Mothering › Forums › Health › Vaccinations › Selective & Delayed Vaccination › Is there really a PRESERVATIVE FREE vaccine?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Is there really a PRESERVATIVE FREE vaccine? - Page 2

post #21 of 30

Quote:

Originally Posted by LuvinMyLife View Post
Seriously??? I'm not concerned about mercury lmaooooooo!!!!! That's why we didn't vaccinate him for EIGHT YEARS!  And we've decided not to live our life in a BUBBLE! 

There's definitely a balance/a fine line....people that don't expose they're kids to ANYTHING EVER....have the SICKEST CHILDREN!!!!!  Just the truth...it may not have

happened to YOU yet...but time will tell.  Don't EVER tell me what I AM OR AM NOT CONCERNED WITH WHEN IT COMES TO MY CHILD!!!! Or what we should eat...also I don't need

you to "educate" me about ANYTHING....I had my child vaccinated with boostrix before we ever spoke.

 

 


It sounds like you are happy and comfortable with your decision to give the Tdap, even though it seems like you still think there is mercury in Boostrix. Someday you'll find out there is no mercury in Boostrix, and you'll probably feel even better about your decision. hug.gif

 

post #22 of 30

 

Quote:
Quote: "When you get a thimerosal-containing shot, that 25 mcg of ethyl mercury is excreted within 7-10 days."

Okay, I see why I came across that way.

 

Quote:

Mercury does damage in the organs, especially the brain. That study you linked to did not attempt to measure the mercury that was deposited in the organs, including the brain, after vaccination.

 

Such a method wouldn't really be feasible, simply because we are exposed to mercury in our everyday lives, which means there would be at least some mercury in our organs and tissue before vaccination. I don't see how they could measure the mercury levels before vaccination without actually cutting them open... rendering them useless for the comparison, kwim?

 

Quote:

You're never going to catch me or my kids eating tuna, so you don't have to convince me it's bad. It's not a contest to see which kind of mercury and delivery system of mercury is the worst. It's all bad. I'm going to avoid mercury whenever it is reasonably easy to do so. That means no tuna, and no mercury containing shots.

 

 

That's where we agree, for the most part. Mercury, like every other substance, has a safety threshold; since it's unavoidable, it is prudent to limit our exposure. Would I completely avoid a vaccine due to the presence of ethyl mercury? Depends on the vaccine, but I also trust in body's ability to do what it is designed to do with toxins: excrete them.


Edited by Jugs - 10/4/11 at 6:00pm
post #23 of 30


Quote:

Originally Posted by Jugs View Post

Such a method wouldn't really be feasible, simply because we are exposed to mercury in our everyday lives, which means there would be at least some mercury in our organs and tissue before vaccination. I don't see how they could measure the mercury levels before vaccination without actually cutting them open... rendering them useless for the comparison, kwim?


Exactly. I'm not saying such a study on children should be done, or could be done. So the fact remains, they don't know how much mercury is retained in the organs, including the brain, following vaccination with mercury containing vaccines. They cannot find that out by measuring mercury in the blood, urine, or stools 3-28 days following vaccination.

post #24 of 30

There are actually ongoing studies to develop a means of detecting body burden of chemicals thumbsup.gif

post #25 of 30
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ma2two View Post

Quote:

Quote: "When you get a thimerosal-containing shot, that 25 mcg of ethyl mercury is excreted within 7-10 days."

 

Mercury does damage in the organs, especially the brain. That study you linked to did not attempt to measure the mercury that was deposited in the organs, including the brain, after vaccination.

 

You're never going to catch me or my kids eating tuna, so you don't have to convince me it's bad. It's not a contest to see which kind of mercury and delivery system of mercury is the worst. It's all bad. I'm going to avoid mercury whenever it is reasonably easy to do so. That means no tuna, and no mercury containing shots.

 

 



Would Salmon be ok for children? I am reluctant about giving my kids tuna too since there's so much controversy about it. But I'm thinking wild alaskan salmon is ok? Also, it's not just mercury I'm concerned about. Just toxins in general. I don't believe in shocking a developing immune system too soon. I don't remember getting vaccinated much as a child... never got the chicken pox vaccine or MMR but I do remember getting the polio one (oral and the shot in the arm).

post #26 of 30

Quote:

Originally Posted by tatsu15 View Post

Would Salmon be ok for children?



This is a good website. http://gotmercury.org/article.php?list=type&type=75 It says canned salmon has no detectable levels of mercury. Whiting and ocean perch also have no detectable mercury. Of the fish with detectable amounts, tilapia has the least, followed by fresh/frozen salmon and hake.

 

Our family takes molecularly distilled fish oil for the omega 3's and DHA.

post #27 of 30

You write: "but I also trust in body's ability to do what it is designed to do with toxins: excrete them." The body cannot excrete all toxins. Water soluble toxins are, of course, most easily excreted. However, lipophilic toxins are far more difficult to excrete, and some cannot be excreted even with chelation. The body's design is limited in what it can and cannot eliminate with respect to accumulated toxins. It is important that everyone bear this in mind, not only when making decisions regarding vaccinations but when considering our children's environmental toxin load in general. Wouldn't want parents trusting the body's ability to naturally excrete toxins and failing, for example, to contain or safely remove lead paint from the household (and most cases of acute lead poisoning are the result of dust, not chips).  

 

Note that methylmercury and ethylmercury (the metabolized product of thimerosal) are both lipophilic toxins. However, the latter, ethylmercury, is "more lipophilic and therefore potentially more reactive mercurial than either methyl or inorganic Hg" [1]. As for excretion rates, though studies in the past decade reveal that ethylmercury is excreted faster than methylmercury, the jury is still out, and more research is needed to determine whether the effects of ethylmercury toxicity diverge from methylmercury toxicity in other potentially harmful ways. Either way, since both forms are neurotoxic, and studies indicate that ethylmercury is possibly more toxic to the kidneys [2], it is best to apply caution. To that I'd add this: whether one vaccinates or not, there is always risk, one worth assessing and deliberating thoroughly. But please do not simply trust your body's ability to 'cleanse' itself when potentially putting yourself in harm's way. Do not take toxicity lightly--there's a reason why artists are instructed not to smoke or eat food after handling cadmium based paint, and why people are instructed to mop or use a damp cloth to clean lead paint surfaces instead of sweeping or dusting. The list of precautions for avoiding heavy metal toxicity is long because heavy metals and certain other toxins accumulate in the tissues and cannot be effectively eliminated.

 

1. http://www.iaomt.org/testfoundation/thimneurotoxa.htm

2. http://ehp03.niehs.nih.gov/article/fetchArticle.action?articleURI=info:doi/10.1289/ehp.02110s111#top (Highly recommend. See especially 'disposition' section regarding thimerosal.)

 

 

post #28 of 30

The second link is outdated. The first link, I'm not even sure what it is: a study or preliminary research for a study? The authors claim ethylmercury is more lipophilic than methymercury, however, peer-reviewed research in the Journal of Pediatric Pharmacology and Therapeutics finds the exact opposite:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3018252/

...The increased lipophilicity and decreased water solubility of methylmercury contribute to its longer half-life and toxicity profile. Methylmercury is more potent than ethylmercury...

 

Nevertheless, all of this is moot, as ethylmercury is pretty easy to avoid these days.

post #29 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jugs View Post

ethylmercury is pretty easy to avoid these days.



True, except for members of the general public who don't know it is in the majority of available flu shot doses.

post #30 of 30

Understanding of the toxicity of thimerosal and its effects is still in its infancy, and a single study will often report contrary outcomes. For instance, despite finding that ethylmercury (a metabolite of thimerosal) is more rapidly eliminated than methylmercuy, a 2005 comparative study "found higher levels of inorganic mercury in the brains and kidneys of the thimerosal treated animals than in the methylmercury-fed animals." Thimerosal metabolizes into ethylmercury, an inorganic form of mercury. Studies founded on well controlled, rigorous scientific methods are never out of date and supply references for new research. Sound epistemology is based on current and past studies. No single study is all-inclusive. Theories are established over time, and medical research takes years, in the least ten years or more, especially for longitudinal studies, so the turnover rate is much slower than one might expect. I present this from a point of neutrality, not as an advocate for one position or another. Truth is all too often oversimplified, produced by competing discourses rather than illuminated through the processes of science. People like something they can latch onto, a simple yes or no. The truth, however, is rarely ever that clear. Thankfully, though, sometimes there is a definitive answer. I look forward to the research findings that shall unfold and change in the upcoming decades. Heck, just this year we have the possibility of particles traveling faster than the speed of light. Wondrous to imagine, and though likely to be proven false, it is nevertheless an exciting prospect. To think, Einstein at long last outdated; probably not just yet. :) 

 

Peace.

 

A link to the Rhesus monkey study can be found here: http://www.immunizationinfo.org/science/elimination-methylmercury-and-ethylmercury-body

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Selective & Delayed Vaccination
Mothering › Forums › Health › Vaccinations › Selective & Delayed Vaccination › Is there really a PRESERVATIVE FREE vaccine?