Why “Small” or “Trace” amounts of Vaccine Ingredients are TOO MUCH

by Steve Halbrook
Fact-checked by someone not bought and paid for by Big Pharma

Sections in this article:

• Introductory comments
• There is no “one size fits all”
• Harmful effects of small amounts of specific vaccine ingredients (undigested proteins, aluminum, nanoparticles, squalene, mercury)
• Accumulative and synergistic effects
• When trace amounts depends on competency
• Concluding thoughts

Part and parcel of pro-vaccine propaganda is that it is safe to inject foreign substances into the bloodstream since they are in “harmlessly small” or “trace” amounts.

But what are “trace amounts”? Maybe no one really knows. According to Dr. Boyd Haley, Professor of Chemistry of the University of Kentucky

I don’t know what level a ‘trace’ is since it is not a term used in science to describe an actual amount.

Boyd Haley Ph.D., Response to 2008 R. Schechter and J. Grether Publication (January 8, 2008). Retrieved May 29, 2024, from http://www.whale.to/vaccine/sch12.html

Based on this, if we say nothing else about this topic, we already have to ask whether “trace amounts” are arbitrarily determined. If there is no standard, there is no way of knowing whether the amount is small enough to be safe (even if that is even possible).

In any case, from the outset, the idea that “trace amounts” of foreign substances injected into the bloodstream are safe is refuted by reality: people die left and right from vaccines. Most obvious is the “SIDS” (Sudden Infant Death Syndrome) epidemic, where countless children continually die shortly after vaccination. There are also the “SADS” (Sudden Adult Death Syndrome) vaccine deaths in adults, which has become much more common with the COVID shot. In the longer-term, there are such things as vaccine-caused cancers.

Moreover, there are countless non-fatal conditions that range from life-inhibiting to debilitating: for example, allergies, asthma, autoimmune disorders, and “autism.”

Added to all of this is common sense science: no amount of foreign substances injected into the bloodstream are safe. Since vaccination bypasses the innate/cellular aspects of the immune system (including the detoxifying function of the stomach), the bloodstream is ill-equipped to combat unfiltered toxins. In the blood, just a “tiny” amount of an ingredients can cause huge problems.

We all instinctively know this; whenever we get cuts, we tend to urgently and carefully sanitize the wound.

And so the “small, harmless” amounts of vaccine ingredients are apparently not so harmless after all: they are deadly. The temporal association between vaccination and harm, as well as the exposure of the bloodstream to toxins unfiltered by the body, proves this.

But even if small amounts of vaccine ingredients are harmless, vaccination is a matter of trust: and how can we trust that we are only getting a small amount, when those at the top of the vaccine pyramid have shown to be liars throughout vaccine history?

But even if they were trustworthy, there is the added challenge of accidental contamination of vaccine ingredients, which can amount to more than a “small, safe amount.” And finally, vaccination includes multiple ingredients – and so when they add up, are they simply “trace amounts”?

But let’s humor the pro-vaxxers by ignoring all of this and refuting the notion of “small, harmless” amounts by addressing this topic more specifically.

Now, what the vaccinators want us to do is to take for granted that a small amount of something necessarily has no ill-effect. But right away we see the special pleading: if a small amount of something necessarily has no ill-effect, then a small of something necessarily has no positive effect as well (as in a beneficial effect from vaccination). You can’t have it both ways.

Moreover, regarding physical things in general, we see that certain things in small quantity can do a lot of damage. For example: mold. It can start out small — but grow and destroy.

When it comes to the body, cancer is an example of how something that starts out small can result in disastrous consequences, including death. In allergies, just a tiny amount – such as in a peanut allergy – can be fatal.

When it comes to poisons, again, only a small amount can be deadly. This should be self-evident, but for an example, consider this from the paper “Deadly pediatric poisons: nine common agents that kill at low doses”:

[I]t commonly is believed that ingestion of one or two tablets by a toddler is a benign act and not expected to produce any consequential toxicity. Select agents have the potential to produce profound toxicity and death, however, despite the ingestion of only one or two tablets or sips.

Joshua B. Michael and Matthew D. Sztajnkrycer, “Deadly pediatric poisons: nine common agents that kill at low doses,” Emerg Med Clin N Am, 22 (2004) 1019–1050, 1042.

Regarding “trace amounts” in particular, Dr. Douglas Kamerow says this about the commonly-used drug fentanyl:

The fentanyls, powerful synthetic painkillers, are thought to be around 25-50 times more powerful than heroin. Even trace amounts can lead to respiratory suppression and death, if not reversed.

Douglas Kamerow, “Hidden” cost of the pandemic: drug overdose deaths, BMJ 2021; 374 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n1929 (Published 04 August 2021)

These basic observations expose the lie of the vaccinators that “small amounts” are necessarily harmless.

But let us address this philosophically as well. It should be self-evident when just a “little bit of something” is forced into something it is not designed to go into (say, vaccine ingredients into the bloodstream), then one would think that it can cause problems. When you pour something down the wrong tube, there is no given “minimal.” We know that just a little bit of a foreign substance can irritate the eye. Inhaling food (even a little) instead of swallowing it can cause problems.

Moreover, a “small, harmless” amount of vaccine ingredients is arbitrary and question-begging. Small compared to what? By what standard is smallness determined? How do we know that any amount is harmless – whether in the short term, or long term?

There is no “one size fits all”

The mere fixation on a fixed “small, harmless” amount of vaccine ingredients is a diversion from the fact that when it comes to humans and health, there is no “one size fits all.” It is not just the quantity of the ingredient – it is the person.

The effects of vaccine ingredients vary in severity based on such factors as a person’s age, weight, sex, nutrition, immune maturity, and immune ability. What if the patient is immunocompromised? What if it is an infant with a still-developing immune system?

Dr. Russell Blaylock, while critiquing so-called vaccinologist experts, writes:

On page 16, Dr. Johnson, an immunologist and pediatrician at the University of Colorado School of Medicine and the National Jewish Center for Immunology and Respiratory Medicine, notes that he would like to see the incorporation of wide margins of safety, that is 3 to 10-fold margins of safety to “account for data uncertainties.” What he means is that there are so many things we do not know about this toxin that we had better use very wide margins of safety. For most substances the FDA uses a 100-fold margin of safety.

The reason for this, which they do not mention, is that in a society of hundreds of millions of people there are groups of people who are much more sensitive to the toxin than others. For instance, the elderly, the chronically ill, the nutritionally deficient, small babies, premature babies, those on certain medications and inborn defects in detoxification, just to name a few. In fact, in this study they excluded premature babies and low birth weight babies from the main study, some of which had the highest mercury levels, because they would be hard to study and because they had the most developmental problems, possibly related to the mercury. …

It is also interesting that Dr. Johnson did admit that the greatest risk was among low birth weight infants and premature infants. Now why would that be if there existed such a large margin of safety with mercury used in vaccines? Could just a few pounds of body weight make such a dramatic difference? In fact, it does but it also means that normal birth weight children, especially those near the low range of normal birth weight, are also in greater danger. It also would mean that children receiving doses of mercury higher than the 75 ug in this study would be at high risk as well because their dose, based on body weight, would be comparable to that of the low birth weight child receiving the lower dose. This is never even considered by these “vaccinologist experts” who decide policy for your children.

Russell Blaylock, The Truth Behind the Vaccine Cover-up (2004, sourced from World Natural Health Organization and Nexus Magazine, Volume 12, Number 1 & 2). Retrieved May 18, 2024, from http://whale.to/a/blaylock.html

Harmful effects of small amounts of specific vaccine ingredients

Now let’s turn to a few examples of vaccine ingredients shown to cause harm even in “small amounts.”

Undigested proteins

The undigested proteins in vaccination (undigested since vaccination bypasses the gut) pose a significant danger – even in “small, harmless amounts.” The connection between undigested proteins and anaphylaxis was made long ago by Nobel Prize winner Charles Richet (1850-1935) (so these murderers making up the vaccine narratives have known for a long time).

In discussing Richet, The Nobel Prize website writes this – despite the pro-vaccine propaganda, the info on anaphylaxis is important:

Our immune system protects us from attacks by microorganisms and poisonous substances. After experiencing an attack, the immune system learns to defend itself against new attacks—we become immune. One of the ways this is used is with vaccinations, when a low dosage of an infectious substance provides immunity. Through studies involving dogs, Charles Richet demonstrated an opposite effect in 1902. After an initial low dose of a substance, a new dose some weeks later could produce a severe reaction. He called the phenomenon anaphylaxis. The result had important implications for our understanding of allergies.

The Nobel Prize, “Charles Richet Facts.” Retrieved April 3, 2024, from https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/medicine/1913/richet/facts

Richet himself said,

[In 1905] Rosenau and Anderson, two American physiologists, demonstrated in a noteworthy piece of work that the phenomenon of anaphylaxis occurs after every injection of serum, even when the injection is minute, for example of 0.00001 ml which is an infinitely small amount but nevertheless sufficient to anaphylactize an animal. They quoted examples of anaphylaxis from all organic liquids: milk, serum, egg, muscle extract. They specified the reaction and clearly showed that of all the subjects, the guinea-pig appeared the most sensitive in anaphylactic terms.

Charles Richet, “Anaphylaxis,” Nobel Lecture, December 11, 1913 (The Nobel Prize). Retrieved April 3, 2024, from https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/medicine/1913/richet/lecture

Antibodies themselves are proteins, and so we should not be surprised to find that “trace amounts” of injected Immunoglobulin A (IgA) can cause anaphylaxis. According to the package insert of VARIZIG,

VARIZIG contains trace amounts of IgA (less than 40 micrograms per milliliter). Patients with known antibodies to IgA have a greater risk of severe hypersensitivity and anaphylactic reactions.

Package insert for VARIZIG® [Varicella Zoster Immune Globulin (Human)] (Distributed by Kamada Inc.). Retrieved May 31, 2024, from https://varizig.com/VARIZIG_PI.pdf

VARIZIG is not technically a vaccine, although it is practically so in terms of injection of foreign substances into the bloodstream. Proteins are common vaccine ingredients, and this example warning about a particular protein is further evidence of the dangers of injected proteins.

What is clear in what we have discussed is that only a very small amount of vaccine proteins can kill you via anaphylaxis. And we a just getting started in giving examples of vaccine ingredients.

Aluminum

Here’s another example: according to a study, small amounts of the vaccine adjuvant aluminum are extremely dangerous because they get your body to lower its guard against this neurotoxin.

An astonishing discovery about aluminum was made recently – less aluminum is worse. Less aluminum is more dangerous. In the study, researchers injected mice with varying amounts of aluminum and looked at three factors: their behavior, markers for immune system activation in the brain, and actual amounts of the metal in their brain. Across the study, mice who received less aluminum per injection fared worse – their behaviors indicated neurological abnormalities and the amount of aluminum that reached their brain was much higher. …

Scientists now understand that your body responds more aggressively with granuloma formations at higher concentrations of aluminum. It makes sense when you think about it – the more dangerous the invader is perceived to be, the more aggressive the attack becomes. If you get a large dose of aluminum, the body works hard to wall it off inside protective granulomas. But the opposite scenario is more concerning – if the injection contains a smaller amount of aluminum, more of it makes it into your lymphatic system and bloodstream because there is less granuloma formation.

Forrest Maready, Crooked: Man-made Disease Explained (Feels Like Fire, 2018), 105, 106.

The study itself states,

[T]he view that Alhydrogel [aluminum adjuvant] neurotoxicity obeys “the dose makes the poison” rule of classical chemical toxicity appears overly simplistic.

Crépeaux G, Eidi H, David MO, Baba-Amer Y, Tzavara E, Giros B, Authier FJ, Exley C, Shaw CA, Cadusseau J, Gherardi RK. Non-linear dose-response of aluminium hydroxide adjuvant particles: Selective low dose neurotoxicity. Toxicology. 2017 Jan 15;375:48-57. doi: 10.1016/j.tox.2016.11.018. Epub 2016 Nov 28. PMID: 27908630. Retrieved June 8, 2024, from https://vaccinepapers.org/wp-content/uploads/Non-linear-dose-response-of-aluminium-hydroxide-adjuvant-particles-Selective-low-dose-neurotoxicity.pdf

And elsewhere,

[S]uch a finding would not be unprecedented in the field of particle toxicology since both cellular uptake and distribution in the body of other types of particles are influenced by the particle size (Buzea et al., 2007; Reddy et al., 2007; Landsiedel et al., 2012), and aggregation rate (Mühlfeld et al., 2008), two parameters that strongly determine particle toxicity (Bell et al., 2014; Leclerc et al.,2012; Nascarella and Calabrese, 2012; Mold et al., 2016).

Ibid.

This should not be taken as lots of aluminum is therefore harmless – being a foreign substance in the blood stream, it is inevitably harmful at any dose. It is just that according to this study, small amounts are especially dangerous.

Nanoparticles

The prior section on aluminum – used in nanoparticle form in vaccines – prompts us to cover nanoparticle ingredients in general as used in vaccines.

Some typical adjuvants employed in vaccine technologies included both inorganic nanoparticles, such as aluminum, calcium phosphate, gold, and silica nanoparticles; and organic nanoparticles, such as chitosan or lipid-based nanoparticles.

Lozano D, Larraga V, Vallet-Regí M, Manzano M. An Overview of the Use of Nanoparticles in Vaccine Development. Nanomaterials (Basel). 2023 Jun 9;13(12):1828. doi: 10.3390/nano13121828. PMID: 37368258; PMCID: PMC10304030. Retrieved June 8, 2024, from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10304030

Lipid-based nanoparticles are included in the Pfizer and Moderna COVID vaccines:

BioNTech/Pfizer’s and Moderna’s mRNA vaccines both use lipid nanoparticles as mRNA carriers.

Nature Reviews Materials, “Let’s talk about lipid nanoparticles,” volume 6, page 99 (February 2021). Retrieved June 10, 2024, from https://www.nature.com/articles/s41578-021-00281-4

We find the following in Biointerphases (2007), warning about the dangerous potential of nanoparticles due to their “minute size”:

Adverse effects of nanoparticles on human health depend on individual factors such as genetics and existing disease, as well as exposure, and nanoparticle chemistry, size, shape, agglomeration state, and electromagnetic properties. Animal and human studies show that inhaled nanoparticles are less efficiently removed than larger particles by the macrophage clearance mechanisms in the lung, causing lung damage, and that nanoparticles can translocate through the circulatory, lymphatic, and nervous systems to many tissues and organs, including the brain. The key to understanding the toxicity of nanoparticles is that their minute size, smaller than cells and cellular organelles, allows them to penetrate these basic biological structures, disrupting their normal function. Examples of toxic effects include tissue inflammation, and altered cellular redox balance toward oxidation, causing abnormal function or cell death. The manipulation of matter at the scale of atoms, “nanotechnology”, is creating many new materials with characteristics not always easily predicted from current knowledge.

Cristina Buzea; Ivan I. Pacheco; Kevin Robbie, “Nanomaterials and nanoparticles: Sources and toxicity,” Biointerphases, Volume 2, Issue 4 (December 2007). Retrieved June 10, 2024, from https://arxiv.org/pdf/0801.3280

Apparently, less is not necessarily safer, contrary to pro-vaccine propaganda: any given ingredient with nanoparticles has serious potential for damaging the body.

Let’s focus more on the lipid nanoparticles of the mRNA vaccines, which endanger every organ and tissue. As noted in the book mRNA Vaccine Toxicity:

Studies on a model mRNA vaccine have shown that the lipid nanoparticles, after intramuscular injection, rapidly enter the bloodstream. They subsequently accumulate preferentially in certain organs including the liver, the spleen, and the ovaries. The factors which influence the accumulation of the vaccine particles in different organs will be discussed later (see Section 5.1). However, at least the blood vessels themselves are exposed to the vaccine in every organ and every tissue, from which we have to expect widespread expression of the foreign antigen.

Michael Palmer, ed., mRNA Vaccine Toxicity (Doctors for COVID Ethics, 2023), 41.

One serious problem, as the book notes, is the formation of blood clots:

Figure 3.1 How mRNA vaccines damage blood vessels and cause clotting. After the vaccine lipid nanoparticles have entered the circulation, they are taken up by the endothelial cells, and the mRNA is released. The antigenic protein (e.g. the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein) is then expressed and transported to the cell surface, where it induces immune attack against the cells by antibodies and complement or by cytotoxic T-cells. Damaged endothelial cells slough off, which permits leakage of vaccine particles into the adjacent tissues. It also exposes the deeper layers of the vessel wall to the blood, which triggers thrombocyte aggregation and blood clotting.

Ibid., 40.

The danger in lipid nanoparticles is not just in and of themselves, but in their potential to efficiently deliver contaminants into the body. And so a December 2023 press release from the state of Florida discusses State Surgeon General Dr. Joseph A. Ladapo’s concerns on this matter:

The Surgeon General outlined concerns regarding nucleic acid contaminants in the approved Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 mRNA vaccines, particularly in the presence of lipid nanoparticle complexes, and Simian Virus 40 (SV40) promoter/enhancer DNA. Lipid nanoparticles are an efficient vehicle for delivery of the mRNA in the COVID-19 vaccines into human cells and may therefore be an equally efficient vehicle for delivering contaminant DNA into human cells. The presence of SV40 promoter/enhancer DNA may also pose a unique and heightened risk of DNA integration into human cells.

floridahealth.gov, “Florida State Surgeon General Calls for Halt in the Use of COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines”(January 3, 2024), 1. Retrieved June 10, 2024, from https://www.floridahealth.gov/_documents/newsroom/press-releases/2024/01/20240103-halt-use-covid19-mrna-vaccines.pr.pdf

Dr Ryan Cole sums up the problems of “harmless” lipid nanoparticles as used in COVID vaccination:

Everybody hears about myocarditis; what they don’t hear is that lipid nanoparticle plus a modified gene sequence is a nuclear bomb. It’s not just that this COVID shot is dangerous for people; it’s this platform of lipid nanoparticle plus gene sequence has never been proven before. And what we are finding is immune suppression, we’re finding an increase in cancer rates because of that immune suppression … we are seeing deaths from this shot at a rate higher than any medical product ever used on humanity before. …

That lipid nanoparticle is like garlic; once you stick it in the arm, it goes anywhere in the body. So it can damage the brain. Lipid nanoparticles were originally designed to take chemotherapy or potentially gene agents to the brain. Where do you not want a toxin replicating itself? In your brain. So neurologic damage seems to be the highest one we don’t hear about in the news. Everybody hears about heart damage.

AndreCorbeil, “‘Dr. ‘Ryan Cole’ ‘Lipid Nanoparticles With Human ‘Gene’s Are A Medical ‘Nuclear’ Health Bomb'” (Rumble, May 23, 2024). Retrieved June 12, 2024, from https://rumble.com/v4wx5jl-dr.-ryan-cole-lipid-nanoparticles-with-human-genes-are-a-medical-nuclear-he.html

But the vaccinators tell us that “small amounts” are perfectly safe. The naonparticles in COVID vaccines, after all, only cause more deaths than any other medical product …

Squalene

Let’s take another vaccine adjuvant: squalene. It, too, in trace amounts causes gigantic health problems. From the testimony of Dr. Robert Garry (January 24, 2002) before the House Subcommittee on National Security, Veterans Affairs, and International Relations:

Research data which we published in February 2000 strongly suggests that anti-squalene antibodies are closely associated with Gulf War illness. Specifically, we found in our study participants that 95% of the Gulf War veterans with Gulf War illness and 100% of the non- deployed veterans with Gulf War illness were positive for the presence of anti-squalene antibodies, while 0% of the healthy deployed veterans were positive. Additional research data which has now been accepted for publication shows, in a limited number of samples tested, that an increased prevalence of anti-squalene antibodies in Anthrax Vaccine Immunization Program (AVIP) personnel correlated with administration of lots of anthrax vaccine subsequently shown by the FDA to contain trace amounts of squalene. Our results strongly suggest that the production of anti-squalene antibodies is linked to symptoms of Gulf War illness and to the presence of squalene found in certain lots of anthrax vaccine.

Though the source of the squalene in the vaccine lots has not, to my knowledge, been identified, squalene is used as an adjuvant in animal vaccines. The use of squalene as an adjuvant in human vaccines has not been approved, and human exposure to squalene in vaccines has been shown by others to cause immunological symptoms similar to those found in Gulf War illness patients.

Dr. Robert Garry Testimony January 24, 2002, The House Subcommittee on National Security, Veterans Affairs, and International Relations (Date submitted: December 21, 2001). Retrieved May 29, 2024, from http://www.whale.to/v/garry.html

Dr. Robert Garry includes with his testimony this reference information:

After the Asa/Garry article was published, we learned that in June 1999, investigators at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) had assayed the Department of Defense’s anthrax vaccine for the presence of squalene.

Using a sensitive gas-liquid chromatography procedure, the FDA had identified squalene in certain lot numbers (FAV 020, 030, 038, 043 and 047) of the vaccine. Although the amounts of squalene found in these lots of the vaccine by the FDA were small (parts per billion), in principle even these small amounts may have been sufficient to induce in some vaccine recipients the immune response that is now being manifested by the presence of anti-squalene antibodies. The published work of other researchers has strongly linked exposure to the anthrax vaccine and other vaccines to the development of Gulf War illnesses.

Moreover, many pathological effects of exposure to squalene-containing vaccine adjuvants are well known to rheumatologists, and a number of these pathologies bear striking similarity to the signs and symptoms displayed by some ill Gulf War era veterans.

Ibid.

Mercury

Regarding mercury in vaccines and their links to autism, Dr. Boyd Haley, Professor of Chemistry of the University of Kentucky, says this:

That autism could be caused in susceptible individuals by very low thimerosal or ethylmercury modified protein exposures due to their genetic susceptibility or other factors (general health, gender). In this scenario the higher thimerosal exposures are not required and the induction of autism is not thimerosal concentration dependent at the old and new thimerosal vaccine levels, but just requires a significant exposure level that is met by the vaccines containing the lower a ‘trace’ amounts of thimerosal and past thimerosal levels in vaccine production processes.

Bottom line, if genetic susceptibility is involved then causation of autism may not increase linearly with increased thimerosal exposure. Causation may only require low thimerosal exposure or exposure to modified proteins. It is possible that the reduction of thimerosal as in the a ‘trace’ was just not enough to produce a safe vaccine.

Boyd Haley Ph.D., Response to 2008 R. Schechter and J. Grether Publication (January 8, 2008). Retrieved May 29, 2024, from http://www.whale.to/vaccine/sch12.html

In 2006, Dr. Boyd Haley has also noted that

there was a paper that came out from the University of California at Davis just recently showing that very low levels of Thimerosal inhibited dendritic cell development that’s important in brain and the immune system development, and this was at amazingly low concentrations.

Boyd E. Haleya and and Teri Small, “Interview with Dr. Boyd E. Haley: Biomarkers supporting mercury toxicity as the major exacerbator of neurological illness, recent evidence via the urinary porphyrin tests” (B.E. Haley and T. Small/Medical Veritas 3, 2006, 921–934), 924. Retrieved June 7, 2024, from http://whale.to/v/haley.pdf

Accumulative and Synergistic Effects

After all that has been said, even if it were true that “trace amounts” of vaccine ingredients were safe in and of themselves (although they obviously are not), there are factors that still make them dangerous: accumulative and synergistic effects.

Accumulative Effects

Severe health problems from poisons and other environmental substances not only occur from single traumatic exposures, but gradual exposure: the accumulative effect. It may only take a “little bit” of a foreign substance to push one over the edge when he already has a buildup of that substance. Regarding allergies, Dr. Maya R. Jerath states,

I like to think of symptoms as filling up a bucket. If your bucket is already ½ full with your cat allergy then adding in the tree pollen allergy in the spring makes it easy for the bucket to overflow and for you to manifest symptoms.

Cited in Julia Sandvoss, Seasonal Allergies Overflow Your Bucket, Washington University School of Medicine St. Louis (May 17, 2023). Retrieved May 16, 2024, from https://internalmedicine.wustl.edu/seasonal-allergies-overflow-your-bucket

This can easily apply to vaccines. As we previously discussed, allergic reactions to vaccines can cause severe – even deadly — problems, and one can see how multiple vaccines can increase allergic sensitivity.

The accumulative effect can occur from multiple environmental triggers. We’ll use mercury as one more example. Besides vaccination, there are many ways one can be poisoned by it. There is the exposure to mercury vapors that comes when a mercury-containing light bulb breaks. There are also coal-fired power plants:

Mercury pollution from coal-fired power plants is extremely dangerous — it causes brain damage in babies and is associated with heart disease and many other serious health issues. …

Mercury travels both locally and globally — robust scientific evidence shows that mercury is not only a “global pollutant,” but also has significant regional and local impacts. …

After being released into the atmosphere, mercury contaminates lands, oceans, and streams where it is then converted into a harmful toxic, methylmercury, that can accumulate in our food and, eventually, in us.

Ashley Maiolatesi, Mercury pollution from coal plants is still a danger to Americans. We need stronger standards to protect us. (Environmental Defense Fund, February 22, 2022). Retrieved May 30, 2024, from https://blogs.edf.org/climate411/2022/02/22/mercury-pollution-from-coal-plants-is-still-a-danger-to-americans-we-need-stronger-standards-to-protect-us

There are certain dental fillings with mercury (amalgams). They are bad enough to have in your mouth, but they also release dangerous vapors in the dental office when they are added or removed. The mercury toxins from a pregnant mother’s fillings also leach into her unborn child. Dr. Richard Fischer, a dentist, states,

The mercury levels in the fetus born to a woman with amalgams will have higher tissue levels of mercury than the mother from the mother’s fillings. People used to joke — it is kind of a macabre joke — but if a woman is mercury-toxic, one of the most effective ways for her to detoxify is to have a baby. Because the baby will draw a lot of that mercury out of her.

“Trace Amounts” (2014 Documentary) (Vaccine Documentaries Throughout The Years). Retrieved May 29, 2024, from https://rumble.com/v19ehtd-trace-amounts-2014-documentary.html

And so even when someone gets even that first vaccine with “trace amounts” of mercury, if it is not enough in and of itself to cause serious harm (which it could be), it could be the last straw – the straw that breaks the camel’s back – due to the cumulative effect of other environmental exposures. This can also be the case when, absent other environmental exposures, repeated vaccination with “trace amounts” of mercury accumulate over time.

Dr. George Lucier, Director, Environmental Toxicology Program (retired) National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences notes,

You are not starting, as in the case of thimerasol, from ground zero. You are starting with already a body-burden. So maybe even a small dose can put you over the edge.

Ibid.

Synergistic Effects

Synergistic effects are another consideration regarding “small amounts” of vaccine ingredients.

Synergism comes from the Greek word “synergos” meaning working together. It refers to the interaction between two or more “things” when the combined effect is greater than if you added the “things” on their own (a type of “when is one plus one is greater than two” effect).

In toxicology, synergism refers to the effect caused when exposure to two or more chemicals at one time results in health effects that are greater than the sum of the effects of the individual chemicals.

When chemicals are synergistic, the potential hazards of the chemicals should be re-evaluated, taking their synergistic properties into consideration.

Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety, “Chemicals and Materials” (Date modified: May 10, 2024). Retrieved June 5, 2024, from https://www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/chemicals/synergism.html

An example of synergistic toxicity is fluoride combined with aluminum. Dr. Russell Blaylock writes,

One study shows that adding fluoride to water in the presence of even small amounts of aluminum caused severe destruction of brain cells in the part of the brain controlling learning and memory.

Ethan A. Huff, Fluoride combined with even trace amounts of aluminum in water can cause major brain damage (Natural News, March 19, 2014). Retrieved April 4, 2024, from https://www.naturalnews.com/044366_fluoride_aluminum_brain_damage.html

Mercury and aluminum and both known neurotoxins. They are also vaccine ingredients that are dangerous enough by themselves; when in the same vaccine, their danger increases significantly. Dr. Donald W. Miller writes,

A small dose of mercury that kills 1 in 100 rats and a dose of aluminum that will kill 1 in 100 rats, when combined have a striking effect: all the rats die. Doses of mercury that have a 1 percent mortality will have a 100 percent mortality rate if some aluminum is there.

Donald W. Miller, Mercury on the Mind (LewRockwell.com, September 29, 2004). Retrieved June 5, 2024, from https://www.lewrockwell.com/2004/09/donald-w-miller-jr-md/the-curse-of-mercury-in-vaccines

The synergistic effect can also occur when a certain toxin meets with something natural; that is, the natural entity reacts with the toxin in a way that makes the toxin more dangerous. This is the case with mercury and the male hormone testosterone, which would explain the greater prevalence in vaccine-induced autism among boys instead of girls:

Studies on the toxicity of mercury to mammalian neurons in culture demonstrate that low nanomolar levels can have lethal effects. Experiments using this system have also demonstrated, in agreement with published literature, that many antibiotics, other heavy metals and chemicals increase the toxicity of mercury and thimerosal (ethyl mercury). Additionally, in this same system the female hormone estrogen decreases thimerosal’s toxic effects. In contrast, the male hormone testosterone greatly increases the toxicity. This may explain the 4 to 1 ratio of boys to girls that become autistic and the observation that boys represent the vast majority of the severe cases of autism.

Boyd Haley, Testimony Before the House Government Reform Committee by Boyd Haley, Ph.D. (November 14, 2002). Retrieved June 5, 2024, from http://whale.to/vaccine/hayley.html

When trace amounts depends on competency

At least in some cases, a multi-dose vaccine vial (where vaccine doses are drawn from for multiple patients) may need to be shaken to evenly distribute the ingredients. Otherwise, some getting the vaccine may end up getting more than “trace amounts” of vaccine ingredients.

Per the following quotes, this is at least the case with mercury in multi-dose flu shots. As noted in the documentary “Trace Amounts,”

If the doctor doesn’t shake the bottle up … the person getting it at the end could be getting 40 or 50 micrograms [instead of 25] if they are the 8th, 9th, or 10th vaccine in the bottle.

“Trace Amounts” (2014 Documentary) (Vaccine Documentaries Throughout The Years). Retrieved June 7, 2024, from https://rumble.com/v19ehtd-trace-amounts-2014-documentary.html

Julie Obradovic writes,

An experiment conducted by a researcher at a major university (who wishes to remain anonymous) provides evidence that the amount of the mercury in a vaccine can vary by draw from the same vial. Depending on the location of the draw (top or bottom of vial), as well as whether or not the vial was shaken immediately prior to the draw, the amount of mercury differs. …

After allowing a 5-mL vial of flu vaccine (from which two draws had already been taken) to settle for only 20 minutes after being shaken and then pulling a third 0.5-mL draw from the bottom of the vial, the content of the mercury in the draw had increased. Instead of 25 mcg, it had 27.

The finding is significant.

One, it provides evidence that mercury does in fact settle at the bottom of the vial. And although a 2-microgram increase may not seem like a big deal, consider this. In the first draw, 25 mcg represents 10% of the 250-micrograms of total mercury in the vial. But, in the third draw, 27 mcg represents 13.5% of the remaining 200-micrograms of mercury in the vial. That’s over a 25% increase.

Julie Obradovic, “Shake That Vial: Flu Shot Thimerosal Content Can Vary by Draw” (Age of Autism, June 25, 2013). Retrieved June 7, 2024, from https://www.ageofautism.com/2013/06/shake-that-vial-flu-shot-thimerosal-content-can-vary-by-draw.html

Regarding this article one reader states,

this is one of the theories of how I ended up with mercury poisoning after the flu shot that almost killed me. Doctors speculated the nurse did not shake the vial well and I got a mercury shot.

Comment section in Ibid.

Now, how many of us trust that doctors and nurses are competent enough to shake the vial for mercury-containing vaccines? Again, vaccination is a matter of trust.

Final thoughts

As we have seen, “small” or “trace” amounts of vaccine ingredients are not harmless. They may kill you – or at least make your life permanently miserable. Even the pro-vaccine University of Oxford admits to the potential dangers of vaccine ingredients in “small quantities” (even if minimizing its frequency):

All vaccine ingredients are present in very small quantities, and there is no evidence that they cause harm in these amounts. The exception to this is the small number of people who may be severely allergic to a vaccine ingredient, even if it is present only in trace amounts (for example, egg proteins or antibiotics used in vaccine manufacture).

Centre for Clinical Vaccinology and Tropical Medicine, “Vaccine ingredients” (University of Oxford, Page last updated Thursday, May 26, 2022). Retrieved June 7, 2024, from https://vaccineknowledge.ox.ac.uk/vaccine-ingredients#General-information

And we also find this in a rabies vaccine package insert:

There are no specific contraindications to the use of Rabies Vaccine Inactivated (Diploid Cell Origin), Dried in the postexposure situation; however, care should be taken if the vaccine is to be administered to persons known to be sensitive to bovine serum, polymyxin, neomycin or thimerosal, as even trace amounts may cause an allergic reaction in such individuals.

Rabies Vaccine Inactivated (Diploid Cell Origin), Dried Connaught Vaccine. Retrieved June 7, 2024, from http://www.whale.to/v/rabies_vaccine.html

Shawn Siegel sums up the problems vaccine ingredients in “small amounts” well:

[W]hile the CDC characterizes a trace as a…biologically unpersuasive…amount, there truly are no known lower safety limits for injected toxins. Nor could there be, since every child is individual, with unique genetics, unique metabolism, unique exposure history and diet – there’s absolutely no way to accurately predict what any child’s reaction will be, so the precautionary principle alone precludes injecting it. Moreover, at one point some years ago, a public health advocate website sent four vaccine samples to a lab for analysis; two of the samples were labeled as containing a trace of thimerosal, two as containing none, but mercury was detected in all four samples. While there was a significantly lower concentration in the samples ostensibly containing no thimerosal, again: there are no known lower safety limits for injected toxins.

Shawn Siegel, The Great Divide: spanning the chasm between truth and egregious lies (May 25, 2014). Retrieved May 16, 2024, from http://whale.to/vaccine/great_divide.html

And so, no amount of such vaccine ingredients are “just a small amount.” “Small” implies “minimal” or “no risk” – but no amount of foreign substances injected into the bloodstream are safe, as the bloodstream is ill-equipped to combat unfiltered toxins. In the bloodstream, a little makes a big difference.

And even if there was generally safe amount, given the history of vaccination, can we even trust them when they say there are just “harmlessly small amounts” of vaccine ingredients? Even if we could, are they competent enough to provide this? And even if we preclude these challenges, there is the fact that some, for various reasons, are more sensitive to vaccine ingredients than others, and there is also the challenge of accumulated and synergistic effects.

Verdict: the big lie is that a small amount of vaccine ingredients are safe. But as we have shown, any amount of vaccine ingredients is “too much.”

If you find this site helpful, please consider supporting our work.

Tagged Vaccine Ingredients