Nanparticles in Vaccines - analogous to breathing in asbestos??

[Praktik]

The following article was posted on another board I frequent:

Vaccines which have been approved by the responsible government authorities for vaccination against the alleged H1N1 Influenza A Swine Flu have been found to contain nano particles. Vaccine makers have been experimenting with nanoparticles as a way to “turbo charge” vaccines for several years. Now it has come out that the vaccines approved for use in Germany and other European countries contain nanoparticles in a form that reportedly attacks healthy cells and can be deadly.

...

The September 2009 issue of the respected European Respiratory Journal, made public on 19 August, and available since 21 August online, contains a peer-reviewed article with the title, “Exposure to nanoparticles is related to pleural effusion, pulmonary fibrosis and granuloma.”

The article describes tests carried out in 2008 at the elite Beijing Chaoyang Hospital on seven young women. All seven, ages 18-47 had been exposed to nanoparticles for 5–13 months in their common workplace. All were admitted to the hospital with shortness of breath and pleural effusions, or excessive fluids surrounding the lungs, inhibiting breathing. None of the seven had ever smoked and none were in any special risk group. Doctors carefully tested for every possibility and confirmed that the lung problems had a common origin—regular inhalation of nanoparticles in their factory. They had been exposed to Polyacrylat nanoparticles.

The tests confirmed the nanoparticles had set off a “super-meltdown” reaction in the patients. Despite all heroic efforts of doctors, two of the seven died from the lung complications.

So this has now set off a debate as to whether the ill effects of breathing in asbestos nanoparticles is evidence enough to conclude that different nanoparticles in vaccines will result in the same effect.

Myself and others pointed out that the mode of delivery is different, the nanoparticles are different why should we expect there to be "super meltdowns" from getting the vaccine?

To this we are greeted with the response that "nanoparticles" are "proven" to damage cells and so we should expect the same with the vaccine.

Anyone here with the experience or science necessary to rebutt this assertion?

[jasonpatterson]

So you're arguing with someone who thinks that inhaling tiny asbestos particles is equivalent to inhaling any other kind of tiny particles? Logic isn't going to win that kind of argument.

In any case, surely the vaccines' manufacturers had to test these products to ensure that they were safe before they went on sale. I won't pretend to know about European equivalents to the FDA, but it seems reasonable that the testing process was rigorous. It's always possible that there was some sort of mistake or that some small effect was overlooked, but the meltdown that these people mention doesn't seem reasonable at all. If they are predicting some sort of thalidomide scale disaster, that's highly improbable.

[Praktik]

Originally Posted by jasonpatterson

So you're arguing with someone who thinks that inhaling tiny asbestos particles is equivalent to inhaling any other kind of tiny particles?

I know I know!

I really just do it for the lurkers. I have an intense urge to post up alternative viewpoints and not leave stuff like this unaddressed..

[Capsid]

Vaccines aren't inhaled anyway. So you could argue the mechanism of uptake is different and likely to target different cells which deal with nanoparticles in different ways. Inhalation would effect epithelial cells whereas injection of a vaccine would effect muscle and dendritic cells in the skin which process the antigen.

[Reality Check]

It does not take much experience or science to rebut this assertion - just look at the quote from the European Respiratory Journal.

• The paper is about Polyacrylate nanoparticles specifically. Unless the vaccines contain these specific types of nanoparticles then the paper is irrelevant.
• Exposure times of 5–13 months as opposes to days for vaccines.
• As you stated different delivery mechanisms (breathing versus injection) means different effects. The unspecified nanoparticles in vaccines will be unlikely to effect lung tissue as in the paper.
• No mention of how the effect of how many nanoparticles were involved. Thus there is no way to compare possible effects.

The people asserting this non-connection are of course forgetting about the fact that vaccines are actually tested before release.
Their illogic is something like:

• Container containing a ton of nanoparticles falls on man and kills him.
• So nanoparticles can kill.
• Vaccines contain nanoparticles.
• Thus vaccines can kill!

[joobz]

Originally Posted by Praktik

The following article was posted on another board I frequent:

Vaccines which have been approved by the responsible government authorities for vaccination against the alleged H1N1 Influenza A Swine Flu have been found to contain nano particles. Vaccine makers have been experimenting with nanoparticles as a way to “turbo charge” vaccines for several years. Now it has come out that the vaccines approved for use in Germany and other European countries contain nanoparticles in a form that reportedly attacks healthy cells and can be deadly.

...

The September 2009 issue of the respected European Respiratory Journal, made public on 19 August, and available since 21 August online, contains a peer-reviewed article with the title, “Exposure to nanoparticles is related to pleural effusion, pulmonary fibrosis and granuloma.”

The article describes tests carried out in 2008 at the elite Beijing Chaoyang Hospital on seven young women. All seven, ages 18-47 had been exposed to nanoparticles for 5–13 months in their common workplace. All were admitted to the hospital with shortness of breath and pleural effusions, or excessive fluids surrounding the lungs, inhibiting breathing. None of the seven had ever smoked and none were in any special risk group. Doctors carefully tested for every possibility and confirmed that the lung problems had a common origin—regular inhalation of nanoparticles in their factory. They had been exposed to Polyacrylat nanoparticles.

The tests confirmed the nanoparticles had set off a “super-meltdown” reaction in the patients. Despite all heroic efforts of doctors, two of the seven died from the lung complications.

So this has now set off a debate as to whether the ill effects of breathing in asbestos nanoparticles is evidence enough to conclude that different nanoparticles in vaccines will result in the same effect.

Myself and others pointed out that the mode of delivery is different, the nanoparticles are different why should we expect there to be "super meltdowns" from getting the vaccine?

To this we are greeted with the response that "nanoparticles" are "proven" to damage cells and so we should expect the same with the vaccine.

Anyone here with the experience or science necessary to rebutt this assertion?

I do.
I have published multiple papers on the use of polymeric nanoparticles for drug delivery.


I would need to see what nanoparticles are being used to give a more useful assessment, but the error I see is that someone is overgeneralizing an extremely broad category of materials, nanoparticles, and coming to a rash conclusion.

To my mind, it is almost like saying "water is nontoxic, therefore all liquids are nontoxic".

Briefly,
1.) chemical composition, shape and surface chemistry of the nanoparticle is all important when determining it's toxicity.
2.) It's been known for many years that inorganic nanoparticles (cobalt, nickel..) can cause oxidative stress and chronic inflammatory reactions. These are what are typically studied in inhalation research.
3.) some nanoparticles (e.g., polymeric, solid lipid nanoparticles, micellular, other metal nanoparticles) are much more well tolerated and do not cause their own injury.
4.) Cells produce nanoparticles as a means of communication and intracellular trafficking.
5.) Vaccine adjuvants are most likely the solid lipid or polymeric variety, and therefore fall into the non-toxic category.
6.) The comparison with asbestos (Whose inflammatory response results from it's high aspect ratio) is completely inappropriate.

[Praktik]

thanks joobz!

[Cuddles]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

Their illogic is something like:

• Container containing a ton of nanoparticles falls on man and kills him.
• So nanoparticles can kill.
• Vaccines contain nanoparticles.
• Thus vaccines can kill!

Hence the age old riddle - Which weighs more, a ton of vaccine or a ton of nanoparticles?

[Madalch]

If you inhale a lungful of water, you can drown.

Vaccines contain water.

Therefore, vaccines will make you drown.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Cuddles

Hence the age old riddle - Which weighs more, a ton of vaccine or a ton of nanoparticles?

Which weighs more, an ounce of lead or an ounce of gold?

Gold.

Gold is measured in troy ounces, not the more common avoirdupois ounce.

[Dr. Trintignant]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Which weighs more, an ounce of lead or an ounce of gold?

Gold.

Gold is measured in troy ounces, not the more common avoirdupois ounce.

Gold is also more dense than lead, and hence less buoyant in an atmosphere.

- Dr. Trintignant

[-=Vagrant=-]

This antivax meme is spreading rapidly. I was appalled when I saw how many blogs and NWO-newsfeeds are repeating this, and other, scare stories on how the H1N1 vaccine will kill you and your loved ones. With in hours newspaper comments and various forums get spammed with the stories.

[INRM]

The issue regarding nano-particles is more of an ethical issue -- and a serious one -- than anything else. For example, I remember hearing about a scientific study in which they used nanoparticles to stimulate brain-cells. I don't know what the nature of the experiment is, but theoretically someone could use such a system as a means for mind-control (granted, it is an extreme example, but a malicious government, one with a disregard for human rights, which include, among many others, China and Russia).

And ultimately the answer comes down to what kind of nanoparticles are incorporated into vaccines. Of course since we cannot see what kind of nanoparticles are in a vaccine, the question comes down to regulations placing restrictions regarding the use of nanoparticles (such as what kinds you can and cannot use), including a system of penalties and punishments for violating the rules, in vaccines.


INRM

[Cuddles]

Originally Posted by INRM

The issue regarding nano-particles is more of an ethical issue -- and a serious one -- than anything else.

No it isn't.

Quote:

For example, I remember hearing about a scientific study in which they used nanoparticles to stimulate brain-cells. I don't know what the nature of the experiment is, but theoretically someone could use such a system as a means for mind-control (granted, it is an extreme example, but a malicious government, one with a disregard for human rights, which include, among many others, China and Russia).

And ultimately the answer comes down to what kind of nanoparticles are incorporated into vaccines. Of course since we cannot see what kind of nanoparticles are in a vaccine, the question comes down to regulations placing restrictions regarding the use of nanoparticles (such as what kinds you can and cannot use), including a system of penalties and punishments for violating the rules, in vaccines.

Why do you think any of that has anything to do with nanoparticles? Surely exactly the same concerns (preferably without the mindless paranoia) should be raised for any technology used to stimulate the brain or injected into your body? The fact that the prefix "nano" is used does not magically turn everything into scary stuff that's going to eat our babies.

[INRM]

Cuddles,

Quote:

No it isn't.

Yes, it is. The more this sort of stuff comes into the main-stream and the more things that can be done with nano-particles, there are ethical issues.

These particles are so small we can't see them, and some can have significant effects on the human body.

Quote:

Why do you think any of that has anything to do with nanoparticles?

Because the experiment in which brain-cells were stimulated with nanoparticles involved the use of... nanoparticles.

Quote:

Surely exactly the same concerns (preferably without the mindless paranoia) should be raised for any technology used to stimulate the brain or injected into your body?

Depends on how it stimulates the brain, and depends on what is being injected into your body.

Quote:

The fact that the prefix "nano" is used does not magically turn everything into scary stuff that's going to eat our babies.

I didn't say that, did I?


INRM

[Capsid]

Viruses are nanoparticles too, some are good some are bad. It's the biological and chemical nature of the particles that is important not that they have a small size.

[Skeptic Ginger]

So the claim is, the vaccine manufacturers are putting secret nano particles in their vaccines?


That's some conspiracy there. Wouldn't it make more sense for them to research their actual vaccine adjuvants?

[INRM]

Skeptigirl,

Quote:

So the claim is, the vaccine manufacturers are putting secret nano particles in their vaccines?

I didn't say they are doing this now. I'm saying that unchecked use of nanotechnology can have serious repercussions and that I think more regulation is needed in this particular area.



INRM

[Skeptic Ginger]

I still don't get how you've tied nano particles specifically to vaccines. And then you go on fearing? the particles would evade detection.

What are you talking about? The FDA inspects drugs throughout their manufacturing process. If the plant has deficiencies the drugs don't get approval even if the end product appears OK.

What would be the purpose of adding secret nanoparticles?

[I less than three logic]

Originally Posted by Capsid

Vaccines aren't inhaled anyway.

Actually some are inhaled now. The brand name of the nasal spray flu vaccine is FluMist. Here is a New York Times article talking about the inhaled version of the H1N1 flu vaccine.

[joobz]

Originally Posted by INRM

I didn't say they are doing this now. I'm saying that unchecked use of nanotechnology can have serious repercussions and that I think more regulation is needed in this particular area.

Obviously, as you believe more regulation is needed, you must be well versed in the current FDA regulations which define the use of nanoparticles in injectable formulations.

I am interested, could you please educate us regarding:
1.) What the current regulations define and how controls are placed to ensure these current regulations are met?
2.) Which part of these regulations you find deficient.
3.) What regulations would you add to ensure improved product safety.

Further, as you seem to be very concerned regarding the effects of nanoparticles on neuronal cells, could you point to the literature which have demonstrated significant brain accumulation of nanoparticles from i.v. and/or subcutaneous injection?

And Finally, as you have made it clear that we can't see nanoparticles, could you explain how we are able to obtain information regarding thier size, shape, and organ and subcellular distributions, which are ALL quite common in the medical nanoparticle literature. Which, of course, I assume you are also quite well informed of, giving your clear statements regarding thier currently limited regulated use.

[joobz]

I simply wanted to bump this thread to see if INRM would be willing to answer my questions. I would hate to think his claims of needing more regulation were simply a dishonest guise of reasonableness meant to hide an anti-science mentality.

[Cuddles]

Originally Posted by INRM

Yes, it is. The more this sort of stuff comes into the main-stream and the more things that can be done with nano-particles, there are ethical issues.

But again, you're focussing on the use of the word "nano", but none of the issues are anything to do with that. Any ethical issues that arise will always be specific to each individual use.

Quote:

These particles are so small we can't see them, and some can have significant effects on the human body.

Just like antibiotics, viruses, vitamins, sugar, very small rocks and an endless list of other things.

Quote:

Because the experiment in which brain-cells were stimulated with nanoparticles involved the use of... nanoparticles.

And would you be making the same complaints if brain cells were stimulated with something else? Given that brain cells have been stimulated using other methods for decades now and I haven't heard you complain, I assume not. Yet the ethical issues are completely independent of the methods used. If you complained about the ethical issues involved in stimulating brain cells, you wouldn't get much complaint, other than about the paranoid conclusions you make about what is possible and what will eventually be done. Instead, you focus on the fact that some of the particles are on the scale of nanometres, which is completely irrelevant.

Quote:

Depends on how it stimulates the brain, and depends on what is being injected into your body.

Exactly. "Nanoparticles" is not a description of either, so your paranoia is severely misplaced. If you chose to instead focus on what they are actually doing, or what is actually being injected, we would not be having this argument. But since you hear the term "nano" and immediately assume everything bad that is possible and many that aren't, you're going to be criticised.

Quote:

I didn't say that, did I?

Yes, pretty much. As you do every time.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

:

• Container containing a ton of nanoparticles falls on man and kills him.
• So nanoparticles can kill.
• Vaccines contain nanoparticles.
• Thus vaccines can kill!

Hell just drop 50 tons of vaccine on someone.

[Madalch]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

Hell just drop 50 tons of vaccine on someone.

Ya drop fifty tones, whaddya get? Another day older and incredibly flat.

[Myriad]

"Water in vaccines - analogous to being drowned in a tsunami?"

"Dissolved atmospheric gases in vaccines - analogous to being executed in a gas chamber?"

"Saline in vaccines - analogous to having rock salt rubbed into a stab wound?"

"Molecular thermal energy in vaccines - analogous to immersion in a lake of molten sulfur and brimstone?"

And remember folks, don't take dietary iron supplements or even eat iron-rich foods. They contain millions of tiny pieces of guillotine blade material!

Respectfully,
Myriad

[Capsid]

Originally Posted by I less than three logic

Actually some are inhaled now. The brand name of the nasal spray flu vaccine is FluMist. Here is a New York Times article talking about the inhaled version of the H1N1 flu vaccine.

I consider inhalation to result in the substance reaching the lungs. FluMist is a spray applied to the nasal mucosa and not breathed in as asthma inhalers are. IMO.

[joobz]

Originally Posted by Capsid

I consider inhalation to result in the substance reaching the lungs. FluMist is a spray applied to the nasal mucosa and not breathed in as asthma inhalers are. IMO.

And that's how pharmaceutical scientists think of it too.

[Miss_Kitt]

um.....is it okay to just say, "Oy!" in response to INRM?

Does he even get that 'nanoparticles' isn't a substance, it's a size? His argument is akin to saying, "Drugs? They've used drugs for mind control in China...we can't use drugs to treat children!"

Shaking my head, MK

[Cuddles]

Originally Posted by Miss_Kitt

um.....is it okay to just say, "Oy!" in response to INRM?

Does he even get that 'nanoparticles' isn't a substance, it's a size? His argument is akin to saying, "Drugs? They've used drugs for mind control in China...we can't use drugs to treat children!"

Shaking my head, MK

Yeah, that's what I was trying to explain. Based on past experience, I don't hold out much hope of getting him to understand.

Originally Posted by Myriad

And remember folks, don't take dietary iron supplements or even eat iron-rich foods. They contain millions of tiny pieces of guillotine blade material!

In all fairness, I'm not aware of a single person dying due to ingesting a guillotine blade.

[Deranged]

Originally Posted by Praktik

The following article was posted on another board I frequent:

Vaccines which have been approved by the responsible government authorities for vaccination against the alleged H1N1 Influenza A Swine Flu have been found to contain nano particles. Vaccine makers have been experimenting with nanoparticles as a way to “turbo charge” vaccines for several years. Now it has come out that the vaccines approved for use in Germany and other European countries contain nanoparticles in a form that reportedly attacks healthy cells and can be deadly.

...

The September 2009 issue of the respected European Respiratory Journal, made public on 19 August, and available since 21 August online, contains a peer-reviewed article with the title, “Exposure to nanoparticles is related to pleural effusion, pulmonary fibrosis and granuloma.”

The article describes tests carried out in 2008 at the elite Beijing Chaoyang Hospital on seven young women. All seven, ages 18-47 had been exposed to nanoparticles for 5–13 months in their common workplace. All were admitted to the hospital with shortness of breath and pleural effusions, or excessive fluids surrounding the lungs, inhibiting breathing. None of the seven had ever smoked and none were in any special risk group. Doctors carefully tested for every possibility and confirmed that the lung problems had a common origin—regular inhalation of nanoparticles in their factory. They had been exposed to Polyacrylat nanoparticles.

The tests confirmed the nanoparticles had set off a “super-meltdown” reaction in the patients. Despite all heroic efforts of doctors, two of the seven died from the lung complications.

So this has now set off a debate as to whether the ill effects of breathing in asbestos nanoparticles is evidence enough to conclude that different nanoparticles in vaccines will result in the same effect.

Myself and others pointed out that the mode of delivery is different, the nanoparticles are different why should we expect there to be "super meltdowns" from getting the vaccine?

To this we are greeted with the response that "nanoparticles" are "proven" to damage cells and so we should expect the same with the vaccine.

Anyone here with the experience or science necessary to rebutt this assertion?

The vaccines were tested for about 2 days, no one died so they're already giving them free at Walgreen's, allegedly in an attempt by some savvy politicians to reduce the homeless population.

[Deranged]

Just say NO. Unless you like the idea of dead pig guts being injected into your bloodstream.
If you're a bargain hunter with a deathwish, go to Walgreen's and they'll jab you for free if you're homeless.

[joobz]

Judging by your user name, I see you believe in truth in advertising.

[Praktik]

Originally Posted by Cuddles

But again, you're focussing on the use of the word "nano", but none of the issues are anything to do with that. Any ethical issues that arise will always be specific to each individual use.

I think the nano fixation may stem from the commonly held belief in truther circles that "nano-thermite" brought down the towers.

WE have discussed the Neils Harrit paper on this elsewhere on the boards, the one that was published in a vanity journal.

The author of the nanoparticles piece is at a later stage of penetration down the rabbit hole, where all conspiracies meet in a singularity. We're seeing some bleedover as the lines from the collection of conspiracies come closer to each other at the point of intersection.

[Praktik]

Originally Posted by Deranged

Just say NO. Unless you like the idea of dead pig guts being injected into your bloodstream.

Do you eat hot dogs?

[Cuddles]

Originally Posted by Deranged

Unless you like the idea of dead pig guts being injected into your bloodstream.

Actually, that would be so much more convenient than having to cook and eat them. Where do I sign up? If they have some intravenous beer to go with their intravenous sausages I may never leave.

[joobz]

I guess there is no answer from INRM? Pity. So it seems that his "more regulation" demand was nothing more than a meaningless, fear filled anti-science request that had no foundation in reality.

[INRM]

Joobz,

Quote:

Obviously, as you believe more regulation is needed, you must be well versed in the current FDA regulations which define the use of nanoparticles in injectable formulations.

Well, honestly I am not aware of the current FDA regulations which define the use of nanoparticles. But honestly, the use of nanoparticles in vaccines does make me wonder what regulations are in place.

Quote:

Further, as you seem to be very concerned regarding the effects of nanoparticles on neuronal cells, could you point to the literature which have demonstrated significant brain accumulation of nanoparticles from i.v. and/or subcutaneous injection?

It was actually an article which I'm pretty sure I responded to on *this* forum.

Quote:

I simply wanted to bump this thread to see if INRM would be willing to answer my questions.

I honestly forgot about this post. I'm guessing I didn't have an answer, so I didn't reply, then time passed and I simply forgot. I was looking for an older post and I came up on this post. This post is on the third page (though, when I respond it will be back on the first page)

Quote:

I would hate to think his claims of needing more regulation were simply a dishonest guise of reasonableness meant to hide an anti-science mentality.

So because I express worries regarding nanoparticle use in vaccines, that makes me opposed to all of science? I would think it just makes me worried about the types of nanoparticles used in the vaccine. There is a lot of advance in the field of nanoparticles and they're finding more and more things that can be done with them. I'm just worried about safety and the potential for misuse.

You cannot tell me that there is not some cause for concern regarding safety and potential for misuse regarding something that can do a variety of incredible things (depending on the nanoparticle) that most substances cannot do, in some cases cannot removed from the body once introduced, and because of it's extreme size is for most purposes invisible.


Cuddles,

Quote:

But again, you're focussing on the use of the word "nano", but none of the issues are anything to do with that. Any ethical issues that arise will always be specific to each individual use.

Well, there is a lot of advance in the field of nanoparticles, and they're finding more and more things they can do with them. Things that cannot be done with most typical substances. The fact that these nanoparticles can do a variety of incredible things that most substances can't do, is for most purposes invisible because of their extremely small size, cannot be removed from the body once injected into it, there is some cause for concern. Especially when you consider that nanotech is a relatively new field, it's potential for both extremely good and extremely bad things, combined with the fact that it's effects on the human body does not appear to be sufficently well-known...

Quote:

Just like antibiotics, viruses, vitamins, sugar, very small rocks and an endless list of other things.

I suppose those are all good points. However as I said, the capabilities of nanotechnology are extreme, are capable of doing a number of things that most substances can't, some very good, some very bad, and it's almost impossible if not impossible to remove them from the human body once inserted.

Quote:

And would you be making the same complaints if brain cells were stimulated with something else? Given that brain cells have been stimulated using other methods for decades now and I haven't heard you complain, I assume not.

Depends on how they were stimulated.

However as I said, if you have a bunch of nanoparticles stimulating the brain in a manner that is controlled (for good, for bad, for horrendous), that is very serious and probably within the realm of nanotechnology. The fact that unlike most devices which stimulate the brain, these things are so small as to be invisible and could be easily given to a person in a surreptitious manner, without them knowing it, and the fact that these things might be impossible to remove from the person after they've been injected in makes it a bigger concern than most devices which stimulate the brain; a far greater concern.

Quote:

Yet the ethical issues are completely independent of the methods used. If you complained about the ethical issues involved in stimulating brain cells, you wouldn't get much complaint, other than about the paranoid conclusions you make about what is possible and what will eventually be done.

I would raise ethical issues depending on how one was stimulating a person's brain. However, as I stated above, there are serious ethical concerns considering nanotech being used in this role as the potential for it to be used surreptitiously, without consent, and being virtually impossible to remove once inserted.


INRM

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by INRM

...Well, honestly I am not aware of the current FDA regulations which define the use of nanoparticles. But honestly, the use of nanoparticles in vaccines does make me wonder what regulations are in place.

Are you afraid of bogeymen too?

[Eos of the Eons]

nanoparticles now??? What next!