|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 59 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,929 Year: 4,186/9,624 Month: 1,057/974 Week: 16/368 Day: 16/11 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Childhood Vaccinations – Necessary or Overkill? Sequal Thread | |||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3488 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
In the previous thread in Message 305 I mentioned the idea presented by a 2005 article (Autism: Lots of clues, but still no answers) that brought up the idea that environmental chemicals, which includes vaccines, are still under investigation.
A chemical engineer came up with these results concerning mercury.
In Boston, Jim Adams, a chemical engineer at Arizona State University in Tempe who has an autistic daughter and believes that mercury causes many cases of autism, presented results supporting Holmes's theory. He found that children with autism have up to three times as much mercury as normal in their baby teeth, yet lower levels in their hair. If genetically these children are susceptible to retaining chemicals instead of excreting them, then vaccines may present a hazard to those children. Even if mercury has been removed, could there be other chemical issues for these children? From the Autism Society of America we see that some children may be born with a susceptibility to autism.
It also appears that some children are born with a susceptibility to autism, but researchers have not yet identified a single "trigger" that causes autism to develop. If the susceptibility is there could chemicals be a trigger for some. Possibly making the issue worse than without the chemicals. There are varying degrees of autism.
There could be a whole host of chemicals that wreak havoc on the brains of genetically susceptible individuals, team member Isaac Pessah of the University of California, Davis, told the meeting. He points out that according to the US National Toxicology Report, between 60 and 80 per cent of the chemicals we are exposed to through pesticides, cosmetics and foods have not undergone adequate risk assessment. My question would be, are the studies done on those that are considered to be genetically susceptible? I would think they would need to compare autism rates in children with the same type of vulnerability. Since it is obvious that vaccines don't wreak havoc on everybody, maybe it is an issue of checking children for genetic susceptibility and adjusting accordingly to see if it makes a difference.
Researchers now believe that autism can be caused by genes in combination with environmental triggers. The question is, what are those triggers?
By Carey Goldberg, Globe Staff | August 13, 2007
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3488 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
Are these considered reliable sources? If not, how does one verify what they are saying? What journals do MDs read to get the latest?
Early Downward Trends in Neurodevelopmental Disorders Following Removal of Thimerosal-Containing Vaccines
Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons Volume 11 Number 1 Spring 2006 Medical Journal: Autism Rates Decline as Mercury Removed from Childhood Vaccines
Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, Inc. - March 2, 2006 I did find it interesting that the number of vaccinations have increased for children.
Up until about 1989 pre-school children got only 3 vaccines (polio, DPT, MMR). By 1999 the CDC recommended a total of 22 vaccines to be given before children reach the 1st grade, including Hepatitis B, which is given to newborns within the first 24 hours of birth. Many of these vaccines contained mercury. As more and more vaccines were added to the mandatory schedule of vaccines for children, the dose of the mercury-based preservative thimerosal rose, so that the cumulative dose injected into babies exceeded the toxic threshold set by many government agencies. Mercury is known to damage nerve cells in very low concentrations. From the FDA site. Provided for informational purposes not to make any specific point.
Table 1. Thimerosal Content of Vaccines Routinely Recommended for Children 6 Years of Age and Younger - (updated 7/18/2005*)
Table 2: Preservatives Used in U.S. Licensed Vaccines
Table 3: Thimerosal and Expanded List of Vaccines - (updated 9/6/2007)Thimerosal Content in Currently Manufactured U.S. Licensed Vaccines
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3488 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
Are the following journals considered to be peer-reviewed?
Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons Association of American Physicians and Surgeons Here is a recent letter written by Congressman Dave Weldon, MD, to Julie Gerberding, Director of the CDC, regarding a fraudulent CDC-sponsored study purporting to show no link between mercury-laced vaccines and autism: There are two sides to the Dr. Geier story, so one would have to look at all the evidence and not just one side. I feel it would be difficult for the average individual to sort out the games and politics in this one.
quote:Didn't or don't currently?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3488 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
In the article it states that Jim Adams found that children with autism have up to three times as much mercury as normal in their baby teeth. Your study doesn't say it is dealing with autistic children.
quote:I was addressing genetic susceptibility. Are you saying that autistic children do not have higher than normal levels of mercury?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3488 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:No I was responding to your post. I did find the article interesting though if I'm reading it correctly.
The autistic children did not have one-eighth the “normal” amount of mercury in their baby hair. They had .47 (+/- .28) g/g which is higher than the children in the NHANES study average (which included 838 children ages 1-5) who had .22 (+/- .04) g/g. So the author is saying that the autistic children had higher levels than the normal children according to the Holmes study. Correct? If that is correct then this next statement confuses me.
It was the “typical” children that had huge excesses of mercury in their hair samples in Holmes et al. Remeber this graph? I did find this comment interesting though.
Mercury level in hair is very simply a snapshot of circulating blood levels when the hair was formed. With a common set of major vessels (the carotid arteries) providing blood supply to the entire head, significantly lower levels in the hair means less mercury was probably reaching the brain during the time the hair was formed, that’s it. If the autistic children had higher levels of mercury in their hair, then that would mean they had more mercury reaching the brain during the hair formation. Isn't that a bad thing? Mercury and the Brain
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3488 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
Remember, I only have access to the abstracts.
Supposedly mercury is dangerous. What the EPA considers to be generally safe may or may not be so for infants. They can't account for all genetic makeups. Also remember that the autistic children may be genetically susceptible. Per the article I cited in Message 16 Adams and Holmes were supposedly theorizing that autistic children have a difficulty excreting mercury.
In 2003, a small study by paediatrician Amy Holmes found much lower levels of mercury than normal in the hair of children with autism (New Scientist, 21 June 2003, page 4). Her hotly contested theory is that they have an impaired ability to excrete mercury. From the abstract the autistic children did have about 1/8 the level of the control group.
Hair mercury levels in the autistic group were 0.47 ppm versus 3.63 ppm in controls, a significant difference. It is interesting that even within the autistic group the level varied with the severity of the autism. With the most severe being the lowest.
Within the autistic group, hair mercury levels varied significantly across mildly, moderately, and severely autistic children, with mean group levels of 0.79, 0.46, and 0.21 ppm, respectively. According to the abstract the mothers of the autistic children had higher levels of mercury than the mothers of the normal children.
The mothers in the autistic group had significantly higher levels of mercury exposure through Rho D immunoglobulin injections and amalgam fillings than control mothers. But while the mercury levels in the mothers of the normal children correlated with the levels of the normal children, the autistic group apparently didn't.
Hair mercury levels among controls were significantly correlated with the number of the mothers' amalgam fillings and their fish consumption as well as exposure to mercury through childhood vaccines, correlations that were absent in the autistic group. In light of the biological plausibility of mercury's role in neurodevelopmental disorders, the present study provides further insight into one possible mechanism by which early mercury exposures could increase the risk of autism. So while mercury levels in the mother may increase the risk of autism, what I've read seems to show that there is some difference in how the autistic deal with mercury. So wouldn't it be prudent to find a way to check mothers or the infants before vaccines are administered? I would think that would be the next step. Don't vaccinate those at risk and see if autism develops and/or the severity. Have those types of tests been done?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3488 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
Well lets just get this out of the way right now. From what I can tell there is no absolute, beyond a shadow of a doubt, money in the bank, 100% positive evidence that Thimerosal is the only cause of autism. Go ahead and put a gold star on your wall. Happy now. Great!! Now we can move on.
I'm not looking at an absolute. I'm trying to understand what has been tested and the results from my limited sources. I'm trying to look at possibilities. For me to make decisions, I glean information from many places. They may not deal directly with the specific health problem, but sometimes we can find answers by looking in another direction. Great we agree that Mercury is very dangerous. We also agree that the level of exposure determines the degree of danger. In Message 17 I listed the FDA tables for vaccines. In Table 3 you will find Thimerosal Content in Currently Manufactured U.S. Licensed Vaccines which was updated 9/6/07. There is still Thimerosal in vaccines.
Thimerosal is still contained in some of the flu vaccines routinely given to children since 2004. Try to take off the mercury blinders and look at the bigger picture I'm trying to look at. The quotes were from your link to the Holmes abstract in Message 42. If you look at what you quoted right under where you say: They're not in the abstract. Those two quotes are in there. Your links from your previous post don't go directly to what you quoted. I didn't feel it was my job to go find the actual article. Since you didn't bother to explain what meso-2,3-dimercaptosuccinic acid is or its purpose, I had to go try and figure it out. So I'm probably wrong, but I'm trying at least. From what I can find and understand, DMSA is a chelation therapy that promotes mercury excretion.
DMSA: Dimercaptosuccinic AcidPremier Treatment For Heavy Metal Toxicity Meso-2,3-dimercaptosuccinic acid (DMSA) is a sulfur-containing organic compound that is FDA approved for the treatment of lead and mercury toxicity both in children and adults. Meso-2,3-dimercaptosuccinic acid (DMSA, or succimer) is an oral chelating agent for heavy-metal poisoning. (Link provided for definition purposes only. If that is true, then the fact that the autistic children excreted more mercury than the normal children should show that they had more in their bodies. Since the children were given something to cause them to excrete mercury, I don't see how that negates the possibility that autistic children have difficulty excreting mercury.
quote:I would wonder where they are storing the mercury in their body. The hair samples are supposedly a snapshot of the circulating blood. If the mercury isn't there, then where else does mercury reside? Organs, brain cells, tissue,... Have those tests been done? quote:I didn't say it did. Look at all the pieces. More mercury in baby teeth than the norms.Less in the hair than the norms. Through chelation excreted more than the norms. Mothers supposedly started with higher levels than the norms. Some mercury is fat soluble so it is able to cross the blood-brain barrier and the placenta. So while any one instance of mercury exposure may not be in the danger zone, what about many instances. Supposedly if you are exposed to mercury from more than one source, these exposures will add up. Autism may be one of those anomalies that happens when all the planets are aligned just right. IOW, the right genetic anomaly is present, the right level of mercury is present, etc. From what I can tell of the studies we've looked at, the autistic kids seem to have more mercury in their bodies than the normal kids. As I've said a few times. Maybe they need to concentrate on a way to detect the susceptibility and act accordingly.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3488 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
Please read your own posts so I don't have to spend time correcting you.
Also try to understand what I'm addressing. The autistic child may be genetically susceptible. You already have your gold star for Thimerosal. From what I have read, they have no absolute answers for autism. The research is ongoing.
quote:Which means that your statement in Message 53 that "There is no mercury in vaccines (anymore)." is incorrect. quote:In Message 53 you said "From my last post:" (which would refer to your Message 42) and then provided a quote. So my comment that your links from your previous post don't go directly to what you quoted, refers to your Message 42 since I was responding to your Message 53. Since I was responding to 53, that would make 42 your previous post. Clear now? quote:Since scientists have their own lingo and since you just quote and don't rephrase for your known audience, I may be misunderstanding what is meant by body burden. To me it means the total amount of mercury in the body. When methyl mercury is ingested, approximately 95% is absorbed through the gastrointestinal tract into the bloodstream and it is rapidly carried to other parts of the body. The half-life for methyl mercury in the body is approximately 70 days. It is slowly excreted from the body over several months, mainly in feces. We agree that methyl mercury crosses the placenta.
Methyl mercury (found in fish) crosses the placenta. Message 67 So methyl mercury has plenty of time to get to the unborn child through the placenta. So if the child is already genetically susceptible, the mercury may be a trigger. If baby teeth function similar to tree rings in that they show a record of exposure to heavy metals during the prenatal and newborn period, then the the autistic children supposedly have had more exposure to mercury in that timeframe.
Baby teeth measure link between heavy metal, hyperactivity in UC Irvine study Much like growth rings in a tree, the enamel provides a continuous record of exposure during the prenatal and newborn period. If the autistic child had been exposed to more, but there is less in the hair which is a snapshot of what's in the blood at the time; the question is: Where is the mercury?
quote:How do you know that? As I understand the function of chelation the DMSA should have a stronger affinity for the mercury than the tissues of the body. I assume, probably incorrectly, that the urine of the children (both sides) would have been tested before using DMSA. I don't recall seeing results for that, but if the autistic children were already excreting more mercury in their urine than the norms, then there wouldn't have been a need for chelation to make the point that the autistic could excrete mercury. I don't see that using DMSA shows that the autistic child's body adequately rids the body of mercury on its own. Our Preferred Poison Mercury in the environment. People are exposed to methylmercury almost entirely by eating contaminated fish and wildlife that are at the top of aquatic foodchains. The National Research Council, in its 2000 report on the toxicological effects of methylmercury, pointed out that the population at highest risk is the offspring of women who consume large amounts of fish and seafood. The report went on to estimate that more than 60,000 children are born each year at risk for adverse neurodevelopmental effects due to in utero exposure to methylmercury. In its 1997 Mercury Study Report to Congress, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency concluded that mercury also may pose a risk to some adults and wildlife populations that consume large amounts of fish that is contaminated by mercury. The Three Modern Faces of Mercury Methyl mercury is slowly metabolized to inorganic mercury mainly by microflora in the intestines, probably at a rate of about 1% of the body burden per day. Some demethylation also occurs in phagocytic cells The biochemical mechanism is unknown. Although methyl mercury is the predominant form of mercury during exposure, inorganic mercury slowly accumulates and resides for long periods in the central nervous system. It is believed to be in an inert form, probably insoluble mercury selenide (18). Methyl mercury supposedly turns into inorganic mercury which does apparently accumulate in the nervous system. Supposedly there is little known about the effects of ethyl mercury on the nervous system. My conclusions are still the same:
Message 46 So while mercury levels in the mother may increase the risk of autism, what I've read seems to show that there is some difference in how the autistic deal with mercury.
Message 64 So wouldn't it be prudent to find a way to check mothers or the infants before vaccines are administered? I would think that would be the next step. Don't vaccinate those at risk and see if autism develops and/or the severity. Have those types of tests been done?
Message 64 Autism may be one of those anomalies that happens when all the planets are aligned just right. IOW, the right genetic anomaly is present, the right level of mercury is present, etc. what I see is that women of child bearing age need to be extra careful concerning mercury exposure. At some point if they haven't already they would need to get down to testing the tissues of the autistic to confirm mercury levels. Again if the child is already genetically susceptible, then vaccines even without the Thimerosal may be a trigger or aggravate. Newborns are given a vaccination right out of the womb. I still think they need to be able to detect high risk newborns and not give them vaccines and see if autism still develops. Maybe vaccines at a later date are better. They still have a lot of research to do. Hopefully they won't get hung up on one avenue.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3488 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
Well you've derailed, so I guess we are done.
Yes, this is a vaccination thread and I'm still dealing with vaccinations.You jumped to the Mercury in Children (Message 18). As I said in Message 16: Since it is obvious that vaccines don't wreak havoc on everybody, maybe it is an issue of checking children for genetic susceptibility and adjusting accordingly to see if it makes a difference. Enjoy your gold star.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3488 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:Well why didn't you say that to begin with? I'm sure mothers everywhere can sleep better knowing that the genetic susceptibility is unnecessary because there is no chance that any newborn infant will receive a HepB vaccination containing Thimersol even though there still remains HepB vaccinations with Thimersol. If a Thimersol-free vaccine is not available, then one with Thimersol can be used, but you of course know better. Must be nice.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3488 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
So you feel that newborns could never possibly be given a HepB vaccination with Thimersol?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3488 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
Address the point of the post.
The HepB vaccine comes in both flavors. Can anyone guarantee that a newborn will not receive the T flavored vaccine if there is no T-free available? Show me that all hospital protocols don't allow the use of the T flavored vaccine on newborns when no T-free is available.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3488 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
And the title of that table is:
Table 1. Thimerosal Content of Vaccines Routinely Recommended for Children 6 Years of Age and Younger Now look at Table 3. at the same site.Table 3: Thimerosal and Expanded List of Vaccines - (updated 9/6/2007) Thimerosal Content in Currently Manufactured U.S. Licensed Vaccines Hepatitis BEngerix-B Pediatric/adolescent GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals < 0.0002% (Thimerosal Concentration) < 0.5 g/0.5 mL dose (Mercury) Even the states banning Thimerosal-containing vaccines leave a provision in case of vaccine shortage. From my link which you so kindly pointed out was from 1999. (BTW, I did know that.)
If thimerosal-free vaccines are not available, physicians and parents must balance the known risks of serious complications from these diseases against the unknown but much smaller risks associated with thimerosal in some vaccines. In high-risk situations, such as infants born to hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg)-positive mothers, the known risks of serious consequences from the preventable infections far outweigh the risks of adverse consequences from vaccines, even if thimerosal-free products are not available. As I understand it the above vaccine can be used on infants if necessary. I don't think you can say with 100% certainty that no newborn or infant will ever be given a thimerosal-containing vaccine as long as thimerosal-containing vaccines are still available. So writing off genetic susceptibility is rather unwise. While corporate has to deal with the greater good, individuals have to do what is right for their family. Remember that safe concerning drugs doesn't mean harmless. It means the benefits outweigh the risks. From a corporate view, yes the benefits of the vaccine for communities outweighs the risks. But individuals need to decide whether the benefits to their family outweigh the risks for their family. People tend to expect accountability when the decision is not our own. At the very least full disclosure. How developed is the blood-brain barrier in someone who is only 1 hr old?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3488 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
What response do you want?
The original post:
PD writes:
I have a question. Purely objective and not to support either side of this issue. I may not phrase this correctly, so please excuse my clumsiness. Wouldn't vaccines prevent the species from developing an immunity or means of surviving the virus? If parents received childhood vaccinations, would or could their offspring have immunity? Has this even been checked?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3488 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:I'm not an evolution expert. My simple mind might get to that conclusion, but I wanted to see if it was reasonable. I guess next time I'll just keep my ignorant questions to myself and assume I'm right.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024