or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaxing a child with diabetes?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Vaxing a child with diabetes? - Page 3

post #41 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by lilsparrow View Post
Taking into account a later dx of Type 1 wouldn't account for a 20 yr span. In T1 when it develops, it is apparent FAST that there is something VERY wrong. A undx'd T1 would prolly only live 3-4 yrs longer (if that, some die within a couple of weeks from severe DKA) without insulin. They basically starve to death. Maybe for a T2.
You're also not factoring in that Type I and Type II were not seen as separate diseases until the middle of the 20th century. And, the average age of onset for Type I diabetes now is 12 years old. http://www.elac.edu/ElacOnline/The_F...s_mellitus.htm

Another source: http://www.bri.ucla.edu/bri_weekly/news_030714.asp
Type 1 diabetes often is referred to as juvenile diabetes because it most often occurs in childhood; the average age of onset is 12

I'd like to know where the source for an average age of 15-25 comes from, as well as the 20 year difference (since that would be 32 years old, which, from what I understand, is almost always indicative of Type II)
post #42 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gitti View Post
Sure there were people with diabetes before vaccines, but since vaccines were introduced, the age for onset of type 1 diabetes has shown up in much younger children.

From what I have read, the average age used to be 15 to 25 while now it is anywhere from under age one. That has been documented.
Source please?
post #43 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThereseReich View Post
I don't think we need to start a new thread because the information that we're talking about is relevant to her decision of whether or not to vaccinate. If vaccines cause diabetes, then she may not want to vaccinate in the future.
How is that relevant to her daughter who has already developed diabetes? I'm not following your logic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ThereseReich View Post
Here are the scientific studies:

Association between type 1 diabetes and Haemophilus influenzae type b vaccination:
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/318/7192/1169
Hemophilus vaccine and increased IDDM, causal relationship likely.

Journal of Pediatric Endocrinology and Metabolism
"Clustering of Cases of Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus Occurring 2-4 Years After Vaccination is Consistent with Clustering After Infections and Progression to Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus in Autoantibody Positive Individuals"
http://www.freundpublishing.com/Jour...m/JPEM16_4.htm

"Baltimore, May 27, 2003: The prestigious peer reviewed journal, Journal of Pediatric Endocrinology and Metabolism published a study this week by Dr. J. Bart Classen, an immunologist at Classen Immunotherapies, and David Carey Classen, an infectious disease specialist at the University of Utah, providing support for a causal relationship between several common pediatric vaccines and the development of insulin dependent diabetes."
http://www.vaccines.net/newpage113.htm
None of these link to an actual study. I'd like to read the studies - not the commentary. The link in your last paragraph leads to a press release on the author's own website/company which isn't exactly a peer reviewed journal. Even there I haven't seen one where they inject animals with vaccines which cause 79% of them to develop diabetes which is what your initial quote stated.

I'm leary on vaccines as well - that's based on instinct, our particular risk factors and now my daughter's specific health. But if we are going to demand real science on the flu vaccine from the government or manufacturers we can't then go back and call pseudoscience good enough to support our own position. FWIW my daughter wasn't vaxxed at all. Clearly there are other factors at work.
post #44 of 89
OP, I wish you good luck with whatever you decide. Given that nothing in life is risk-free, decisions like this are often hard on parents. The idea of possibly having some active role in that risk (via vaccination) versus letting nature take its course (often called omission bias) adds an emotional element that sometimes overshadows the issue. My best advice is to talk to someone you trust that has experience in this field. I wish you luck.

As for the relevant discussion about vaccines and diabetes - I'm assuming that the link is because more vaccine might aggravate the illness? I'm not sure the link is appropriate, but just in case I'm missing something (for instance, in case there's an underlying assumption that a vaccine would have caused the diabetes to begin with):

Quote:
Originally Posted by ThereseReich View Post
I don't think we need to start a new thread because the information that we're talking about is relevant to her decision of whether or not to vaccinate. If vaccines cause diabetes, then she may not want to vaccinate in the future.

Here are the scientific studies:

Association between type 1 diabetes and Haemophilus influenzae type b vaccination:
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/318/7192/1169
Hemophilus vaccine and increased IDDM, causal relationship likely.

Journal of Pediatric Endocrinology and Metabolism
"Clustering of Cases of Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus Occurring 2-4 Years After Vaccination is Consistent with Clustering After Infections and Progression to Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus in Autoantibody Positive Individuals"
http://www.freundpublishing.com/Jour...m/JPEM16_4.htm

"Baltimore, May 27, 2003: The prestigious peer reviewed journal, Journal of Pediatric Endocrinology and Metabolism published a study this week by Dr. J. Bart Classen, an immunologist at Classen Immunotherapies, and David Carey Classen, an infectious disease specialist at the University of Utah, providing support for a causal relationship between several common pediatric vaccines and the development of insulin dependent diabetes."
http://www.vaccines.net/newpage113.htm
Therese, if you're going to try backing up your statements with evidence, it would be wise to check your sources first. Your first link, where you bolded the title "CAUSAL LINK LIKELY" is a commentary in response to another article that was published and which showed NO significant difference in their cohort study. The authors of the letter that you linked to, Classen and Classen, stated at THAT time that they had done their own study, NOT YET PUBLISHED, that suggested otherwise.

The second link is the link to their actual study, which was eventually published. It's the same study you're referring to in your third link. So, off the top, you're talking about ONE scientific study, not three. As for the authors, the lead investigator, J Bart Classen, and immunologist at CLASSEN IMMUNOTHERAPIES, has serious monetary conflicts of interest, namely his own company selling products to treat immune diseases, which also funded his study.

Even if their results are correct (though not replicated to date, as far as I've been able to find), there's a huge problem with the findings - he can't explain the mechanism by which a vaccine for Hib would cause diabetes. If it were truly an autoimmune response to the pathogen (live vaccine), surely there would be studies indicating that he virus (when contracted naturally) would also cause diabetes, but there are no studies to support this either. As far as I could find, there isn't a great explanation for his results, given by him, or elsewhere.

Just out of curiosity...why would you assume those were three unrelated links?

Oh, and in case you and the OP are interested, as this is really about what she should do in the case of her child:

Here's the link to the BMJ article (abstract - I'm assuming you have full access to the article?) Classen and Classen were debating: http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/318/7192/1169

And here is a Danish cohort study that followed 700 000 children over 10 years (4 million life-years of the participants), that was unable to find this link between vaccine and diabetes onset (type 1). They also review the literature (including citing Classen and Classen) in their article, and suggest that there hasn't been great evidence beyond some animal models. In particular, they say:

"On the basis of ecologic evaluations, Classen and Classen have claimed that vaccination is associated with an increased risk of type 1 diabetes two to four years after vaccination.[8,9] We tested this hypothesis directly by examining data on individual subjects in a population-based cohort study. We found no support for the existence of a causal relation between type 1 diabetes and childhood vaccination overall or at any time after vaccination."
Hviid, A; Stellfeld, M; Wohlfahrt, J; et al. Childhood vaccination and type 1 diabetes NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 350 (14): 1398-1404 APR 1 2004

Here's the reference to a nice review article that discusses the mechanistic hypothesis of the vaccine and type 1 diabetes - the references are in the article.
2. Moylett, EH; Hanson, CI Mechanistic actions of the risks and adverse events associated with vaccine administration JOURNAL OF ALLERGY AND CLINICAL IMMUNOLOGY, 114 (5): 1010-1020 NOV 2004

Here's another one.
Cardwell, CR; Carson, DJ; Patterson, CC. No association between routinely recorded infections in early life and subsequent risk of childhood-onset Type 1 diabetes: a matched case-control study using the UK General Practice Research Database DIABETIC MEDICINE, 25 (3): 261-267 MAR 2008
post #45 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by stiss View Post

The second link is the link to their actual study, which was eventually published. It's the same study you're referring to in your third link. So, off the top, you're talking about ONE scientific study, not three. As for the authors, the lead investigator, J Bart Classen, and immunologist at CLASSEN IMMUNOTHERAPIES, has serious monetary conflicts of interest, namely his own company selling products to treat immune diseases, which also funded his study.

[/I]
I just get a table of contents for a publishing company with no hot links. I'd like to read the actual published study - did he do one published under his own name. I keep finding the Karvonen, Cepaitis, and Tuomilehto study which is the one I think he is trying to refute in the commentary. Is his study online? Pubmed isn't pulling it up for me.
post #46 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Karenwith4 View Post
I just get a table of contents for a publishing company with no hot links. I'd like to read the actual published study - did he do one published under his own name. I keep finding the Karvonen, Cepaitis, and Tuomilehto study which is the one I think he is trying to refute in the commentary. Is his study online? Pubmed isn't pulling it up for me.
Oh, I'm sorry. Yes, the one you're talking about is the article he's commenting on. Here you go:

Classen, JB; Classen, DC. Clustering of cases of type 1 diabetes Mellitus occurring 2-4 years after vaccination is consistent with clustering after infections and progression to type 1 diabetes mellitus in autoantibody positive individuals JOURNAL OF PEDIATRIC ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM, 16 (4): 495-508 APR-MAY 2003

Therese, maybe you can confirm that this study is in fact the one that you were referring to in those three links?
post #47 of 89
The commentary is the whole point. The authors of the original study put their own spin on the data. Here is more commentary that analyzes the data:

Neil Z. Miller's book Vaccines Are They Really Safe & Effective? page 58 says:

Quote:
More than 200,000 Hib-vaccinated and non-vaccinated children were compared. One group received no doses; another group received 1 dose; the third group received four doses of the Hib vaccine. At ages seven and ten, the number of cases of type 1 diabetes in all three groups was tallied. At age seve, there were 54 more cases per 100,000 children in the group that received four doses of the Hib vaccine vs. the group that received no doses--a 26% increase. At age ten, there were 58 more cases per 100,000 children in the group that received four doses vs. the group that received no doses.
Source: British Medical Journal, October 23, 1999

Page 59 says that there is a "causal relationship" between that Hib vaccine and type 1 diabetes" according to some experts who analyzed the data.
post #48 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by stiss View Post
Oh, I'm sorry. Yes, the one you're talking about is the article he's commenting on. Here you go:

Classen, JB; Classen, DC. Clustering of cases of type 1 diabetes Mellitus occurring 2-4 years after vaccination is consistent with clustering after infections and progression to type 1 diabetes mellitus in autoantibody positive individuals JOURNAL OF PEDIATRIC ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM, 16 (4): 495-508 APR-MAY 2003

Therese, maybe you can confirm that this study is in fact the one that you were referring to in those three links?
It looks like the same one as in the second link, which I knew it was the same as the one in the third link, but I had to add the third link because it has the commentary in it and the 2nd link didn't have commentary. Sorry for the confusion. But as far as I can see, the 2nd link from J. of Pediatric Endocrinology is a different study than the first link from BMJ.
post #49 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThereseReich View Post
The commentary is the whole point. The authors of the original study put their own spin on the data. Here is more commentary that analyzes the data:

Neil Z. Miller's book Vaccines Are They Really Safe & Effective? page 58 says:


Source: British Medical Journal, October 23, 1999

Page 59 says that there is a "causal relationship" between that Hib vaccine and type 1 diabetes" according to some experts who analyzed the data.
But "some experts" haven't been able to substantiate that analysis with studies. I'm more suspect of Classen who funded a study from which he stood to profit if the results said one thing and then tried to 're-analyze' the data to make it say what he wanted it to say. If you read more of the commentary posted following Classen's in your first link it points out the flaws in his analysis and logic.

His independent study cited above involved drawing conclusions based on reading studies on medline and concluding the T1 went up after one type of vaccines and dropped when there was a reduction in usage of another type of vaccine. That kind of science is iffy imo unless backed up by a scientific study and you haven't been able to produce one of those. There are a wide variety of possible explanations for those correlations if they actually exist. Nowhere is there proof that vaccines cause diabetes. Theories perhaps, but that isn't proof.
post #50 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Karenwith4 View Post
Nowhere is there proof that vaccines cause diabetes. Theories perhaps, but that isn't proof.
The point that I was originally making was that Mothering's article http://www.mothering.com/health/show-us-science makes it sound like there is sufficient proof and the article links to Classen's web site, which looks like it has more proof here http://www.vaccines.net/newpage16.htm If its not "proof" then it must be a well-substantiated theory, because I'm sure that Mothering wouldn't publish conspiracy theories. I only provided the scientific studies because you asked for them and if you don't see proof in that either, I don't know what to tell you other than maybe you can file a complaint with Mothering for publishing that article that says vaccines can cause diabetes.
post #51 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Karenwith4 View Post
Source please?
There used to be a chart which showed the increase in Type 1 diabetes and how the age of the afflicted has dropped. The study was done in Switzerland. Now it is "no longer available". Maybe I had posted it too often.

This here shows that
Quote:
During the last decades, the incidence of childhood-onset type 1 diabetes has been globally increasing 2.5-3% annually.
I've goggled "childhood age onset of type 1 diabetes since 1960"

Why am I getting nothing? Shouldn't that information be available from the American Diabetes Association? Shouldn't it go back all the way from the start of the Association?
post #52 of 89
54 cases out of 200,000 is not statistically significant.

Additionally, there has been FAR more evidence implicating increased and earlier consumption of cow's milk/formula in the rise of diabetes. And they have found the reason why that would be.

http://www.milksucks.com/babydiab.asp (More than happy to look up individual studies tonight when I get home from work.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/977228.stm (Nice summary)

http://children.webmd.com/news/20080...src=RSS_PUBLIC (This explains the mechanism by which cow's milk protein may trigger an autoimmune response that leads to the development of IDDM)

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...d=health_rss20 (News about the study that is currently being done to see if there is, indeed, a causal relation between milk consumption and IDDM).
post #53 of 89
I have been searching through the Juvenile Diabetes Foundation and can not find an answer. How many children (% wise) had diabetes in 1960 compared to now? And their ages?

Why is that information not available?

I found this: (which I am sure is well known)

Quote:
Although the causes of type 1 diabetes are not entirely known, scientists believe the body's own immune system attacks and destroys insulin-producingcells in the pancreas.

It is not caused by obesity or by eating excessive sugar, which are two common myths about type 1.

Both genetics and environmental "triggers" are being studied as potential causes of type 1 diabetes.
bolding mine
post #54 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by katheek77 View Post
54 cases out of 200,000 is not statistically significant.

Additionally, there has been FAR more evidence implicating increased and earlier consumption of cow's milk/formula in the rise of diabetes.
I am aware that it looks like cows milk is a major culprit.

But if we can't compare the rate and age of kids with type 1 pre-vax era to now, then we can't really know what role vaccines play.

And if there are no studies that actually look at vaccines and diabetes then it is using tunnel vision imo. We can put the blame on anything but that may not be to total picture.

Kids in the US were drinking cows milk before the majority of vaccines were on the market.

So imho we need how many kids (incl. onset of of disease) had diabetes type 1 in 1960 vs. now. That won't give us the whole picture either but it would shed some light on the subject.
post #55 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThereseReich View Post
It looks like the same one as in the second link, which I knew it was the same as the one in the third link, but I had to add the third link because it has the commentary in it and the 2nd link didn't have commentary. Sorry for the confusion. But as far as I can see, the 2nd link from J. of Pediatric Endocrinology is a different study than the first link from BMJ.
Commentaries (such as the one in BMJ) are not scientific evidence. They're "letters to the editor" that appear in journals to discuss published research. You provided them as scientific evidence, which was not accurate, with the exception of the actual Classen and Classen study. I'm not trying to pick on you, but when you're trying to argue a scientific case (or even worse, 'proof'), the onus is on you to make sure you know what you're quoting.

In the quote below, you argue that the commentary is the point because they 'put their own spin on it'. This re-interpretation of the data is merely a suggestion, and if you read the other commentaries in the section, there are differing views on how that data should be interpreted. All studies, including Classen and Classen's are open to re-interpretation, but it's nothing more than postulating until someone publishes a study to substantiate their CLAIMS about the article. Classen and Classen's eventual publication was re-interpreted in the same manner, only by more scientists, who argued back in the original direction (aka no link), and THAT research has been far more prolific.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ThereseReich View Post
The commentary is the whole point. The authors of the original study put their own spin on the data. Here is more commentary that analyzes the data:

Neil Z. Miller's book Vaccines Are They Really Safe & Effective? page 58 says:


Source: British Medical Journal, October 23, 1999

Page 59 says that there is a "causal relationship" between that Hib vaccine and type 1 diabetes" according to some experts who analyzed the data.
Again, this is nothing more than postulation. That page he's referring to was just the commentary, not a study. There's nothing scientific in that blurb at all. He's just re-iterating the SUGGESTION made in the commentary. I can't stress enough how fallacious and misguided it is to present something as evidence when it's not. This is the stuff of basic research training. As for the actual numbers, Kathkeek already commented on it, so I won't be redundant.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ThereseReich View Post
The point that I was originally making was that Mothering's article http://www.mothering.com/health/show-us-science makes it sound like there is sufficient proof and the article links to Classen's web site, which looks like it has more proof here http://www.vaccines.net/newpage16.htm If its not "proof" then it must be a well-substantiated theory, because I'm sure that Mothering wouldn't publish conspiracy theories. I only provided the scientific studies because you asked for them and if you don't see proof in that either, I don't know what to tell you other than maybe you can file a complaint with Mothering for publishing that article that says vaccines can cause diabetes.
This comment concerns me most of all. Mothering is a website that offers lots of information and advice. It is not, however, a scientific journal. Linking to a scientist's website is not sufficient to provide scientific evidence. The weight of evidence comes only from a review of all the available scientific data on a subject, and as myself and others have suggested to you, the balance of evidence is NOT in support of the link you're proposing. When a study reports an anomaly (like Classen and Classen did), typically researchers attempt to replicate the study and improve the limitations of the study to strengthen the results. This has not been possible with the study you are referring to. By contrast, there is plenty of evidence that we've provided that you seem to be dismissing without any well-argued basis.

Having both sides of a story is very important, but it doesn't mean that both sides are equally 'substantiated', such as what is clearly the case with Diabetes and vaccines. I don't have any intention of filing a complaint with Mothering, because I take it for what it is - a website that offers advice and information, and I put the onus on myself to look at all the information I get critically. Fortunately for me, I have a background that allows me to do this. If I did not, I would be seeking the counsel of someone I know who does. At the very least, I would suggest that you read the studies provided to you in order to better educate yourself, and I would highly recommend that you take care not to present rhetoric as scientific evidence in the future, as it is inaccurate and can prove to be very misleading.

OP, I'm sorry to hijack your thread, but I hope this puts your mind at ease as far as any danger a vaccine might pose with regards to your son's diabetes (though I'm still not sure why this was originally brought up, since the argument was about onset, which is not your concern.) As I said before, there are risks on both sides of the issue, and with the right guidance from a PROFESSIONAL in the field, I'm sure you'll be able to come to the decision that's right for you and your family.
post #56 of 89
My brother developed type 1 after flu (the illness, not the vaccine).

I think so much depeds on the year-to-year and even month-to-month health of your DD OP. If she is honeymooning and hasn't been ill (with infections etc.) recently (plus the lifestyle factors you mentioned) you might want to hold off while you research.

My brother is now in his 40's. When he was a child he sometimes got it, sometimes didn't, depending on the sort of year he'd had healthwise (i.e. if he hadn't been ill much mum left it, but if he'd been suffering a lot she get him it to rule out "one more thing"). When he was about 27 he got flu very badly and ended up in hospital for a month recovering (from both secondary infections and the effects the initial period of vomiting etc. had caused) and has taken his annual shot since then, partly on the insistence of his wife (the priest came to read his last rites the first night in hospital and it was a very frightening time for the whole family).

It is ok to have no firm "decision" on vaxing and base it all on how she is year to year and your gut feelings.
post #57 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gitti View Post
I am aware that it looks like cows milk is a major culprit.

But if we can't compare the rate and age of kids with type 1 pre-vax era to now, then we can't really know what role vaccines play.

And if there are no studies that actually look at vaccines and diabetes then it is using tunnel vision imo. We can put the blame on anything but that may not be to total picture.

Kids in the US were drinking cows milk before the majority of vaccines were on the market.

So imho we need how many kids (incl. onset of of disease) had diabetes type 1 in 1960 vs. now. That won't give us the whole picture either but it would shed some light on the subject.
I'm sorry, can you please explain how following almost a MILLION children over ten years, while some vaccinate, and others don't, and while controlling for other confounding variables, wouldn't shed some light on the subject for you? It would seem that comparing children fifty years ago to children today would have more uncontrolled confounding factors than comparing a cohort from the same era, while making a conscious effort to control for said confounds. Please clarify how this isn't the case.
post #58 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThereseReich View Post
The point that I was originally making was that Mothering's article http://www.mothering.com/health/show-us-science makes it sound like there is sufficient proof
This is the problem with not doing your own research and just blindly following what some authority tells you. You can't trust their conclusions unless you've done your research. And that means reading the full text of all relevant peer-reviewed studies.
post #59 of 89
On page 301 of the book Saying No To Vaccines by Dr. Sherri Tenpenny, she is insinuating that vaccines cause diabetes because under the section of Vaccines and Chronic Disease, she lists the source: Chase HP, et al. Elevated C-reactive protein levels in the development of type 1 diabetes. Diabetes. 2004. Oct 53(10):2569-73.

In regards to vaccines and whether or not they cause diabetes (or any other harm), I have always relied on commentary and definitely not peer reviewed studies because I cannot trust those scientific journals. Scientific studies are full of fraud, lies, and conflicts of interest, and that is because these scientific journals cannot antagonize their advertisers---the vaccine manufacturers, the pharmaceutical companies---who won't being paying for their advertisements in the magazines anymore if the journal is publishing information that says their products (vaccines and drugs) are harmful. Therefore, Mothering's article that says vaccines cause diabetes means much more to me than any scientific journal's publishing would say. Mothering isn't advertising drugs and vaccines. If you're interested in learning more about the scientific journal peer review fraud, here is a good article that explains it: http://www.thedoctorwithin.com/doors...of-Perception/ Read the section "The Mirage of Peer Review".
post #60 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThereseReich View Post
On page 301 of the book Saying No To Vaccines by Dr. Sherri Tenpenny, she is insinuating that vaccines cause diabetes because under the section of Vaccines and Chronic Disease, she lists the source: Chase HP, et al. Elevated C-reactive protein levels in the development of type 1 diabetes. Diabetes. 2004. Oct 53(10):2569-73.

In regards to vaccines and whether or not they cause diabetes (or any other harm), I have always relied on commentary and definitely not peer reviewed studies because I cannot trust those scientific journals. Scientific studies are full of fraud, lies, and conflicts of interest, and that is because these scientific journals cannot antagonize their advertisers---the vaccine manufacturers, the pharmaceutical companies---who won't being paying for their advertisements in the magazines anymore if the journal is publishing information that says their products (vaccines and drugs) are harmful. Therefore, Mothering's article that says vaccines cause diabetes means much more to me than any scientific journal's publishing would say. Mothering isn't advertising drugs and vaccines. If you're interested in learning more about the scientific journal peer review fraud, here is a good article that explains it: http://www.thedoctorwithin.com/doors...of-Perception/ Read the section "The Mirage of Peer Review".
The study you cited from Tuppeny's book makes no connection between CRP (which is a naturally occuring process in the body) and vaccines.

The commentary you rely on is from a man who stands to profit from the data being skewed, which given your statement above makes your argument illogical. Here's his competing interest statement from the commentary you cite:
Competing interest: Methods used in our research is covered by patents which are owned by Classen Immunotherapies. These patents includes methods of testing vaccines for the induction of diabetes and methods of administering vaccines without inducing diabetes. Dr. John B. Classen holds stock in Classen Immunotherapies.

You can obviously believe what you want and make choices for your family based on those beliefs - whether they are logically and scientifically sound or not. But there is no evidence to support your assertions in this thread despite your attempts to mold that one piece of commentary into something of substance.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Vaccinations
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaxing a child with diabetes?