hepatitis vaccine. And in the same time Autism has risen from 1:10,000 to 1:35. THIS is what you call effective public health? Could you be any dumber or more deluded?

  149. […] would make a great name for a band.) Unfortunately for them, the study was a hopeless botch that lacked anything resembling proper controls, experimental design, replication, or statistical analysis. Montanari was not […]

  150. #164 wolfgangM
    Vienna
    February 8, 2017

    @TBone. The only host of natural Mumpsinfection is the human species. However in the Laboratory it is experimentally possible, to infect rabbits too. But rabbits are not a natural host of mumps virus infection.
    And the Merk mumps Vaccine strain (Cheryl Lynn) works very well, with a very low rate of adverse events following immunization. And correlation does not mean causation.

  151. #165 doug
    February 8, 2017

    Streptococcus virus

    and there we have another fine exemplar of knowledge level

  152. #166 Julian Frost
    Gauteng East Rand
    February 8, 2017

    all you have to do is look at the INSERT for the HepatitisB vaccine they give infants in their first 24 hours.

    Argument by Package Insert. You fail.

    Merck is currently being sued by none other than the DOJ in Texas (much to the FDAs chagrin)

    False.

    because the Mumps component of the MMR does not work AT ALL.

    Given that Mumps cases are virtually unheard of in the U.S. or places which vaccinate, false.

    After all the TV networks, 70% of whose ad budget comes from big pharma,

    Citation needed.

    The downtrend of nearly every disease we vaccinate for was steeper BEFORE the vaccines were introduced.

    Wrong again. Learn the difference between mortality and morbidity. Just because medicine was better at lessening death and negative sequelae doesn’t mean the diseases were going away.

    And in the same time Autism has risen from 1:10,000 to 1:35.

    Correlation!= Causation. Do you know what has an almost perfect correlation to the rise in autism diagnoses?
    Organic food.
    TL;DR: You are just another antivaxx ranter repeating tropes we’ve all seen and refuted before literally dozens of times.

  153. #167 Christine Rose
    February 8, 2017

    The links between vaccines and the supposed health problems (notably autism) has been studied umpteen times and no correlation has been shown. To get around this, you have to posit willful misinterpretation of the studies by everyone who’s qualified to interpret them, or wide scale fraud that should be easy to review and check. Then there has to have been a huge conspiracy among people who have dedicated their lives to health care. You think at least some of them would be sincere, qualified, and brave enough to say something really substantial.

    I wasn’t able to find anything about the supposed bacteria in MMR, or about the Texas DOJ suing Merck over this, or the rabbit blood. To be fair, I did find a federal lawsuit by whistleblowers who claim that Merck got sloppy with their mumps vaccine testing because they have a monopoly already. There have been a few mumps clusters where vaccinated persons got sick. Note that if all this is true, it proves that the vaccine works!

    • #168 vinu arumugham
      United States
      February 8, 2017

      “studied umpteen times”

      It does not matter how many times you study it, if you are looking at the wrong causes.

      Autism: A special case of vaccine-induced cow’s milk allergy?
      https://www.researchgate.net/publication/313248416_Autism_A_special_case_of_vaccine-induced_cow%27s_milk_allergy?ev=prf_pub

    • #169 Wzrd1
      February 8, 2017

      @Christine, well, there is one link with vaccines, vaccine preventable diseases and various syndromes and diseases some children were diagnosed with.
      After all, had they suffered and died from a vaccine preventable disease, they’d have never survived to be diagnosed with whatever was an occult condition.

      I mean really, if a child dies from measles encephalitis, any autism that might have been diagnosed would be missed.

      On a more serious note, child and infant mortality and morbidity has dropped precipitously and that has had major impacts in our society.
      When my parents were young, it wasn’t unusual for a sibling to die during childhood, families were correspondingly larger to account for the losses.
      Today, the loss of a child is a tragedy that some families never recover from, in part due to the rarity of such a tragic event.
      Some think that isn’t an improvement, although for the life of me, I’m unable of comprehending the thought process, or lack thereof, behind such a view.

      @TBone, Streptococcus is a bacteria, not a virus. As it is a bacteria, it can usually be treated with antibiotics. Streptococcus also colonizes people’s nasal passages, as it is a ubiquitous bacteria. Indeed, my father was colonized with MRSA, Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. That means that it’s quite likely that I and my wife were also colonized by the bacteria as well, as we lived with my father and cared for him over his final years of life.
      Incubation time that you gave is wrong, incubation time is 2 – 5 days for someone infected with the bacteria.
      Indeed, you got so much wrong in your tirade, I was astonished at the sheer volume of wrong information that you possess! Astonished to the point of wondering if you actually know any correct thing whatsoever.
      Seriously, when you fill out a form, do you also manage to get your name wrong?

  154. #170 Narad
    February 8, 2017

    I wasn’t able to find anything about the supposed bacteria in MMR, or about the Texas DOJ suing Merck over this, or the rabbit blood. To be fair, I did find a federal lawsuit by whistleblowers who claim that Merck got sloppy with their mumps vaccine testing because they have a monopoly already.

    It’s the same thing, just hopelessly garbled.

  155. #171 Rebecca Fisher
    February 8, 2017

    @TBone – You mean Pharma advertising accounts for around 5% of advertising revenues (Financial Years 2014 and 2015). See page 16 of this report.

    https://www.iab.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/IAB-Internet-Advertising-Revenue-Report-FY-2015.pdf

  156. #172 Narad
    February 8, 2017

    all you have to do is look at the INSERT for the HepatitisB vaccine they give infants in their first 24 hours.

    OK (PDF).

    One of the statistically significant

    These words do not occur in the insert.

    side effects

    These words do not occur in the insert.

    is Pharyngitis!

    “In a group of studies, 3258 doses of RECOMBIVAX HB, 10 mcg, were administered to 1252 healthy adults who were monitored for 5 days after each dose. Injection site reactions and systemic adverse reactions were reported following 17% and 15% of the injections, respectively. The following adverse reactions were reported:

    Incidence Equal To or Greater Than 1% of Injections
     . . . .
    RESPIRATORY, THORACIC AND MEDIASTINAL DISORDERS
    Pharyngitis; upper respiratory infection”

    (emphasis added).

    Caused by…wait for it…Streptococcus virus [sic].

    Wait for it . . . .

    But wait it gets worse.

    Yup.

    Streptococcus has a 2-3 week incubation interval.

    Whoops.

  157. […] I love it when an antivax “study” meant to show how “dirty” vaccines are […]

  158. #174 Christine Rose
    February 8, 2017

    Thanks @Narad.

    Still no evidence of staph in vaccines. It actually seems more plausible than rabbit blood. Staph would just be criminally poor quality control. I think we can safely assume that the small number of pharyngitis cases were unrelated to the vaccine.

    • #175 Wzrd1
      February 8, 2017

      I caught an annoying upper respiratory tract infection a couple of weeks after my influenza vaccination. Know what that means?
      If I were in their tracking, I’d be listed as having a side effect.
      Alas, having poop for luck that month can be listed as a side effect, even when it’s just bad luck.*

      The cold lasted a lot longer than usual, probably due to my having an extremely dry house, as my humidifier is broken and secretions tended to be thicker, due to the extreme dryness of the air in the house.
      The weather and cold broke at the same time, really annoying sinus infection!

      I did have one side effect from the influenza injection, although I more attribute it to technique than to vaccine, pain in the injection site for a few days. Why, it felt like someone stuck a steel object into my deltoid muscle!
      Oh wait, they did. 😉

      *Well, bad luck in the form of a thoughtless young woman brought her sick toddler over to visit. Sick with, wait for it…! Strept throat.

  159. #176 Dangerous Bacon
    February 8, 2017

    “After all the TV networks, 70% of whose ad budget comes from big pharma”

    It takes a bit of checking to discover that this claim is a crock of fetid hog drippings.

    Annual drug company spending on network TV ads was about $3.6 billion in the latest year (2015) for which I could find figures. _Prime time_ TV network ad revenue was about 8.36 billion, so total network income from ads is even higher – let’s say $10 billion at least. That means a little over one third of network TV ad revenue comes from drug companies. That’s a lot of dough, but nowhere near 70%.

    Meantime, the logic of “Big Pharma spends a lot on ads, so Vaccines Bad” escapes me. Most of those ads are for drugs to treat diabetes, depression, sleep disorders in the blind and the dreaded ED, very few by comparison for vaccines (on occasion you’ll see spots for shingles and HPV vaccines, but they’re dwarfed by drug ads).

    Apparently RFK Jr. is one of those spouting the 70% figure, when he’s not fulminating about getting mercury out of “vaccines”.

    • #177 Wzrd1
      February 8, 2017

      There are times that I’d be tempted to believe that 70% number, but that’s largely out of jesting frustration over commercials for the latest immune modulating drug that is being advertised (we’ve recently had a blitz with ads for several drugs to treat psoriasis.

      Personally, I’m from the school of thought where, I don’t ask my doctor about an advertised drug. I figure if doctor thinks that that drug is appropriate, he’ll ask me if I want to try it.
      Although, I have discussed with doctor some new pharmaceutical families of drugs, which had nothing to do with my medical condition, out of curiosity over the efficacy of a rather new drug family, just for general knowledge about that drug and his experience with that class of medication.
      Of course, I’m also the type of guy who speaks pharmacology with pharmacists, just to clarify how certain drugs actually operate.

  160. #178 Narad
    February 8, 2017

    They have data, e-mails, samples and federal whistleblower protection.

    This is just a painfully engorged sac of fail.

  161. #179 JD
    February 8, 2017

    I found one quote by RFK:

    I ate breakfast last week with the president of a network news division and he told me that during non-election years, 70% of the advertising revenues for his news division come from pharmaceutical ads. And if you go on TV any night and watch the network news, you’ll see they become just a vehicle for selling pharmaceuticals. He also told me that he would fire a host who brought onto his station a guest who lost him a pharmaceutical account.

    He obviously isn’t referring to the entire industry here. His anecdote refers to a singular “news division”.

  162. #180 JD
    February 8, 2017

    This is just a painfully engorged sac of fail.

    Well if Merck could work on that mumps vaccine….

  163. #181 herr doktor bimler
    February 8, 2017

    I found one quote by RFK:

    Shirley you mean RFK Jnr, whose statements bear no discernable relationship to truth.

  164. #182 JD
    February 8, 2017

    I do mean RFK Jr, and don’t call me Shirley.

  165. #183 Narad
    February 8, 2017

    Still no evidence of staph in vaccines. It actually seems more plausible than rabbit blood.

    Krahling & Wlochowski’s allegations include the spiking of samples with rabbit antibodies, like Dong Pyou Han in reverse. The whole “Protocol 007” routine is more complicated than that, but this case is likely to continue to move at the glacial pace that it’s been going at. I should update the RECAP/archive.org docket one of these days.

  166. #184 Narad
    February 8, 2017

    This is just a painfully engorged sac of fail.

    Well if Merck could work on that mumps vaccine….

    Try reading for content.

  167. #185 Lawrence
    February 8, 2017

    Funny, I didn’t see too many Pharma ads during the Super Bowl….if they really constituted that much revenue, where were they?

  168. #186 doug
    February 8, 2017

    CDC:

    It usually takes two to five days for someone exposed to group A strep to become ill.

    Strep A, notably S. pyogenes, is the usual group responsible for “strep throat.” Pharyngitis is more likely to be viral than bacterial. It has been a huge player in the “gimme antibiotics” demands that have fueled the evolution of antibiotic resistant bacteria (which, fortunately, does not include Strep A species, which remain easily treatable with penicillin & other common antibiotics).

  169. #188 Narad
    February 8, 2017

    Wow. The best criticism against the paper so far was made by Vaccine Papers.

    D.S. does have his fans, although spectacular irony can be a pitfall.

  170. #189 doug
    February 8, 2017

    “… best criticism …”
    Except that everything in that comment was covered by Orac and/or much earlier comments.

  171. #190 Richard
    Burbank
    February 9, 2017

    I don’t understand why the pro-vaccine team will never admit to any failures.

    Hey pro-vaccine guys.. Can you name any vaccines that have been really harmful?

    Question your bias. Every product class that’s been manufactured or produced in the world has had it’s failures.

    Can you guys admit to any vaccines that were just horrible and caused deaths, disease, and other nasty side affects?

    I remember when I had the measles. (everyone I grew up with went through it…I know I’m dating myself….but it was no big deal)

    • #191 Wzrd1
      February 9, 2017

      Well, Dick. Tell us of a single and utter vaccine failure that had any morbidity or mortality rate beyond car accidents?
      I can name one that still didn’t approach that rate, but was our most dangerous of vaccines and has since been retired, as that disease is extinct in the wild or civilization.
      Meanwhile, polio is extinct in the US.
      What do you have, other than bovine defecation and rectally procured “facts”?

      • #192 vinu arumugham
        United States
        February 9, 2017

        “Tell us of a single and utter vaccine failure that had any morbidity or mortality rate beyond car accidents?”

        Why are we spending so much money on infrastructure? We are already way better than Bangladesh.

  172. #193 MI Dawn
    February 9, 2017

    OK, Richard, I’ll bite.

    Hey pro-vaccine guys.. Can you name any vaccines that have been really harmful? Smallpox – except that the risks from the disease were much higher. No vaccine has been kept on the market for which the risks of the vaccine are higher than the risks of the disease with or without complications. Guess why we don’t get the smallpox vaccine any more? Because vaccines and isolation of sick people ELIMINATED the disease and it has no carriers in nature besides humans.

    Can you guys admit to any vaccines that were just horrible and caused deaths, disease, and other nasty side affects? None that I can think of that are commercially available. Lymerix is off the market, Rotashield is off the market. Because they were found to have higher risks than benefits (see above).

    I remember when I had the measles. (everyone I grew up with went through it…I know I’m dating myself….but it was no big deal) Waves hand. I had measles, rubella, mumps, chicken pox. It still was a big deal. I didn’t die from them, but I was miserable. I have the so-called blessing of knowing that I could get shingles any time. I did not develop immunity to measles or mumps, so I get the MMR vaccine since as an adult of certain age I don’t WANT to get the disease again.

    But, as for them being “no big deal”…ask my mom who had a classmate die from measles. Ask my brother, who has a friend who is sterile from mumps. But hey, no big deal, right? Jerk.

  173. #194 MI Dawn
    February 9, 2017

    Now, Richard…can you admit that you haven’t done due diligence in researching the subject? Don’t bring a knife to a gun fight.

  174. #195 Richard
    Netherlands
    February 9, 2017

    @Richard, #190

    I don’t understand why the pro-vaccine team will never admit to any failures.

    Pardon my French, but this is nonsense. Vaccine proponents fully acknowledge that vaccines can have negative effects, both structural and incidental. Structural disadvantages are things like side effects and the ever present chance of complications, however small — any medical intervention such as an injection has the potential to cause harm, e.g. infections. Statistically, it is likely that vaccines cause a few deaths every year.
    Then there are incidental problems; in 1928, twelve children died from a contaminated diphtheria vaccine (this was the main reason for introducing thimerosal and other preservatives in vaccines); in 1993, there was a problem with the mumps vaccine in Japan, causing several thousand cases of encephalitis, and three deaths; and recently, there was the problem with one particular swine flu vaccine increasing the chances of triggering narcolepsy in certain people (although strictly speaking, the cause was not the vaccine per se but the H1N1 virus protein — so people who caught the swine flu had the same increased chance of developing narcolepsy). And undoubtedly, several more incidents with vaccines have occurred in the past century.

    What vaccine proponents will not admit, however, is that vaccines are the cause of structural and/or severe harm such as autism, chronic fatigue or any of dozens of ailments that antivaccine activists claim are caused, triggered or aggravated by vaccines — because there is no evidence to support a causal relationship between vaccines and the conditions mentioned.

    • #196 vinu arumugham
      United States
      February 9, 2017

      “What vaccine proponents will not admit, however, is that vaccines are the cause of structural and/or severe harm such as autism, chronic fatigue”

      There is solid evidence for both.
      https://www.researchgate.net/publication/313248416_Autism_A_special_case_of_vaccine-induced_cow%27s_milk_allergy?ev=prf_high

      Significant protein sequence alignment between pyruvate dehydrogenase and vaccine antigens

      Background

      Metabolic profiling indicates impaired pyruvate dehydrogenase function in myalgic encephalopathy/chronic fatigue syndrome

      http://insight.jci.org/articles/view/89376

      Pyruvate Dehydrogenase Complex Deficiency

      http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/948360-overview

      Method

      https://www.researchgate.net/publication/310021910_Significant_protein_sequence_alignment_between_peanut_allergen_epitopes_and_vaccine_antigens

      Results

      Pda1p [Saccharomyces cerevisiae R103]
      Sequence ID: EWG96330.1Length: 355Number of Matches: 1
      Related Information
      Range 1: 3 to 314GenPeptGraphics
      Next Match
      Previous Match
      Alignment statistics for match #1 Score Expect Method Identities Positives Gaps
      382 bits(981) 1e-130 Compositional matrix adjust. 175/312(56%) 230/312(73%) 0/312(0%)

      Query 48 EGPPVTTVLTREDGLKYYRMMQTVRRMELKADQLYKQKIIRGFCHLCDGQEACCVGLEAG 107
      E P ++ ++ L+ Y+ M +RRME+ D LYK K IRGFCHL GQEA VG+E
      Sbjct 3 EPPDLSYETSKATLLQMYKDMVIIRRMEMACDALYKAKKIRGFCHLSVGQEAIAVGIENA 62

      Query 108 INPTDHLITAYRAHGFTFTRGLSVREILAELTGRKGGCAKGKGGSMHMYAKNFYGGNGIV 167
      I D +IT+YR HGFTF RG SV+ +LAEL GR+ G + GKGGSMH+YA FYGGNGIV
      Sbjct 63 ITKLDSIITSYRCHGFTFMRGASVKAVLAELMGRRAGVSYGKGGSMHLYAPGFYGGNGIV 122

      Query 168 GAQVPLGAGIALACKYNGKDEVCLTLYGDGAANQGQIFEAYNMAALWKLPCIFICENNRY 227
      GAQVPLGAG+A A +Y +D TLYGDGA+NQGQ+FE++NMA LW LP +F CENN+Y
      Sbjct 123 GAQVPLGAGLAFAHQYKNEDACSFTLYGDGASNQGQVFESFNMAKLWNLPVVFCCENNKY 182

      Query 228 GMGTSVERAAASTDYYKRGDFIPGLRVDGMDILCVREATRFAAAYCRSGKGPILMELQTY 287
      GMGT+ R++A T+Y+KRG +IPGL+V+GMDIL V +A++FA +C SGKGP+++E +TY
      Sbjct 183 GMGTAASRSSAMTEYFKRGQYIPGLKVNGMDILAVYQASKFAKDWCLSGKGPLVLEYETY 242

      Query 288 RYHGHSMSDPGVSYRTREEIQEVRSKSDPIMLLKDRMVNSNLASVEELKEIDVEVRKEIE 347
      RY GHSMSDPG +YRTR+EIQ +RSK+DPI LK +++ +A+ E+K D RK ++
      Sbjct 243 RYGGHSMSDPGTTYRTRDEIQHMRSKNDPIAGLKMHLIDLGIATEAEVKAYDKSARKYVD 302

      Query 348 DAAQFATADPEP 359
      + + A A P P
      Sbjct 303 EQVELADAAPPP 314

      pyruvate dehydrogenase [Streptococcus pneumoniae]
      Sequence ID: WP_061640533.1Length: 322Number of Matches: 1
      See 2 more title(s)
      Related Information
      Identical Proteins-Identical proteins to WP_061640533.1
      Range 1: 10 to 321GenPeptGraphics
      Next Match
      Previous Match
      Alignment statistics for match #1 Score Expect Method Identities Positives Gaps
      239 bits(609) 7e-75 Compositional matrix adjust. 126/315(40%) 190/315(60%) 9/315(2%)

      Query 62 LKYYRMMQTVRRMELKADQLYKQKIIRGFCHLCDGQEACCVGLEAGINPTDHLITAYRAH 121
      L+ +R M+ +RRM+LK QL K+ + G H G+EA VG +NP D + + +R H
      Sbjct 10 LEMFRKMEEIRRMDLKIAQLVKKGKVPGMTHFSVGEEAANVGAMLALNPDDLITSNHRGH 69

      Query 122 GFTFTRGLSVREILAELTGRKGGCAKGKGGSMHMY—AKNFYGGNGIVGAQVPLGAGIA 178
      G +G+ + ++AE+ G+ G KGKGGSMH+ A N G NGIVG + + G A
      Sbjct 70 GQAIAKGIDLNGMMAEILGKYTGTCKGKGGSMHIADLDAGNL-GANGIVGGGMGIAVGAA 128

      Query 179 LACKYNGKDEVCLTLYGDGAANQGQIFEAYNMAALWKLPCIFICENNRYGMGTSVERAAA 238
      L+ + ++ + +GDGA N+G EA NMA++W LP IF C NN YG+ +++
      Sbjct 129 LSQQMQNTGKIVVCFFGDGATNEGVFHEAVNMASIWNLPVIFYCINNGYGISADIKKMTN 188

      Query 239 STDYYKRGDF–IPGLRV-DGMDILCVREATRFAAAYCRSGKGPILMELQTYRYHGHSMS 295
      ++R IPG+ + DG +++ V E + A + RSG GP+L+E TYR+ GHS S
      Sbjct 189 IEHIHQRSAAYGIPGMFIEDGNNVIDVYEGFQKAVDHVRSGNGPVLIESVTYRWLGHSSS 248

      Query 296 DPGVSYRTREEIQEVRSKSDPIMLLKDRMVNSNLASVEELKEIDVEVRKEIEDAAQFATA 355
      DPG YRTREE+ E+ + DPI L++ ++ +N+AS EEL+EI V+V++ +E + +FA
      Sbjct 249 DPG-KYRTREEV-ELWKQKDPIENLRNYLIENNIASAEELEEIQVQVKEAVEASVKFAEE 306

      Query 356 DPEPPLEELGYHIYS 370
      P PPLE IY+
      Sbjct 307 SPFPPLESAFEDIYA 321

      ABC transporter substrate-binding protein [Bordetella pertussis]
      Sequence ID: WP_050832146.1Length: 323Number of Matches: 1
      See 2 more title(s)
      Related Information
      Identical Proteins-Identical proteins to WP_050832146.1
      Range 1: 5 to 318GenPeptGraphics
      Next Match
      Previous Match
      Alignment statistics for match #1 Score Expect Method Identities Positives Gaps
      178 bits(451) 2e-51 Compositional matrix adjust. 101/317(32%) 167/317(52%) 6/317(1%)

      Query 57 TREDGLKYYRMMQTVRRMELKADQLYKQKIIRGFCHLCDGQEACCVGLEAGINPTDHLIT 116
      +E L Y+ M +R +EL+ +L+ + GF HL GQEA + + P D + +
      Sbjct 5 NKEQLLDAYQRMLGIRLVELRLGRLFADGEVPGFIHLSVGQEAVAAAMGMVLRPDDTVAS 64

      Query 117 AYRAHGFTFTRGLSVREILAELTGRKGGCAKGKGGSMHM–YAKNFYGGNGIVGAQVPLG 174
      +R HG +G+ + + EL R+ G KG+GGSMH+ + G N IVGA +P+
      Sbjct 65 THRGHGHALAKGIDMDDFFLELMAREEGICKGRGGSMHVANMSIGMLGANAIVGASIPIA 124

      Query 175 AGIALACKYNGKDEVCLTLYGDGAANQGQIFEAYNMAALWKLPCIFICENNRYG-MGTSV 233
      G ALA + D + + +GDGA +G + E+ N+AALW+LP +F+CENN + +
      Sbjct 125 LGSALAHQVRKTDALAVAFFGDGAMAEGGLHESLNLAALWQLPLLFLCENNGWAEFSPTH 184

      Query 234 ERAAASTDYYKRGDFIPGLRVDGMDILCVREATRFAAAYCRSGKGPILMELQTYRYHGHS 293
      ++ A D IP +VDG D+L V +A + A A R+GKGP ++E +R+ GH
      Sbjct 185 KQFVAPLDKLSAAFSIPHAKVDGNDVLAVMDAAQAAVADIRAGKGPRVLECIPHRWRGHY 244

      Query 294 MSDPGVSYRTREEIQEVRSKSDPIMLLKDRMVNSNLASVEELKEIDVEVRKEIEDAAQFA 353
      DP YR +EI + + DP+ + +++S S + +++ V+ +++ A + A
      Sbjct 245 EGDPQ-KYRDSDEISGL-DEHDPVARF-EAVLDSKGVSQAQRQKVRDAVQAQVDQAVERA 301

      Query 354 TADPEPPLEELGYHIYS 370
      P E +Y+
      Sbjct 302 RKGRPPVWETARTDVYT 318

      1-deoxy-D-xylulose-5-phosphate synthase [Neisseria meningitidis]
      Sequence ID: WP_049223434.1Length: 637Number of Matches: 1
      Related Information
      Range 1: 84 to 185GenPeptGraphics
      Next Match
      Previous Match
      Alignment statistics for match #1 Score Expect Method Identities Positives Gaps
      39.7 bits(91) 0.081 Compositional matrix adjust. 31/102(30%) 45/102(44%) 6/102(5%)

      Query 138 LTGRKGGCAK—-GKGGSMHMYAKNFYGGNGIVGAQVPLGA–GIALACKYNGKDEVCL 191
      LTGRKG G +++ Y G+ + +GA G+A A K G D +
      Sbjct 84 LTGRKGQMHTMRRYGGLAGFPKRSESEYDAFGVGHSSTSIGAALGMAAADKLLGSDRRSV 143

      Query 192 TLYGDGAANQGQIFEAYNMAALWKLPCIFICENNRYGMGTSV 233
      + GDGA GQ FEA N A + + I +N + +V
      Sbjct 144 AIIGDGAMTAGQAFEALNCAGDMDVNLLVILNDNEMSISPNV 185

  175. #197 Elliott
    Boston
    February 9, 2017

    My pediatrician friend (now retired, so he remembers the good old days) informs me that measles used to be the largest cause of cases of brain damage in children (due to the occasional high fever). Before vaccination there were millions of measles cases per year, resulting in thousands of brain-damaged children.

    But hey, no big deal. Unless its your kid.

  176. #198 Dangerous Bacon
    February 9, 2017

    “I remember when I had the measles. (everyone I grew up with went through it…I know I’m dating myself….but it was no big deal)”

    I remember it too, and I wouldn’t want any kid to have to go through that.

    Interesting how antivaxers tend either to be too young to remember the impact these diseases had,or old enough to forget them and/or put a shiny gloss on the experience (“Mama brought me cocoa in bed!”).

  177. #199 Narad
    February 9, 2017

    Question your bias. . . .

    . . . . .

    I remember when I had the measles. (everyone I grew up with went through it…I know I’m dating myself….but it was no big deal)

    Irony much?

  178. #200 Christine Rose
    February 9, 2017

    Anyone who is reading this who thinks measles is no big deal should ask the next ten 50+ people they meet–

    Did you have measles, mumps, and/or rubella?
    Was it serious?
    Did you have any serious, long lasting complications?
    Did anyone you knew (school, family, etc.) have a serious, long lasting complication?

    Saying that complication rates were only 1% or something like that doesn’t quite convey the reality of having your classmate go to the hospital and come up unable to see.

  179. #201 WolfgangM
    Vienna
    February 9, 2017

    I remember when I had the measles. (everyone I grew up with went through it…I know I’m dating myself….but it was no big deal)
    In the pre vaccine era there have been about 6.000.000 deths due to measles, now about 180.000 die each year of measles.
    All these kids are unable to tell us, that it was no big deal.
    And many more who had measles enzephalitis with permantent intellectual sequaelae are not able to type the messsage into there computer that it was no big deal-

    anti-vaxers are severly biased.

  180. #202 Science Mom
    http://justthevax.blogspot.com/
    February 9, 2017

    Cervantes, you like most dumbass armchair epidemiologists can’t do maths. But by all means, please get yourself infected with measles and stay home.

  181. #203 Johnny
    127.0.0.1
    February 9, 2017

    How are the odds running on cervantes being Travis J Schwochert of 239 S Church St, Endeavor, WI 53930?

  182. #204 JP
    February 9, 2017

    I think Cervantes might have been hacked. There’s a real one who comments at SBM and occasionally here.

    • #205 Orac
      February 9, 2017

      The real Cervantes hasn’t posted since 2014; so yes, today’s Cervantes was almost certainly Fendlesworth, a.k.a. Travis Schwochert.

  183. #206 Dangerous Bacon
    February 9, 2017

    I’m not sure if will be able to detect nanoparticles, but there’s a new cellphone app due out soon that’s touted as performing spectral analysis, enabling consumers to detect pesticide and heavy metal residues in their food:

    https://techcrunch.com/2017/02/02/this-app-uses-spectral-analysis-to-analyze-objects-and-their-makeup/

    If it works, it’s not only paradigm changing, but could put the Health Deranger’s Sooper-Certified Reference Laboratory out of business.

    Power to the People!!!

  184. #207 Lawrence
    February 9, 2017

    I suspect another Travis sock, above.

    As a recent bout of Shingles has reminded me, these diseases aren’t “fun” and I certainly would never want anyone to suffer what I just did either (especially my own children).

  185. #208 Lawrence
    February 9, 2017

    Something else vaccine “opponents” will never admit – that there used to be hundreds of schools, around the country, for the deaf and blind….and now, there are a mere handful.

    VPDs were the number one cause of pediatric blindness and deafness – and now the rate for both is as low as it has ever been.

  186. #209 Narad
    February 9, 2017

    How are the odds running on cervantes being Travis J Schwochert of 239 S Church St, Endeavor, WI 53930?

    Given that both JD and cervantes were commenters here who haven’t been around in a while, I’d say certain. It’s Fucklesworth’s new M.O.

  187. #210 Science Mom
    http://justthevax.blogspot.com/
    February 9, 2017

    Should have known. It really boggles my mind that creeps like Schwochert have nothing better to do.

  188. […] dal movimento anti-vax per le sue "scoperte", non sa come si fa un esperimento, quindi immagina che i vaccini siano "sporchi", pieni "nanoparticelle tossiche", tanto più dannose in quanto operano in sinergia come il […]

  189. #212 Joe Citizen
    February 11, 2017

    Is it so hard for vaccine sellers to do proper tests and show exactly what is in the vaccines?
    Don’t spend so much time debunking you don’t actually use your wisdom to do a better test for the benefit of those interested.

    • #213 vinu arumugham
      United States
      February 11, 2017

      “Is it so hard for vaccine sellers to do proper tests and show exactly what is in the vaccines?”

      They don’t want to find out. Let sleeping dogs lie.

      “Don’t spend so much time debunking you don’t actually use your wisdom to do a better test for the benefit of those interested.”

      Talk is cheap.

  190. #214 Celeste McGovern
    UK
    February 11, 2017
    • #215 Orac
      February 11, 2017

      Bwahahahaha. I might have to put that in my folder of quackery for more fun. But probably not before the middle of next week; that is, if I bother at all. “Me too” articles have to be really outstanding before I’ll take them on. 🙂

  191. #216 vinu arumugham
    United States
    February 11, 2017

    “Bwahahahaha.”

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X15007884

    Orac finds serious vaccine safety studies performed by vaccine manufacturers to be amusing “quackery”?

  192. #217 Dangerous Bacon
    February 11, 2017

    Who knew that the CDC was promoting “a 64-vaccine schedule”?

    Golly, that’s a heck of a lot of diseases kids are being protected against.

  193. #218 stavros
    February 11, 2017

    Geez, that’s like a bushel of protection!

    (and a few ounces of autism and SIDS)

  194. #219 Chris
    February 11, 2017

    Fortunately, stavros, the MMR vaccine prevents one known cause of autism: Congenital Rubella Syndrome. And babies who don’t get pertussis don’t die suddenly:

    Vaccine. 2007 Jun 21;25(26):4875-9. Epub 2007 Mar 16.
    Do immunisations reduce the risk for SIDS? A meta-analysis.

    Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2006 Sep;25(9):768-73.
    Encephalopathy after whole-cell pertussis or measles vaccination: lack of evidence for a causal association in a retrospective case-control study.

    Expert Rev Vaccines. 2005 Apr;4(2):173-84.
    Acellular pertussis vaccines in Japan: past, present and future

    From the last study’s abstract:

    An antivaccine movement developed in Japan as a consequence of increasing numbers of adverse reactions to whole-cell pertussis vaccines in the mid-1970s. After two infants died within 24 h of the vaccination from 1974 to 1975, the Japanese government temporarily suspended vaccinations. Subsequently, the public and the government witnessed the re-emergence of whooping cough, with 41 deaths in 1979. This series of unfortunate events revealed to the public that the vaccine had, in fact, been beneficial.

  195. #221 Chris Preston
    Australia
    February 12, 2017

    You may want to check out Dirty Vaccines Part Two

    I am left wondering how much the fact that Schlegl, Weber, Wruss and Mohlen have a patent on an alternative aluminium adjuvant influenced the decision to start this investigation?

  196. #223 Richard
    Netherlands
    February 12, 2017

    @Joe, #212

    Is it so hard for vaccine sellers to do proper tests and show exactly what is in the vaccines?

    Well, actually, yes, that is quite hard. This has, however, nothing to do with vaccine manufacturers being sloppy or trying to poison our children, but with two simple facts:
    – These days, we can routinely detect substances at sub-ppb levels (< 1 part per billion).
    – All the 'contaminants' mentioned are in fact normal constituents of our natural environment; they also leach from stainless steel and glassware used for processing foods and pharmaceuticals.

    What this means is that it is for all intents and purposes, it is impossible to list anything and everything that can be found in vaccines (and other pharmaceuticals, and food and drink, for that matter) — simply because our modern day analysis methods are sensitive enough to detect those 'contaminants' at their natural levels. This also means that the actual amount of each substance found can vary wildly, depending on the source materials, the equipment used for production etcetera.

    This also means that it is in fact impossible to avoid having these substances in vaccines (and other pharmaceuticals, and food and drink). This holds even when pharmaceutical companies switch to cleanroom practices such as used in the semiconductor industry (the use of pure quartz instead of glass or stainless steel, ultra-pure water, and extreme rinsing procedures), since quite a few vaccine ingredients have a biological origin, which can be 'contaminated' from the onset.

    And even if such 100% 'contaminant-free' vaccines could be achieved, this would be prohibitively expensive — and totally ridiculous, since there is no evidence whatsoever that these contaminants do any harm in the concentrations present.

    • #224 vinu arumugham
      United States
      February 12, 2017

      “there is no evidence whatsoever that these contaminants do any harm in the concentrations present.”

      Please post the relevant references.

  197. #225 squirrelelite
    February 12, 2017

    Actually, Vinu, stopping vaccines when the disease they protect against has been eradicated is an excellent way to avoid their side effects, like we did with smallpox.

    We might be able to do this with measles in the future if idiots like RFK Jr don’t keep making it harder.

    And you ignore the fact that DTAP was an improvement to reduce the side effects of the whole cell Pertussis vaccine.

  198. #227 Michael J. Dochniak
    Minnesota
    February 12, 2017

    Richard (~#221) says,

    And even if such 100% ‘contaminant-free’ vaccines could be achieved, this would be prohibitively expensive — and totally ridiculous, since there is no evidence whatsoever that these contaminants do any harm in the concentrations present.

    MJD says,

    Let’s make it clear.

    Vaccines by design mimic contaminants (pathogens) to induce acquired immunity. So, the body treats an effective vaccine as a contaminant.

    Therefore, we can ask the question how can a contaminated contaminant (i.e., vaccine) be harmful?

    This question is immensely complicated but there are inquisitive scientists that continue to gather information and propose hypotheses in an effort to gain knowledge and affect vaccine-safety standards.

  199. #228 stavros
    February 12, 2017

    …if idiots like RFK Jr…

    Big words for a tree rat.

New comments have been temporarily disabled. Please check back soon.