1. MikeG

    MikeG Active Member

    Montanans for Medical Freedom recently posted this on Facebook

    MOM Screenshot.

    MOM’s website is here.
    http://www.momvaccines.org/research.html


    I wanted to examine the claim regarding the effect of 20 micrograms of aluminum on a “brand new child.” That term struck me as vague from the start.


    I found two sources that might be the point of origin for the aluminum dosage:

    This first is Title 21, Part 201 of the U.S. Code which addresses labeling



    http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/CFRSearch.cfm?fr=201.323

    The second source that may apply is Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Document NDA 19-626/S-019, Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act for Dextrose Injections.



    For a tiny newborn, this toxic dose would be 10 to 20 micrograms, and for an adult it would be about 350 micrograms

    The most important term in both of these documents is “parenteral nutrition,” which I found out means being fed by intravenous solution (IV).

    Relevant literature on parenteral nutrition notes that the patient receiving it does not metabolize IV fluid the same way as normal eating or drinking.

    A good discussion of parenteral nutrition may be found here.

    http://patients.gi.org/topics/enteral-and-parenteral-nutrition/


    The “brand new” children that MOM and Mary Tocco mention are, in actuality, “premature neonates,” or premature babies. These babies lack a fully formed digestive system and cannot metabolize nutrients at the same rate as healthy children. It is a problem compounded when they are fed by intravenous solution.


    In other words, MOM cherry picked a very specific standard for aluminum that applies to premature babies receiving intravenous feeding.


    Aluminum levels that apply to healthy children were well-covered in Post #52.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 2, 2015
    • Informative Informative x 4
    • Like Like x 1
  2. Veronica!

    Veronica! New Member

    Living in the California county with the highest rate of personal exemptions for children getting vaccinated, I am well aware of the word soup that these organizations use. "Brand new child" is a new one, and I might have laughed a bit too hard at it...
    It's amazing how these "toxins" in vaccines keep getting brought up... I mean, I always hear about how the mercury is terrible and it's in vaccines, but as many others have proved on here, it isn't exactly mercury. The local "vaccine truth" groups refuse to vaccinate because of the "mercury," and yet they let their infants play in our rivers and streams, which are filled with actual mercury from the hydraulic mining operations of old... :rolleyes:
     
  3. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    The topic is aluminum, but kinda hard not to shed some light on this since it was brought up.


    UK says the same it seems
     
    Last edited: Dec 1, 2015
    • Like Like x 2
  4. MikeG

    MikeG Active Member



    Peter Tar provided Children's Hospital of Philadelphia that offers excellent context on just how "toxic" aluminum is:



    http://www.chop.edu/service/vaccine...cine-safety/vaccine-ingredients/aluminum.html
     
    • Like Like x 2
  5. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    I'm not going to look too deeply into this issue because i think you got it basically right and i'm completely burned out from the "Thimerosal debate" years back. You did nail the sources of her numbers.


    i'd like to point out though, i think you left the most important part of the quote out in your above quote (i bolded it). i know your quote mentions it but that is a huge distinction of low birth weight babies vs. healthy weight born babies. *low birth weight babies whose mothers test negative for Hib dont get the shot until 1 month or until healthy enough to receive it.








    That said, i think MOM got her info from Dr. Bob. (Dr. Robert Sears)






    In that article Dr. Bob also says


    i'm a bit confused because his book came out Oct 2011 but there are studies, one from 2002. and then in 2011 they redid the study based on the new vaccine schedule.

    2002 Aluminum toxicokinetics regarding infant diet and vaccinations
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12184359

    2011 Updated aluminum pharmacokinetics following infant exposures through diet and vaccination
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22001122


    But at least Dr. Bob doesnt seem to be suggesting parents not vaccinate



    Of course critics, in general, still find his "new vaccine schedule" dangerous. Here's one critic example, a rather LONG commentary on Dr. Sear's Book.

     
  6. David Jensen

    David Jensen Closed Account

    This is interesting. [According to this article ] Chinese researchers now point to link between nano aluminum adjuvants in vaccine and austism. The article also illustrates how the explanations of ingested aluminum being the equivalent of injected nano-aluminum in vaccines, and therefore safe, is categorically incorrect - and ignorant of the difference between ingesting environmental aluminum and nano-aluminum particles being injected into your bloodstream.

    And note the assumption that low doses are safe while high doses are toxic is also thrown out the window.



    and also this



    and this



    and note this excerpt that shows low doses of nanoaluminum are more toxic than high doses (there goes the assumption of low doses safe, high doses toxic).


    https://healthcareinamerica.us/did-chinese-scientists-find-autisms-missing-puzzle-piece-2d50be5b9122[/i]
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 19, 2017 at 12:35 AM
  7. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    I added a modifier to your comment. Please be more careful in your wording in the future. From your article:
     
  8. David Jensen

    David Jensen Closed Account





    It is the new study that demonstrates that vaccines can cause brain injury and not the article. Please do not be so quick to edit other peoples posts.
     
    Last edited: Apr 19, 2017 at 12:38 AM
  9. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    really? link me to the study you are referring to.
     
  10. David Jensen

    David Jensen Closed Account

    It's right in the article. It is the focus of the article. I'm going to bed.
     
  11. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    no. link me to it directly.
     
  12. MikeG

    MikeG Active Member

    I looked up the article. It is about 45 pages long. I am planning to wade through it, but deirdre's point is well taken.

    Pointing out the exact evidence would be helpful. Otherwise, it is like having to find something in an hour long video without a time stamp
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  13. Miss VocalCord

    Miss VocalCord Active Member

    • Useful Useful x 1
  14. David Jensen

    David Jensen Closed Account

    This is the original scientific paper:



    http://vaccinepapers.org/wp-content/uploads/BCGhepB-vaccines.pdf

    Note this is a 2015 paper and not the 2011 paper that is reference in other discussions The link is found in the original article I posted above:

    https://healthcareinamerica.us/did-chinese-scientists-find-autisms-missing-puzzle-piece-2d50be5b9122
     
  15. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    and this proves aluminum adjuvant, specifically, in hep vaccine is dangerous/causes autism, how?
     
  16. Dan Wilson

    Dan Wilson Active Member

    As stated in another thread, you and the article are overstating the findings of the original publications.
    Again, for reference, these are the original publications that I think are of interest here (correct me if there is one you think is also important:
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27908630
    https://vaccinepapers.org/wp-conten...lances-and-mediates-autism-like-behaviors.pdf

    What the authors of the first paper suggest with their data is that a special brand of aluminum adjuvant called Alhydrogel causes previously uncharacterized long-term toxicity. The lowest dosage was relevant to actual immunizations but none of what they present is relevant to autism. These authors assessed the mice 180 days after injection. That is like a human developing autism in early adulthood as the result of a vaccine. That doesn't quite fit with how autism works.

    The second paper has nothing to do with aluminum. They just inject adenovirus expressing IL-6 into the brains of mice and characterize the behavioral response. This paper can only claim that IL-6 over expression in the brain might contribute to ASD -like behaviors in mice. Hardly a case for calming vaccines are a cause for autism.

    Can you please address where in these papers you think the data or writing suggest that vaccines may cause autism?
     
    • Informative Informative x 1