# Aluminum in Vaccines



## BlackFeather (Jun 17, 2014)

http://www.fhfn.org/new-study-revea...&utm_medium=facebook&utm_source=socialnetwork
or
http://healthimpactnews.com/2015/sc...rom-covering-dangers-of-aluminum-in-vaccines/
or
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22099159



> Our results show that: (i) children from countries with the highest ASD prevalence appear to have the highest exposure to Al from vaccines; (ii) the increase in exposure to Al adjuvants significantly correlates with the increase in ASD prevalence in the United States observed over the last two decades (Pearson r=0.92, p<0.0001); and (iii) a significant correlation exists between the amounts of Al administered to preschool children and the current prevalence of ASD in seven Western countries, particularly at 3-4 months of age .... The application of the Hill's criteria to these data indicates that the correlation between Al in vaccines and ASD may be causal. Because children represent a fraction of the population most at risk for complications following exposure to Al, a more rigorous evaluation of Al adjuvant safety seems warranted.


 (from the last link) 

So the more aluminum (Al) in vaccines seems to coincide with increase in Autism.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

*Don&#8217;t Buy Into These Vaccine Myths*


> That&#8217;s just the latest in a long string of research finding no causal relationship between vaccines and autism. It&#8217;s fair to look for answers when facing a tough diagnosis &#8212; but vaccines are not that answer.


http://www.msn.com/en-us/health/newborn-care/don&#8217;t-buy-into-these-vaccine-myths/ar-AAf20n9?li=AAa0dzB#page=3

*Aluminum in Vaccines Poses No Harm
There's More Pain and Redness, but No Long-Term Side Effects*



> After scouring through all the available medical data, researchers in Rome say there is no evidence that aluminum -- contained within the combined diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis vaccine commonly known as DTP and routinely given to children -- poses any serious or long-term side effects.
> 
> "Scare stories on aluminum-containing vaccines are not supported by evidence," lead researcher Tom Jefferson, MD, of Cochrane Vaccines Field in Italy, tells WebMD.


http://www.webmd.com/children/vaccines/news/20040129/aluminum-in-vaccines-poses-no-harm


----------



## MDKatie (Dec 13, 2010)

http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/ScienceResearch/ucm284520.htm




> The FDA study found that the* maximum amount of aluminum an infant could be exposed to over the first year of life would be 4.225 milligrams (mg), based on the recommended schedule of vaccines.* Federal Regulations for biological products (including vaccines) limit the amount of aluminum in the recommended individual dose of biological products, including vaccines, to not more than 0.85-1.25 mg. For example, the amount of aluminum in the hepatitis B vaccine given at birth is 0.25 mg.
> 
> *Aluminum is found naturally in large quantities in the environment, often consumed through drinking water or ingesting certain foods, such as infant formula.* Using the updated parameters, the authors found that* the body burden of aluminum from vaccines and diet throughout an infantâs first year of life is significantly less than the corresponding safe body burden of aluminum,* based on the minimal risk levels established by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

The only reason autism is on the rise, IMO, is that it is diagnosed far more often than it used to be.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

One of the countervailing factors is the recognition of all neuro type "disorders" has greatly expanded over those two decades. That means what appears to be an epidemic was always there but not diagnosed.

I highly recommend the book NeuroTribes to understand the history, the missteps and where we are now. http://popfront.us/tag/neurotribes/


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Farmerga said:


> The only reason autism is on the rise, IMO, is that it is diagnosed far more often than it used to be.


Plus it used to mean sort of a mild disorder...maybe asperger's? Now it encompasses all mental deficiences.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

A diagnosis of autism used to only be used for the profoundly autistic. Currently it's used for a number of disorders along a broad spectrum, including Asperger Syndrome. 

The criteria for diagnoses was broadened substantially which is why there are more diagnosed.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Irish Pixie said:


> A diagnosis of autism used to only be used for the profoundly autistic. Currently it's used for a number of disorders along a broad spectrum, including Asperger Syndrome.
> 
> The criteria for diagnoses was broadened substantially which is why there are more diagnosed.


That means more are eligible for services which is good.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Darren said:


> That means more are eligible for services which is good.


I agree. The earlier the treatment, the better.


----------



## BlackFeather (Jun 17, 2014)

One point, there is a difference between ingesting aluminum and having it injected. When eaten, a large amount passes through the digestive system unabsorbed, when injected it is in the body and must be eliminated.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

It seems extremely important to some people that vaccines be boycotted. I never understood why. It's difficult to be against something that's done so much good.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

There's always more to an issue than expected. You can always go with something and run with it while finding others that believe as you do and echo your thoughts.

That doesn't mean you are correct in your belief.


----------



## Woolieface (Feb 17, 2015)

There's nothing I need injected into me, let alone aluminum, and there's nothing much any person, company or institution that profits from it could tell me about it that I'd feel smart about trusting.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Darren said:


> There's always more to an issue than expected. You can always go with something and run with it while finding others that believe as you do and echo your thoughts.
> 
> That doesn't mean you are correct in your belief.


And now it IS time for flu vans. I will be getting mine this weekend. Cool.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

I've never had a flu shot. Last time I had flu was in the second grade.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

I don't get flu shots either.


----------



## Annsni (Oct 27, 2006)

Heading for the flu shot tomorrow. My stats have pretty much been:

* flu every year since I can remember

* started getting live virus flu vaccine when I worked for a hospital in the 80s - and I'd always come down with a 1 week illness with high fever, body aches, etc. so I stopped getting the vaccine (upon the recommendation of the hospital doctors and administrator)

* had the flu almost every year after that - but naturally 

* after I had my first child, doctor recommended flu shot and I refused citing previous experience but what he was giving was the "dead" virus and after 2 years I finally got it 

* once I started getting the flu shot (23 years now), I never got the flu again except 2 winters ago when 4/6 of my family was down with it

So pretty much other than an odd year here or there, I would get the flu but with the vaccine, it was the odd year I did get the flu. I will go with the vaccine and the 1 in 23 chance of getting the flu (and it wasn't a terrible case although I felt pretty lousy).


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Darren said:


> I've never had a flu shot. Last time I had flu was in the second grade.


We were prolly sick together. Last time I had the flu was '73. I never have had a flu shot.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

I don't get a flu shot but that has a lot more to do with me being a bit of a procrastinator than any issue will vaccinations.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Tricky Grama said:


> We were prolly sick together. Last time I had the flu was '73. I never have had a flu shot.


Me in the second grade in 1973? I wish!


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Hmm



> âThere are other links between aluminum exposure/toxicity and ASD. These include the following:* A pilot study showed higher than normal aluminum levels in the hair, blood and/or urine of autistic children;* children are regularly exposed to higher levels of aluminum in vaccines per body weight than adults; practically, nothing is known about the pharmacokinetics and toxicodynamics of aluminum in vaccines in children; and aluminum in vaccines has been linked to serious neurological impairments, chronic fatigue and autoimmunity.â


I don't remember my kid's drinking _gallons_ of vaccine. In fact, most dosages looked to be very minuscule amounts, some nearly nothing at all. 

How much AL can they put in there?

Why would autistic kids have more, if all kids got the same dosages?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

The problem is study after study after study which have involved the histories of millions of children and have been done by different groups and in different nations around the world have shown there is no linkage between autism and vaccines of any type.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

I didn't catch this at first.

"_âThere are other links between aluminum exposure/toxicity and ASD. These include the following: *A pilot study showed higher than normal aluminum levels in the hair, blood and/or urine of autistic children;* children are regularly exposed to higher levels of aluminum in vaccines per body weight than adults; practically, nothing is known about the pharmacokinetics and toxicodynamics of aluminum in vaccines in children; and aluminum in vaccines has been linked to serious neurological impairments, chronic fatigue and autoimmunity.â

http://beforeitsnews.com/terrorism/...g-neurological-damage-and-autism-2454958.html

_If true, that shows an issue outside of vaccines. Do the higher levels of aluminum occur in other groups of children too or only those with autism? Is this something like the lead in toothpaste tubes back around the fifties that companies quietly removed once they found it transferred to the toothpaste? AFAIK, the public never caught on to that issue.

If so where is the higher levels of aluminum originating? Environment? Metabolic?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

plowjockey said:


> Hmm
> 
> I don't remember my kid's drinking _gallons_ of vaccine. In fact, most dosages looked to be very minuscule amounts, some nearly nothing at all.
> 
> ...


The logical possibilities are they only tested those diagnosed with autism, or all the kids had the same levels, and it's a meaningless statement, since there likely is no "normal level" of AL in the blood.

One other reason may be a difference in the ability to metabolize AL.

It didn't say they "had more" than anyone else


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Bearfootfarm said:


> The logical possibilities are they only tested those diagnosed with autism, or all the kids had the same levels, and it's a meaningless statement, since there likely is no "normal level" of AL in the blood.
> 
> One other reason may be a difference in the ability to metabolize AL.
> 
> It didn't say they "had more" than anyone else


How was the higher than normal level of Al determined? That's what's bugging me. While it may seem to be correlated with autism, it doesn't mean it's the cause of autism. Still it's a potential red flag.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

ASD has only been widely recognized. 
IMHO, advanced countries are more likely to categorize a child as ASD and along with being advanced, immunize their children. Backward, third world countries at worst dispose of mentally deficient youth and at best improperly categorize them, plus have lower vaccination rates that translates to a much higher adolescent mortality rate.

I guess I favor proper diagnosis of a newly recognized mental disorder and a vaccination program that has eradicated deadly diseases and greatly reduced several deadly or debilitating childhood diseases. Even if someone tries to correlate two completely different topics.

I have a neighbor that has two mentally disabled/ASD children. She blames vaccinations. That she was drunk through most of both pregnancies is of no concern to her.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Bearfootfarm said:


> The logical possibilities are they only tested those diagnosed with autism, or all the kids had the same levels, and it's a meaningless statement, since there likely is no "normal level" of AL in the blood.
> 
> One other reason may be a difference in the ability to metabolize AL.
> 
> It didn't say they "had more" than anyone else


Apparently, you guesses are better, than everyone else's.

When scientists state something is "higher than normal", I just assumed that they knew what "normal" was.

Maybe they are just guessing too.


----------



## oldasrocks (Oct 27, 2006)

You get more aluminum in a can of Pepsi or Coke than from a vaccine. That's why I switched to bottles.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

I don't know what to do. I don't want the government reading my thoughts, but afraid the foil helmet I wear will cause my spawn to suffer ASD.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

plowjockey said:


> Apparently, you guesses are better, than everyone else's.
> 
> When scientists state something is "higher than normal", I just assumed that they knew what "normal" was.
> 
> *Maybe they are just guessing too*.


Maybe they are since not much data was presented.
AL levels can fluctuate rapidly, so the measurements mean little


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

haypoint said:


> I don't know what to do. I don't want the government reading my thoughts, but afraid the foil helmet I wear will cause my spawn to suffer ASD.


You're wearing it on the wrong head. :facepalm:


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Darren said:


> You're wearing it on the wrong head. :facepalm:


:bow:


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Fyi.... diagnosis of mental retardation has been reduced by a almost the same amounts as fas,autism,etc have increased..think about it ....we're the children better diagnosis then or now.

I don't get the shots cause.what does it matter to me.... some day I will die..won't matter if it's the flu or drunk driver or drowned by a whale... it just going to happen


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

I base my thinking on two different things. One when i was in school my high-school had only 3 kids out of 1200 that were autistic/down syndrome. I know. I worked with them. None of the other kids fell into any spectrum of autism. Today that same school now has 3 classrooms dedicated to it. Most on a severe spectrum. It is on the rise. Two. We had a very good friends just 3 weeks ago who had a healthy 1 year old get her 1 year shots and was in nicu within 4 days abs hadn't been right since. She screams now for no reason and slams her head violently on things. All after her vaccines. Both my two cousins were normal babies until 3 year shots. Now both are autistic when nobody in our family has ever had anything of the such. So even though my kids were vaccinated, if we ever have another it will not be.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

I agree with Dr Carson. Give the vaccines but Spread them out over time. Same thing goes that Donald Trump said Vaccines are good and do good, but spread them out over several weeks.
I even do that when given vaccines to my horses. NOT ALL AT Once, especially in one or two days. SPACE them out~!

YOU as parents have the last say when it comes to giving these shots. Don't let the DR's just pounce on you for saving time and poke and poke again. GIVE THOSE Vaccines, but YOU have to say "Spread them over time". YOU as parents have a voice in what and how things are given. 

Speak Up and speak out, but don't opt out~!


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

I've been told in the past vaccines were available without the preservatives. The dosages were low and they were more expensive.

Might be worth asking about.


----------



## BlackFeather (Jun 17, 2014)

Most people here know that big bankers are criminal, and the government is in the pocket of the banking business. Most know that the military industrial complex lobbies hard for government weapons programs among our elected leaders. Yet there is so much trust of government health agencies and big pharmaceutical companies. That everything they do is for the peoples benefit and has nothing to do with corporate profits.



> Dr. Julie Gerberding, former director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, was named president of Merck & Co Inc's vaccine division,


 http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/12/21/us-merck-gerberding-idUSTRE5BK2K520091221
No conflict of interest here, do a good job representing the industries needs and get a job when your out of work at the CDC, and probably better paid too.

Any look into government and you find people have either worked for big business or get a job there when they are done with the government. Many times they cycle in and out of these jobs, yet I read the comments here and there seems to be a complete trust in government and these big businesses. Sorry but I just don't trust these people. If vaccines are so safe then why does the government give these companies exceptions from being prosecuted for harm done by these vaccines? 


> From a drug maker's perspective, vaccines may be one of the absolute "safest" products to make and sell, because civil liability is negligible to non-existent, depending on the vaccine and so profits are unlimited. Congress and the U.S. Supreme Court have guaranteed vaccine manufacturers a free pass in the civil court system if the vaccine they make and sell in the U.S. ends up crippling or killing a child or adult. (Pediatricians and other medical workers giving vaccines are also protected from civil liability if vaccines hurt someone they vaccinate).


Then I hear of all sorts of people who have adverse reactions to vaccines and wonder are we being told the whole truth? Then I hear that in Africa they were hiding birth control vaccine inside tetanus vaccines and not telling the women they were doing it. Are they hiding anything in our vaccines? Again sorry, but I don't trust these people. 


> From 2007 to 2010, 14 recalls for vaccines and 13 recalls for immunoglobulins were made, for reasons such as:
> 
> Serious adverse events
> Labeling errors
> ...


 http://articles.mercola.com/sites/a...-recalled-type-of-drug-will-surprise-you.aspx


> Vaccine contamination such as this is a very real threat. In 2010, a research team discovered that GlaxoSmithKline's Rotarix vaccine was contaminated with "a substantial amount" of DNA from a pig virus, and this was after 1 million U.S. children, and about 30 million worldwide, had already received it. At the same time, a measles vaccine was also found to contain low levels of the retrovirus avian leukosis virus, and Rotateq, Merck's rotavirus vaccine, was found to contain a virus similar to simian (monkey) retrovirus.


Recalls....
http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/SafetyAvailability/Recalls/

I guess it is nice to be trusting.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> http://articles.mercola.com/sites/ar...prise-you.aspx


Most people recognize alarmist BS too


----------



## Annsni (Oct 27, 2006)

Darren said:


> I've been told in the past vaccines were available without the preservatives. The dosages were low and they were more expensive.
> 
> Might be worth asking about.


If it is the single dose vaccine (usually comes in a syringe already and just needs the package to be opened then administered) usually does not have a preservative in it but if it's the multi-dose vial (usually 10 doses per vial), it will have a preservative. So ask for the single dose vaccine.


----------



## Annsni (Oct 27, 2006)

arabian knight said:


> I agree with Dr Carson. Give the vaccines but Spread them out over time. Same thing goes that Donald Trump said Vaccines are good and do good, but spread them out over several weeks.
> I even do that when given vaccines to my horses. NOT ALL AT Once, especially in one or two days. SPACE them out~!
> 
> YOU as parents have the last say when it comes to giving these shots. Don't let the DR's just pounce on you for saving time and poke and poke again. GIVE THOSE Vaccines, but YOU have to say "Spread them over time". YOU as parents have a voice in what and how things are given.
> ...


This is what we did. We selectively vaxxed and did them no more than two at a time. My pediatrician was great and said "God gave them two thighs for a reason. Don't give them more than two vaccines at a time." It did delay when they were fully vaxxed but it wasn't an issue for us. Other than HPV, my kids are now fully vaxxed and were by the time they went to school.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

I have a nephew that was diagnosed retarted with some of the ASD traits. Well, no one says he's retarted or learning impared or anything except ASD. Sounds so much better. I's guess this is widespread. 
If there was a marked increase in Downs Syndrome, them I'd say maybe. But there isn't any.
My nephew's mother drank alcohol once in a while and was given something to slow contractions. They lived near High Voltage power lines, too. Mental illness runs in the family, too. Past generations just called it "bad temper".


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

arabian knight said:


> I agree with Dr Carson. Give the vaccines but Spread them out over time. Same thing goes that Donald Trump said Vaccines are good and do good, but spread them out over several weeks.
> I even do that when given vaccines to my horses. NOT ALL AT Once, especially in one or two days. SPACE them out~!
> 
> YOU as parents have the last say when it comes to giving these shots. Don't let the DR's just pounce on you for saving time and poke and poke again. GIVE THOSE Vaccines, but YOU have to say "Spread them over time". YOU as parents have a voice in what and how things are given.
> ...


There's no science backing up what Carson said on that debate and it's pretty clear he doesn't believe it but was appeasing the antivaxxers. What spacing them out not in accordance with AAP guidelines does is to expose the child to catching the diseases they should be immunized against.

Those guidelines were put in place for a reason.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Annsni said:


> This is what we did. We selectively vaxxed and did them no more than two at a time. My pediatrician was great and said "God gave them two thighs for a reason. Don't give them more than two vaccines at a time." It did delay when they were fully vaxxed but it wasn't an issue for us. Other than HPV, my kids are now fully vaxxed and were by the time they went to school.


There's no point in posting truthful and logical information on this forum.
Chances are it will be deleted and called an insult.
Better to not throw pearls before swine.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

BlackFeather said:


> Most people here know that big bankers are criminal, and the government is in the pocket of the banking business. Most know that the military industrial complex lobbies hard for government weapons programs among our elected leaders. Yet there is so much trust of government health agencies and big pharmaceutical companies. That everything they do is for the peoples benefit and has nothing to do with corporate profits.
> 
> http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/12/21/us-merck-gerberding-idUSTRE5BK2K520091221
> No conflict of interest here, do a good job representing the industries needs and get a job when your out of work at the CDC, and probably better paid too.
> ...




All I want to know is: what in the world is "BIRTH CONTROL VACCINE"? Does it immunize you against birth control? 


If you're thinking that they are injecting birth control with a vaccine, what kind of birth control works that way? I know of depo and Norplant but they are a time released capsule inserted under the skin. No chance they could be mistaken for a vaccine.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

farmrbrown said:


> There's no point in posting truthful and logical information on this forum.
> Chances are it will be deleted and called an insult.
> Better to not throw pearls before swine.


Far, far better to whine that you're posting "truths" and no one will listen to you.

A laughable debate tactic and pretty embarrassing too.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

One things thats really nice about the vaccine/anti-vaccine, spread 'em out or stick to the approved schedule thing is that it's one issue that cuts across party lines. 

Seems there are Science deniers and gullible people from all over the political spectrum.


----------



## Annsni (Oct 27, 2006)

Are you saying that spreading them out denies science?


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Annsni said:


> Are you saying that spreading them out denies science?




CDCâs childhood immunization schedule is based on recommendations from the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). This schedule also is approved by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) and is designed to protect infants and children by providing immunity early in life, before they are exposed to life-threatening diseases. Children are immunized starting at birth because they are susceptible to diseases at a young age, and the consequences of these diseases can be very serious, and even life- threatening, especially for infants and young children. So, yeah....it does deny the known science for a non-medical expert to decide to space out vaccines, unless there is a specific medical reason.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Another response to Carsons pandering: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/18/upshot/not-up-for-debate-the-science-behind-vaccination.html

Whenever I sit down to watch a presidential debate, I have one sincere hope: that vaccines won&#8217;t come up at all. Besides the fact that there really is no &#8220;debate&#8221; when it comes to the science of how they work or how they may harm, merely talking in public about denying vaccines often leads to the solidifying of people&#8217;s views.

My hopes were dashed as Wednesday night&#8217;s debate wound down, though. Questions about vaccines and autism were asked not only of Donald Trump, but also of the two physicians taking part: Ben Carson, a neurosurgeon, and Rand Paul, an ophthalmologist. The doctors, at least, should know better.

Here are the facts:

Vaccines aren&#8217;t linked to autism.

The number of vaccines children receive is not more concerning than it used to be.

Delaying their administration provides no benefit, while leaving children at risk......


----------



## Annsni (Oct 27, 2006)

basketti said:


> CDCâs childhood immunization schedule is based on recommendations from the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). This schedule also is approved by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) and is designed to protect infants and children by providing immunity early in life, before they are exposed to life-threatening diseases. Children are immunized starting at birth because they are susceptible to diseases at a young age, and the consequences of these diseases can be very serious, and even life- threatening, especially for infants and young children. So, yeah....it does deny the known science for a non-medical expert to decide to space out vaccines, unless there is a specific medical reason.


So what's the problem if I choose to spread 4 vaccines over 4 months - when the recommended schedule is to have those 4 vaccines - over 4 months? Yes, it meant more visits to the pediatrician but I would have them have 2 vaccines one month and then 2 the next month rather than having 4 at once. I did this on the recommendation of my pediatrician. I also put off the less vital vaccines (such as hepatitis) in favor of the more vital ones (DPT and polio), although I got the other vaccines within the guidlines of the recommendations. This way I knew when my one child reacted to a vaccine just which vaccine was the problem so we could choose to do that booster at a time that no other vaccines were being given to be able to watch for further reactions. It's just being wise. Remember that the recommendations are just that - not rules.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Annsni said:


> So what's the problem if I choose to spread 4 vaccines over 4 months - when the recommended schedule is to have those 4 vaccines - over 4 months? Yes, it meant more visits to the pediatrician but I would have them have 2 vaccines one month and then 2 the next month rather than having 4 at once. I did this on the recommendation of my pediatrician. I also put off the less vital vaccines (such as hepatitis) in favor of the more vital ones (DPT and polio), although I got the other vaccines within the guidlines of the recommendations. This way I knew when my one child reacted to a vaccine just which vaccine was the problem so we could choose to do that booster at a time that no other vaccines were being given to be able to watch for further reactions. It's just being wise. Remember that the recommendations are just that - not rules.


They are reccommendations based on science and if you can't read the posts, I'm not going to reiterate them for you. Will post some more if you like. The current schedule is the most protective to infants. If your pediatrician proposed otherwise without your prompting which is a huge problem for pediatricians, then he is going against the science backing up the schedules. More likely you proposed the alternate schedule and he went along with another mother "who knows better" so as to keep the kids at least getting vaccinated. 


https://www.aap.org/en-us/about-the...-Who-Want-to-Space-Out-or-Delay-Vaccines.aspx


----------



## Annsni (Oct 27, 2006)

basketti said:


> They are reccommendations based on science and if you can't read the posts, I'm not going to reiterate them for you. Will post some more if you like. The current schedule is the most protective to infants. If your pediatrician proposed otherwise without your prompting which is a huge problem for pediatricians, then he is going against the science backing up the schedules. More likely you proposed the alternate schedule and he went along with another mother "who knows better" so as to keep the kids at least getting vaccinated.
> 
> 
> https://www.aap.org/en-us/about-the...-Who-Want-to-Space-Out-or-Delay-Vaccines.aspx


Actually, it was my physician who suggested the spread out schedule because he didn't believe that giving a child 4 different vaccinations at the same time was a good idea. It was my choice if I wanted them all at once but he recommended more frequent visits and spreading the shots out. It just meant instead of getting shots at 2, 4 and 6 months, my kids got shots at 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 months. My husband has severe allergies (just about allergic to everything) and he wanted to be sure if there was a reaction, we knew what the cause would be. Like I said, the doctor said that the kids have two thighs for a reason - one shot in one, one shot in the other and marked on the chart which vaccine went into which leg. The only vaccine I delayed further than recommended was chicken pox which I don't get for the kids until they are older teens and HPV which is a vaccine I leave up to the decision of the child when they become teens. Oh and I refused the newborn HepB vaccine for each of my kids and had that instead at their 6 week checkup. Our risk of HebB is pretty much zero so I wasn't worried about that one.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Any scientific studies on breast feeding giving infants under a year old passing on immunities to babies, thereby protecting them when they're most vulnerable?
Of course there's no need to question anything, just do what you're told. No logic, no common sense, nothing.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

farmrbrown said:


> Any scientific studies on breast feeding giving infants under a year old passing on immunities to babies, thereby protecting them when they're most vulnerable?
> Of course there's no need to question anything, just do what you're told. No logic, no common sense, nothing.


For the most part it isn't breast milk that contains "immunities" (Immunoglobulins) it's colostrum. They only protect the infant for roughly 3-6 months (I'm not completely sure on the time) and absolutely doesn't protect against everything.

So, yes, immunoglobulins do provide protection but not for an indefinite amount of time. Which is why immunizations are scheduled to start at 3 months. 

There is need to question everything, but use common sense and don't get your information from mercola, your mommy group, Facebook, and the like.


----------



## Annsni (Oct 27, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> So, yes, immunoglobulins do provide protection but not for an indefinite amount of time. Which is why immunizations are scheduled to start at 3 months.


Actually, infant immunizations are scheduled to start at birth (HepB) and they are scheduled to receive 5 additional vaccines at 2 months (polio, DPaT, Hib, Rotavirus and pneumococcal). So they have already had 6 vaccines by 3 months.

Additionally, mature breast milk also does pass on antibodies - it is not just colostrum.

http://kellymom.com/pregnancy/bf-prep/how_breastmilk_protects_newborns/


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Annsni said:


> Actually, infant immunizations are scheduled to start at birth (HepB) and they are scheduled to receive 5 additional vaccines at 2 months (polio, DPaT, Hib, Rotavirus and pneumococcal). So they have already had 6 vaccines by 3 months.
> 
> Additionally, mature breast milk also does pass on antibodies - it is not just colostrum.
> 
> http://kellymom.com/pregnancy/bf-prep/how_breastmilk_protects_newborns/


Read my post again.  Here, I'll help: "*For the most part* it isn't breast milk that contains "immunities" (Immunoglobulins) it's colostrum. They only protect the infant for roughly 3-6 months (I'm not completely sure on the time) and absolutely doesn't protect against everything."

You are correct in that immunizations usually start at 2 months, my mistake. The point is that immunoglobulins (no matter if in colostrum or breast milk) have a shelf life, and don't don't protect against everything. 

I'm not familiar with HepB and didn't include it.


----------



## Annsni (Oct 27, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> Read my post again.  Here, I'll help: "*For the most part* it isn't breast milk that contains "immunities" (Immunoglobulins) it's colostrum. They only protect the infant for roughly 3-6 months (I'm not completely sure on the time) and absolutely doesn't protect against everything."


I understand what you said but it is in error. Breastmilk does contain immunoglobulins and it does all through the breastfeeding relationship. You can read more about it here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3257684/



> You are correct in that immunizations usually start at 2 months, my mistake. The point is that immunoglobulins (no matter if in colostrum or breast milk) have a shelf life, and don't don't protect against everything.


Immunizations actually start at birth according to the pediatric immunization guidelines. I will disagree that immunoglobulins have a "shelf life" because honestly, breast milk is a "live" milk that is continually produced and the immunoglobulins will actually change through the nursing relationship depending on what pathogens are in the environment that the mother will be exposed to. There is no such thing as "shelf life" with breast milk unless you express and store it.



> I'm not familiar with HepB and didn't include it.


HepB has been given for years and it's the vaccine I refuse for my children because as I'm readying to leave the hospital with a newborn, they tell me not to bring them out into the pubic but then they want to inject my child with a virus that they have a VERY minimal chance of being exposed to under normal circumstances. My youngest is almost 13 and I have refused the vaccine for at least the last 2 kids (almost 13 and 15) and I believe it was my second child when they first were recommending it in the hospital (she's now 23). It's been around for a very long time.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Annsni said:


> I understand what you said but it is in error. Breastmilk does contain immunoglobulins and it does all through the breastfeeding relationship.


Sigh. Where did I say that breast milk contains NO immunoglobulins? Can you point it out please?

As for the Hep B, obviously my children are older than yours- try 32 and 29. I'm a grandmother of 3. I'm not familiar with it and I stated as much. Why are you haranguing me about something I stated I wasn't familiar with?


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Annsni said:


> Actually, it was my physician who suggested the spread out schedule because he didn't believe that giving a child 4 different vaccinations at the same time was a good idea. It was my choice if I wanted them all at once but he recommended more frequent visits and spreading the shots out. It just meant instead of getting shots at 2, 4 and 6 months, my kids got shots at 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 months. My husband has severe allergies (just about allergic to everything) and he wanted to be sure if there was a reaction, we knew what the cause would be. Like I said, the doctor said that the kids have two thighs for a reason - one shot in one, one shot in the other and marked on the chart which vaccine went into which leg. The only vaccine I delayed further than recommended was chicken pox which I don't get for the kids until they are older teens and HPV which is a vaccine I leave up to the decision of the child when they become teens. Oh and I refused the newborn HepB vaccine for each of my kids and had that instead at their 6 week checkup. Our risk of HebB is pretty much zero so I wasn't worried about that one.



Don't know how many times I said "unless there is a medical reason" but you must not have seen that. My daughter has severe food allergies but there was zero medical reasons her new son should not receive his vaccines and did so with no issues. On the recommended schedule.

As far as Hep B. God forbid your child might need a transfusion:
http://shotofprevention.com/2010/05/06/why-infants-should-receive-the-hepatitis-b-vaccine-at-birth/


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

basketti said:


> Don't know how many times I said "unless there is a medical reason" but you must not have seen that. My daughter has severe food allergies but there was zero medical reasons her new son should not receive his vaccines and did so with no issues. On the recommended schedule.
> 
> As far as Hep B. God forbid your child might need a transfusion:
> http://shotofprevention.com/2010/05/06/why-infants-should-receive-the-hepatitis-b-vaccine-at-birth/


Some "enthusiastic" selective (or anti) vaxxers get rather excited and don't read as thoroughly as they should.


----------



## Annsni (Oct 27, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> Sigh. Where did I say that breast milk contains NO immunoglobulins? Can you point it out please?





Irish Pixie said:


> For the most part it isn't breast milk that contains "immunities" (Immunoglobulins) it's colostrum. *They only protect the infant for roughly 3-6 months *(I'm not completely sure on the time) and absolutely doesn't protect against everything.
> 
> So, yes, *immunoglobulins do provide protection but not for an indefinite amount of time*. Which is why immunizations are scheduled to start at 3 months.


Here you said that for the most part it isn't breastmilk that contains immunoglobulins and they only protect the infant for 3-6 months. That is wrong as I posted in the links.



> As for the Hep B, obviously my children are older than yours- try 32 and 29. I'm a grandmother of 3. I'm not familiar with it and I stated as much. Why are you haranguing me about something I stated I wasn't familiar with?


You spoke as if what you were stating as fact. If you are not familiar with it, then maybe give a quick check to the recent recommendations. Even 29 years ago, immunizations started at 2 months.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Originally Posted by Annsni
> Immunizations actually start at birth according to the pediatric immunization guidelines. I will disagree that immunoglobulins have a "shelf life" because honestly, breast milk is a "live" milk that is continually produced and the immunoglobulins will actually change through the nursing relationship depending on what pathogens are in the environment that the mother will be exposed to.


Exactly
If the mother hasn't been exposed to a particular disease, she cannot pass along antibodies for that disease, hence the need for vaccines.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Annsni said:


> Here you said that for the most part it isn't breastmilk that contains immunoglobulins and they only protect the infant for 3-6 months. That is wrong as I posted in the links.
> 
> You spoke as if what you were stating as fact. If you are not familiar with it, then maybe give a quick check to the recent recommendations. Even 29 years ago, immunizations started at 2 months.


I never mentioned HepB in my first post, and the second stated this: "I'm not familiar with HepB and didn't include it." Please read for comprehension. 

My children both started vaccinations at 3 months. Not all children are full term when they are born. Some children at premature and immunizations need to be held off for a bit. Mine had to to wait another month. Perhaps you should realize that not *all* children have their vaccinations starting at 2 months. 

The highest amount of immunoglobulin is in colostrum, which is why I said, "for the most part." I never said that there was no immunoglobulin in breast milk did I? If I did, please point it out in my post or stop putting words in my mouth. It isn't nice.


----------



## Annsni (Oct 27, 2006)

basketti said:


> Don't know how many times I said "unless there is a medical reason" but you must not have seen that. My daughter has severe food allergies but there was zero medical reasons her new son should not receive his vaccines and did so with no issues. On the recommended schedule.
> 
> As far as Hep B. God forbid your child might need a transfusion:
> http://shotofprevention.com/2010/05/06/why-infants-should-receive-the-hepatitis-b-vaccine-at-birth/


Hmm - Your daughter has severe food allergies - I hope not to egg since egg is in many vaccines. I know numerous children who cannot get some vaccines because of egg allergies.

See, I guess you didn't understand that my children WERE fully vaccinated - but just not on the exact schedule of the CDC. So if a child should have received 4 vaccines at 2 months, mine received two at two months and 2 at three months. Guess what happens if your child is ill at their 2 month check up? They put off the vaccine to the next visit. It's not that big a deal. 

As for the HepB vaccine, the chances of becoming ill with HepB in a healthy child are very small. Considering my child never skinned their knee on a dirty street before 6 weeks old, I'd say we were in pretty good shape.


----------



## Annsni (Oct 27, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> I never mentioned HepB in my first post, and the second stated this: "I'm not familiar with HepB and didn't include it." Please read for comprehension.
> 
> My children both started vaccinations at 3 months. Not all children are full term when they are born. Some children at premature and immunizations need to be held off for a bit. Mine had to to wait another month. Perhaps you should realize that not *all* children have their vaccinations starting at 2 months.
> 
> The highest amount of immunoglobulin is in colostrum, which is why I said, "for the most part." I never said that there was no immunoglobulin in breast milk did I? If I did, please point it out in my post or stop putting words in my mouth. It isn't nice.


Oh so your children had delayed vaxxes? Interesting. 

You did say that the immunoglobulin only protects for 3-6 months and the scientific study I provided disproves your statement. Why not just admit you are wrong?


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

farmrbrown said:


> Any scientific studies on breast feeding giving infants under a year old passing on immunities to babies, thereby protecting them when they're most vulnerable?
> Of course there's no need to question anything, just do what you're told. No logic, no common sense, nothing.


Passive aggression, anyone?


----------



## Annsni (Oct 27, 2006)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Exactly
> If the mother hasn't been exposed to a particular disease, she cannot pass along antibodies for that disease, hence the need for vaccines.


But in theory, if the mother has been vaccinated for a disease, then there would be no need for the vaccination. Unfortunately, we cannot pass on full immunity to diseases like measles or polio - otherwise entire generations would have seen the decline of these diseases when breastfeeding was pretty much the only way to feed a child. However, we do see that all through a breastfeeding child's life, breastmilk changes according to the environment and even what the child and mother have been exposed to. It's really a fascinating study to know how "alive" breastmilk is even for a toddler. Even at 2 years old, the child is receiving immunities from the mother's milk.  Pretty cool stuff!


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Annsni said:


> Oh so your children had delayed vaxxes? Interesting.
> 
> You did say that the immunoglobulin only protects for 3-6 months and the scientific study I provided disproves your statement. Why not just admit you are wrong?


Can't or won't address the issues in my post?  I'll help: "I never mentioned HepB in my first post, and the second stated this: "I'm not familiar with HepB and didn't include it." Please read for comprehension. 

My children both started vaccinations at 3 months. Not all children are full term when they are born. Some children at premature and immunizations need to be held off for a bit. Mine had to to wait another month. Perhaps you should realize that not all children have their vaccinations starting at 2 months. 

The highest amount of immunoglobulin is in colostrum, which is why I said, "for the most part." I never said that there was no immunoglobulin in breast milk did I? If I did, please point it out in my post or stop putting words in my mouth. It isn't nice."

Yup, *medical reasons* to postpone vaccinations are acceptable, aren't they?


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Annsni said:


> Hmm - Your daughter has severe food allergies - I hope not to egg since egg is in many vaccines. I know numerous children who cannot get some vaccines because of egg allergies.
> 
> See, I guess you didn't understand that my children WERE fully vaccinated - but just not on the exact schedule of the CDC. So if a child should have received 4 vaccines at 2 months, mine received two at two months and 2 at three months. Guess what happens if your child is ill at their 2 month check up? They put off the vaccine to the next visit. It's not that big a deal.
> 
> As for the HepB vaccine, the chances of becoming ill with HepB in a healthy child are very small. Considering my child never skinned their knee on a dirty street before 6 weeks old, I'd say we were in pretty good shape.


No She isn't. But that isn't an issue anyway: http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/524359


----------



## Annsni (Oct 27, 2006)

basketti said:


> No She isn't. But that isn't an issue anyway: http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/524359


That link just leads me to Medscape but no article.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Annsni said:


> I understand what you said but it is in error. Breastmilk does contain immunoglobulins and it does all through the breastfeeding relationship. You can read more about it here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3257684/
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Annsni said:


> Here you said that for the most part it isn't breastmilk that contains immunoglobulins and they only protect the infant for 3-6 months. That is wrong as I posted in the links.
> 
> 
> 
> You spoke as if what you were stating as fact. If you are not familiar with it, then maybe give a quick check to the recent recommendations. Even 29 years ago, immunizations started at 2 months.


I'm glad you were gathering links to correct this, I was too.
Here's another, and I found some from the CDC and NIH but they all say pretty much the same thing, with the gov't sites being a little less enthusiastic of course.....

http://www.askdrsears.com/topics/fe...ing/why-breast-is-best/benefits-of-breastmilk









Irish Pixie said:


> For the most part it isn't breast milk that contains "immunities" (Immunoglobulins) it's colostrum. They only protect the infant for roughly 3-6 months (I'm not completely sure on the time) and absolutely doesn't protect against everything.
> 
> So, yes, immunoglobulins do provide protection but not for an indefinite amount of time. Which is why immunizations are scheduled to start at 3 months.
> 
> There is need to question everything, but use common sense and don't get your information from mercola, your mommy group, Facebook, and the like.


With the tremendous amount of confirming studies on this subject over more than a century, I didn't feel the need to consult Facebook or the other sources listed.
I would take a group of mothers and their wisdom over most other authorities though. My mom is a pretty smart cookie and has diagnosed pediatric problems when the doctors were all stumped.
The bacterial protection was even more impressive than the viral immunities and shouldn't be overlooked.
While anecdotal evidence is almost always dismissed by science, the CDC findings on influenza vaccines and breast feeding should alert the readers to the obvious conclusion that the CDC is quite reluctant to admit.
The CDC recommends NOT giving flu shots containing the live virus to infant that are breast feeding because it renders the vaccine ineffective.
The answer "why" should be clear, but they neglected to say much about that.
:shrug:

http://www.cdc.gov/breastfeeding/recommendations/vaccinations.htm
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5213a1.htm



Irish Pixie said:


> Some "enthusiastic" selective (or anti) vaxxers get rather excited and don't read as thoroughly as they should.


Protecting one's children will usually elicit an exited response from most parents, as it should be.
Failing to read thoroughly is a trait I've noticed across a wide spectrum of people.
:whistlin:


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

That particular Dr.mSears is a money grubbing donkeys backside. 
https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/cashing-in-on-fear-the-danger-of-dr-sears/


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Doesn't anyone know what "for the most part" means? 

Here you go: for the most part
phrase of most
1.
in most cases; usually.
"the older members, for the most part, shun him

See it doesn't mean that there there is none, now does it?

The most immunoglobulin is found in colostrum. Which is what I said in my first post.


----------



## Annsni (Oct 27, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> Can't or won't address the issues in my post?  I'll help: "I never mentioned HepB in my first post, and the second stated this: "I'm not familiar with HepB and didn't include it." Please read for comprehension.
> 
> My children both started vaccinations at 3 months. Not all children are full term when they are born. Some children at premature and immunizations need to be held off for a bit. Mine had to to wait another month. Perhaps you should realize that not all children have their vaccinations starting at 2 months.
> 
> ...


Already addressed each of your issues here. I guess you just skipped reading them? It's interesting the backpeddling I see.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Annsni said:


> That link just leads me to Medscape but no article.[/]
> 
> I am managing a 14-month-old boy with chronic atopic eczema who has a history of egg allergy, characterized by angioneurotic edema and urticaria after ingesting egg. There was a positive skin prick test to egg antigen. Would it be safe to administer measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine to this child? His mother does not want to consider single-dose vaccines, which are egg-free. Would it be advisable to delay his MMR until a later stage?
> 
> ...


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

basketti said:


> That particular Dr.mSears is a money grubbing donkeys backside.
> https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/cashing-in-on-fear-the-danger-of-dr-sears/


Interesting read.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

basketti said:


> That particular Dr.mSears is a money grubbing donkeys backside.
> https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/cashing-in-on-fear-the-danger-of-dr-sears/


Of course.
And their findings were incorrect, too, right?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Annsni said:


> Already addressed each of your issues here. I guess you just skipped reading them? It's interesting the backpeddling I see.


I did indeed miss them. Point them out, please? 

What am I backpedaling about?


----------



## Annsni (Oct 27, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> I did indeed miss them. Point them out, please?
> 
> What am I backpedaling about?





Irish Pixie said:


> For the most part it isn't breast milk that contains "immunities" (Immunoglobulins) it's colostrum. *They only protect the infant for roughly 3-6 months* (I'm not completely sure on the time) and absolutely doesn't protect against everything.


Let's see - you say that they only protect the infant for 3-6 months (which I'm assuming you mean the benefits from colostrum?) but I showed where breastmilk continues to provide immunological benefits far beyond 3-6 months and you have yet to admit that is correct.



> So, yes, immunoglobulins do provide protection but not for an indefinite amount of time.


They do because as the child continues to breastfeed, he continues to receive protection which was provided in the link. 



> Which is why immunizations are scheduled to start at 3 months.


YOUR child's immunizations are scheduled to start at 3 months but since at least the 70s (as far back as I could find schedules), immunizations have started at 2 months and since 1992 (I believe was the date - maybe 91?), it has been that immunizations start at birth. Your statement here is, in fact, false.



> There is need to question everything, but use common sense and don't get your information from mercola, your mommy group, Facebook, and the like.


I guess the CDC and NIH don't work for you? I never have followed Mercola, haven't been in a mommy group and I question absolutely everything I find on Facebook, thank you very much.


----------



## Annsni (Oct 27, 2006)

Oh and backpeddling when we find out your children were vaccinated at 3 months because their vaccines were delayed - not because that was the standard vaccination schedule based on the fact that immunity from breastmilk is no longer active so they need vaccines (I still haven't seen the evidences from the CDC stating this is why they start vaccines when they do).

You accuse me of getting my information from Mercola, mommy groups and Facebook yet I've shown you studies and facts. However, not one statement of yours has been backed up by any hard study/site. You have stated:

* breastmilk immunity has a "shelf life" of 3-6 months
* the vaccination schedule is due to breastmilk no longer providing immunity
* vaccinations begin at 3 months. 

Can I see the links to these facts please?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Annsni said:


> Oh and backpeddling when we find out your children were vaccinated at 3 months because their vaccines were delayed - not because that was the standard vaccination schedule based on the fact that immunity from breastmilk is no longer active so they need vaccines (I still haven't seen the evidences from the CDC stating this is why they start vaccines when they do).
> 
> You accuse me of getting my information from Mercola, mommy groups and Facebook yet I've shown you studies and facts. However, not one statement of yours has been backed up by any hard study/site. You have stated:
> 
> ...


You do realize that my initial post didn't involve you in any way, right? It was in response to Farmrbrown's post. 

The information I provided was correct. The fact that you didn't read for comprehension isn't my problem. I've provided all the information that I'm going to.


----------



## Annsni (Oct 27, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> You do realize that my initial post didn't involve you in any way, right? It was in response to Farmrbrown's post.


Oh sorry. I didn't know this was a private thread. 



> *The information I provided was correct.* The fact that you didn't read for comprehension isn't my problem. I've provided all the information that I'm going to.


Great! Then you shouldn't have a problem showing me a link to support each of those three points.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Annsni said:


> Oh sorry. I didn't know this was a private thread.
> 
> 
> 
> Great! Then you shouldn't have a problem showing me a link to support each of those three points.


Still having that reading comprehension problem. I'll help, *again*, but this is the last time. 



Irish Pixie said:


> I've provided all the information that I'm going to.


----------



## Annsni (Oct 27, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> Still having that reading comprehension problem. I'll help, *again*, but this is the last time.


LOL - Oh I can read just fine which is why I even addressed your posts in the first place. The errors were glaring. I was just hoping you might even try to attempt to support what you said since you seem to be standing so firmly on those statements. But that's OK.


----------



## BlackFeather (Jun 17, 2014)

basketti said:


> All I want to know is: what in the world is "BIRTH CONTROL VACCINE"?





> When tetanus is laced with HCG and administered in five doses every 6 months, the woman develops antibodies against both the tetanus and the HCG in 2 &#8211; 3 years after the last injection. Once a mother develops antibodies against HCG, she rejects any pregnancy as soon as it starts growing in her womb thus causing repeated abortions and subsequent sterility.


http://www.matercare.org/news-publi...ion-campaign-is-all-about-population-control/

They didn't inform the women they were doing this. Cattle to be managed.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

BlackFeather said:


> http://www.matercare.org/news-publi...ion-campaign-is-all-about-population-control/
> 
> They didn't inform the women they were doing this. Cattle to be managed.


http://www.snopes.com/medical/disease/tetanus.asp


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Should have realized I needed to check Snopes.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

BlackFeather said:


> http://www.matercare.org/news-publi...ion-campaign-is-all-about-population-control/
> 
> 
> 
> ...


No one gets that many Tetanus vaccinations
That should have been your first clue it was fantasy


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

You got that right. Maybe ONE every SIX years Not 5 in 6 months that is absolutely a fantasy article written by someone who knows not what they are talking about. And just wants to incite the anti vac group, but not in that way. Not when it is that far out of this world writing.
And besides the tetanus shots are now 10 YEARS APART. One Shot that is.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

At the Million Man March this past week, Louis Farrakhan explained to the crowd about the vaccines that were engineered to sterilize Blacks and Latinos, put out by the CDC.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

haypoint said:


> At the Million Man March this past week, Louis Farrakhan explained to the crowd about the vaccines that were engineered to sterilize Blacks and Latinos, put out by the CDC.


Good grief...


----------



## Annsni (Oct 27, 2006)

haypoint said:


> At the Million Man March this past week, Louis Farrakhan explained to the crowd about the vaccines that were engineered to sterilize Blacks and Latinos, put out by the CDC.


But I thought the flu shot could get you pregnant?

http://worldnewsdailyreport.com/texas-14-year-old-virgin-falls-pregnant-after-flu-shot/

I told my husband to be careful because he got his flu shot at my gynecologist's office and he just may get pregnant!


----------



## BlackFeather (Jun 17, 2014)

basketti said:


> http://www.snopes.com/medical/disease/tetanus.asp


I stand corrected.


----------

