My last post on Gardasil has garnered quite a bit of interest so I thought I would follow it up with a look at some of the other claims about this vaccine that are also geared towards warning women away from it. The focus of this entry is, as the title implies, the ingredients of the vaccine and their alleged toxicity. Now I would first like to make clear that I am not trying to argue that these compounds are not at all toxic, that would be an untenable position almost anything is toxic at the right (or wrong) dose. This brings up the heart of the issue though, the dose is key here, the claims by detractors of the vaccine imply that the amounts of the chemicals in the vaccine are above the toxic threshold. I, along with the medical community so I feel I’m in good company, consider this to be an incorrect conclusion.
I’d also like to mention that the backlash against Gardasil is not a grass roots uprising, railing against a single toxic vaccine. It is simply an outgrowth of a larger anti-vaccine movement.
The following claims are not parodies they are actual claims made by anti-vaccinationists, if any have been misrepresented then that is my error. In addition not all of the claims are spurious (some are, see yeast protein) but I have found no evidence that such hysteria is warranted.
The Ingredient:
amorphous aluminum hydroxyphosphate sulfate
Dose per shot:
225 μg
The Facts:
Used as an adjuvant this ingredient actually makes the vaccine more potent by enhancing the body’s immune response to the vaccine. As such it has an 80 year track record of safety in vaccines. Also, dietary sources of aluminium are not insignificant, estimated at 1.6-13 mg per day or 7-60 times that in the vaccine, even though bioavailability of chemicals is affected by the method of introduction to the body (oral vs injection) it’s hard to see how this miniscule amount would make any difference.
The Claim:
Animal and human studies show aluminum can cause nerve cell death;
Vaccine aluminum adjuvants can allow aluminum to enter the brain;
Causes inflammation at the injection site leading to chronic joint, muscle pain and fatigue.
The Ingredient:
yeast protein
The Facts:
The HPV antigen proteins in the vaccine are made by engineering yeast to express them, during purification not all of the yeast cell proteins can be removed so residual yeast protein is left in the final vaccine product.
The vaccine does not contain live virus and viruses do not eat, so feel free to laugh at the claim made below.
The Claim:
Creates synthetic free glutamic acid (MSG) in the processing;
Feeds the live virus.
The Ingredient:
sodium chloride
Dose per shot:
9.56 mg
The Facts:
Not much to say, it’s salt, not likely to kill you quickly.
The Claim:
Ok, they don’t make any claims for this one, but given that the LD50 for Sodium Chloride is 3 g/kg in humans whereas for borate (below) it is 5.3 g/kg (ie more required to have toxic effect), they might have been better off to do so.
The Ingredient:
L-histidine
Dose per shot:
0.78 mg
The Facts:
Used in the vaccine as a buffer. As an amino acid we consume histidine in our food and also make it in our bodies for use in our own proteins. It is also an essential amino acid in children, in other words they cannot make it on their own and it must be present in their diet. The World Health Organisation estimated the daily adult requirement for histadine to be 8-12 mg.
The Claim:
Precursor to allergic reactions;
It stimulates the inflammatory response of skin and mucous membranes;
Responsible for forming metal bearing enzymes (such as the toxic metal storage protein metallothionein);
Metals such as zinc, copper, and nickel are transported by binding to L-histidine and the binding is essential for excretion of excess heavy metals.
The Ingredient:
polysorbate 80
Dose per shot:
50 μg
The Facts:
This is a surfactant and is used to ensure that the vaccine ingredients are evenly distributed in solution. This compound does have deleterious effects on rats but at doses many times greater than in the vaccine in a body up to several hundred times smaller than a human.
The Claim:
Injected into prepubescent rats caused a rapid growth of reproductive organs, but growth was abnormal and the rats were sterile;
When used intravenously with vitamins it has been known to cause anaphylactic shock. Carcinogenic, mutagenic.
The Ingredient:
sodium borate
Dose per shot:
35 μg
The Facts:
Used to balance the pH. As mentioned above this ingredient is less toxic than table salt, the 35 μg in the vaccine if given to a 50kg individual equals a 0.7 μg/kg dose, this isn’t even close to a dose high enough to cause even a minor problem.
The Claim:
This is the main ingredient in Boric Acid;
Powdered Boric Acid is often used to kill cockroaches;
Dangerous poison;
Symptoms of Sodium Borate poisoning are very similar to many of the side effects being reported with the Gardasil vaccine.
________________________________________________________________
Putting this list together I found many sites making substantially similar claims for the ingredients, I finally picked this one as representative so you can go and observe the claims in their natural habitat as it were.
I also found the following sites helpful for follow-up information, in no particular order:
http://www.merck.com/product/usa/pi_circulars/g/gardasil/gardasil_ppi.pdf
http://sci.waikato.ac.nz/bioblog/2009/04/lets-clarify-something-here.shtml
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2008/08/woo_and_antivaccinationism_in_mainstream.php
It’s possible that I will write a follow-up to this follow-up covering the economic attack on Gardasil that has been made. This aspect is quite a bit outside my expertise so might be a long time coming, still it’s an interesting perspective.
Scepticon 
Sure there are some odd claims out there against Gardasil, but I think you’re out of line in assuming that all people nevous about it are simply totally anti-vaccine. The older and uglier I get, the more I realize that science is imperfect and we flat out don’t know a lot of things – for instance, do twenty vaccines in a child’s early years have an effect that three or four wouldn’t? Particularly in a child who is for some reason more vulnerable than another?
I’m a parent who has got all but one of the recommended vaccines for my kids and hasn’t seen any major problems. In fact, I’ve snorted at friends who “didn’t do” vaccinations.
When Gardasil came out, however, I decided to look into it a little more closely because it was so new. After researching I would have to say that it isn’t worthwhile. It may be dangerous, it may be harmful for just a few people and beneficial for everyone else; I don’t honestly care. It’s hoped-for benefits just don’t make it worth the risk for our particular family. Sorry, does that make a paranoid conspiracy theorist?
I didn’t intend to to state categorically that everyone who has questions about Gardasil is anti-vaccinationist and I’m sorry if it sounds like I did. However I do think that the majority who are all-out against the vaccine are doing it from a already held anti-vaccination mindset. I admit that there are those who simply don’t see the benefits of the vaccine on it’s own merits though I suspect that those who are in this camp are the minority of voices.
I have seen no credible evidence that the vaccine is particularly harmful but I mention in my previous post that ultimately this is an individual choice. As this situation does not constitute a health threat for the wider community I also do not think it is necessary to make the vaccine compulsory as others vaccines are, that said, from an evidential standpoint of safety and efficacy I would not have concerns if this was to become the case either.
Thank you for visiting and your comment, all view points are welcome.
Nicely said. However, do also remember that from what I’ve read, although there are definitely some rather unpleasant ambulance-chasing lawyers and book promoters out there, many who are firmly in the anti-vaccine camp are there because they have kids who have been damaged – or rather, suspected to have been damaged – by vaccines. Which is about as grass-roots as you can get, and you really can’t blame them.
As I said, this hasn’t been our experience at all and I never really thought about it one way or another until the chicken pox vaccine turned up and the doctor said, “personally, I wouldn’t bother.” Gardasil, we both decided was too new – and he’s relatively conventional.
I’d disagree that HPV isn’t a health threat for the community. It’s certainly taking things in a new direction when you cite a (mostly, though not always) sexually transmitted disease as a public health risk, but given that around 80 percent of people will have HPV in their lifetime, and that it is apparently getting somewhat more aggressive, yeah, I think it’s a risk we all have to think about. Even if lifestyle choices such as smoking and promiscuity DO greatly exacerbate risk, the sheer scale of it is impressive.
If Gardasil were a better vaccine – more comprehensive, less likely to cause replacement diseases, less likely to need boosters etc. – I’d be more inclined to look at it. As it is, and given some issues that could very plausibly be adverse events due to Gardasil, we’ll look at the other options.
Incidentally, there’s a video about adjuvants at http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8119523476709184666&hl=en – I was half-listening to it while I struggled with some tax documents that had to get out today. No clue if it’s any good or not; it sounded quite interesting and I’ll definitely try to watch when I can focus. I’d be interested to know what you think.
I try to keep my opinions reasonable so thanks. When I said this wasn’t a health risk I meant that while the number of people who contract the infection is large as you say, the complications arising from that infection is still quite small. Compared to a disease like measles where the death rate might be as high as 1% of those who contract the disease HPV has very low risk associated with it.
As far as I can tell the Gardasil vaccine is quite comprehensive, covering the four strains that are implicated in 70% of HPV cancers and is quite safe, there have not yet been any serious side effects positively linked to the vaccine. Though perhaps I am misinformed, I am unaware of these replacement diseases you mention do you have literature for that? As far as I know we do not yet know if the vaccine requires boosters or not (though I’d say the likelihood is high)the research is not yet in on the long term aspects.
About the video, that’s the same one that another commenter has posted (see here). It’s an hour long and I can’t bring myself to watch it based on the fact that the presenter is one who works with an autism foundation that clings to the idea that vaccines cause autism. That’s another issue that’s highly politically charged but the science just doesn’t support it.
Just had a look at the replacement disease issue, the long term studies will be looking at this question also so the likelihood is not yet known.
I have to laugh – you’re not concerned about HPV (v small risk) but wouldn’t hesitate to get the vaccine anyway (and it WILL eventually be offered to you). Me, I DO worry about HPV, but wouldn’t dream of getting the vaccine – and I don’t even have any bizarre remedies to sell, either.
Yes, I certainly appreciate that the vast majority of HPV cases resolve themselves and the risk of cervical cancer, given appropriate screenings on a yearly basis, is tiny. (Which makes me wonder why they developed the vaccine…oh yes…a minimum of $360 per kid.)
However, HPV seems to be already a little more aggressive in young women. Possibly as a result of behavior, but I can’t see how today’s youth could be that much more promiscuous than we were in the glorious 70s. It’s definitely something I have discussed with my teenager, along with cautions to keep her immune system healthy.
No, we don’t know about the need for boosters yet, which is one of the things that concerns me as it seems a likely outcome (protection rates already falling in some 4 year studies). My daughter was 9 when I was told to get her the shot, which would have meant another round at 15, and so on every 5 years or so until – what, into her 40s, 50s, 60s,70s? If you look at the VAERS data, the escalation of symptoms with each shot for those who appear (and I am well aware of the pitfalls of VAERS) to have had a bad reaction is alarming.
As for replacement diseases, which occur when only a vaccine covers only a few strains of a pathogen, 16 (the biggest cause of cc) was already losing ground to a different strain even before GArdasil. Prevnar’s problems are a preview of what can happen.
Shame on you for not watching that video, based on your reasoning! And you a scientist?
OK, I still haven’t watched it properly either, but I did hear the beginning when he said, ‘I’m not anti-vaccine, I’m pro-safety’ – as we should ALL be. I don’t have a clue whether the info he presents has any validity, but it is highly suspect to simply write someone off and refuse to listen to or consider what they are going to say just because you think you’re going to disagree with them. Now THAT is unscientific.
I will admit to a small amount of guilt about not watching the video, however I did listen up to the point where he said he is not anti-vaccine but pro safe vaccine. It sounds reasonable doesn’t it? Who could possibly be against safer vaccines? I’m not. Unfortunately the “Safer Vaccine” talking point, when you really get into it is more of a strategy for casting doubt on the vaccination philosophy than it is for actually trying to improve vaccine safety.
The truth is vaccines are getting safer all the time and don’t need anyone calling out for it, it’s part of science’s recursive nature. Also they are already quite safe, safety (unintuitively) is a relative thing. When considering safety all aspect must be weighed, in my original post on Gardasil I showed that even if we take the VAERS data at face value the vaccine was still safer than allowing the unrestricted transmission if the virus (replacement diseases not withstanding). Thus the Gardasil vaccine is “safe”, does this mean that it could not be made safer? No, however the the “Safe Vaccine” proponents demand an unreasonable and essentially unattainable level of safety. All medical interventions (that work) carry some associated risk, the trick is weighing that risk against letting the disease run it’s course, sometimes the decision is easy sometimes it’s difficult. I happen to think in this case it’s easy but obviously that is a value based judgment call and I do not expect to win any arguments with that stance.
Many of the arguments for safer vaccines, or if you are aware of the “Green our Vaccines” slogan, eventually boil down to attacking the minute doses of the ingredients in the vaccines that I have attempted to show above are far below any reasonable expectation of toxicity. By neglecting the importance of dose on the effects of substances introduced into the body they are removing themselves from the real science and creating panic in the public sphere where none should exist.
In the case of my views on the autism foundation, given that they still adhere to the notion of vaccines influencing the rate of autism incidence they show that they are committed to a particular perspective rather than the inquiry itself. This does not mean that they have nothing of value to contribute to the discussion but it does lower the chances and again they push themselves into the fringe where anything legitimate they have to say is drowned out by the untenable position they have rallied themselves behind.
An excellent resource on all of these points is the Science Based Medicine blog. It is contributed to by over 7 medical doctors and covers the entire vaccine debacle in great detail. In particular you might look at these two posts: Here and Here. The first is about safer vaccines and the second the attacks on vaccine ingredients. I appreciate you are doing your best to find the facts and form reasonable conclusions and I wish more people would do so. It is unfortunate that there is so much misinformation out there that it’s hard to know what to trust. It’s obvious you’re able to spot the “kooky claims” so you’re off to a good start.
I don’t have a lot to say about autism and vaccines simply because I have never looked at it and don’t know much about it. My concerns are more about vaccines acting as a trigger for an autoimmune disease.
Vaccines, I think undeniably, can act as a trigger–for GBS, for arthritis, etc. Even Merck’s original testing showed a slightly increased incidence of arthritis in vaccinated children as opposed to the placebo group (who received the same adjuvants as far as I know.) In the case of Jenny Tetlock, her doctors agreed that it was ‘plausible’ that the vaccination could have caused her illness and eventual death. I’d like to see scientists seriously considering the possibilities and connections from the perspective of “what if?” not “those anti-vaccine dolts!”
Every day we discover a little bit more about the world. Just because we don’t know something yet, that doesn’t mean we’re not going to. And I think when it comes to government-advocated, and in some cases mandated, vaccination programs, we can never look too hard for potential harm–even if it is “statistically insignificant.”
I don’t know whether you have children, but when it’s your child there’s no such thing as statistically insignificant.
I do not yet have children, however, I stand by my statements regarding risk and relative safety. If any risk is unacceptable we become unable to live our lives, the risk of developing any sort of adverse reaction to a vaccine is much less than being in an automobile accident or other unfortunate situation.
I appreciate your attempt to keep your children safe and respect your right to choose how to best achieve that goal. No action is without risk, but most of the time we judge that risk to be worth the outcome, I feel the same about established medical interventions, including vaccines.
I heard an advertisement on the radio a few moths back that stated “you can not put a price on your family’s safety”. This may be true in principle but we do it in practice every day or we would all be mortgaged for the next 200 years living in maximum security fortresses and driving tanks. Obviously this is slightly facetious but illustrative of the realities of living.
On the issue of science not knowing something yet, you are quite correct. We build upon previous knowledge and in the case of vaccines that previous knowledge indicates that they are generally quite safe. This does not preclude taking every action to make them safer as I also mentioned above but it also does not mean we have insufficient information on which to base current decisions.
Sure, my kids take risks every day. They do a lot of fairly extreme outdoor sports that, statistically-speaking, are infinitely more likely to kill or injure them. But I guess that for us the rewards far outweigh the risks.
When I look at Gardasil – which by no means will protect them 100% from the cervical cancer that they have a tiny chance of getting anyway, and which could do them harm – and say, heck, it ain’t worth it. I really don’t have any ambivalence about saying no to Gardasil. particularly when I see what Merck has been up to with phony medical journals. Good God. Talk about throwing science into disrepute.
My only concern is for scientists (honest scientists) to take look really hard at this particular vaccine, which most certainly is more strongly associated with convulsions, paralysis, epilepsy and immune disorders, and figure out what’s going on for the few it affects.
Then I think we simply have to agree to disagree. If you aren’t tired of the subject by now you might want to check out my latest post comparing the VAERS data for Gardasil against other vaccines, opponents make out that there is severe risk for Gardasil but this doesn’t seem to be borne out even by their go-to resource.
Thanks for your input and trying to help me understand your position, I must confess I still don’t but nevermind.
Thanks again and I wish you well.
You cite the manufacturers of GArdasil as your source for proving it is safe??? And that’s supposed to be reassuring, how?
My daughter is one of the thousands who suffered adverse effects from this vaccine – and I’m in a country where we don’t have lawyers waiting to jump on any bandwagon like you have in the US – we have nothing to gain by speaking out – but if it saves some other young girl, I will speak out. My daughter went from being junior state champion (3 years in a row) to somebody who can barely get out of bed and who can’t do any exercise now. Life as she knew it is finished. I sure would like to sue somebody for this but more important, I would like a cure for it!
Dee,
First I would like to say that I’m sorry about the situation with your daughter, you have my sympathies.
Second I do not post from the US, I live in New Zealand.
Third, the only place I mention Merk, the producers of Gardasil, is at the end for further information. All of the references I use are from independent sources.
Forth, while I understand that you are hurt and looking for someone to blame please understand that the argument I am making in this post is that all of the ingredients are either safe or there is no reason to think otherwise (testimonials from aggrieved parents such as yourself not withstanding).
Finally, while the evidence I have seen leads me to conclude that Gardasil is safe and effective there is no way for me to prove that it played no role in your daughter’s circumstance.
If you are interested there is also a study of Gardasil’s safety record that was conducted using the VAERS database. This study was also authored independently from Merk.