or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › Misleading reports about autism data
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Misleading reports about autism data - Page 9  

post #161 of 586

Do babies drink the breastmilk, or is it injected into them?

post #162 of 586
It doesn't really make any difference. The body is equipped to handle things like that introduced through soft tissue, or else it would be a major hazmat situation everytime your child skinned their knee.
post #163 of 586
We've been using aluminum for a very long time at much higher doses in things like ivs. It has a long history of being safe.
post #164 of 586
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

I do! Children's hospital of Philadelphia is a great resource for all kinds of vaccine info. They have a vaccine education center. In the first six months of life a child would receive about 4 milligrams of aluminum from breast milk and 10 milligrams from breast milk, or 40 milligrams from formula, or 120 milligrams from soy formula. Aluminum is the most common metal found in nature, so you are exposed to it throughout your life in food, water, even air.
www.chop.edu/export/download/pdfs/articles/vaccine-education-center/aluminum.pdf

 

ok, this is just the type of thing I was talking about a few pages ago... so what?? This type of answer to vax concern question is what I would consider totally misleading. Answering question about apples with oranges.

 

all of us, everyday are exposed to plenty of aluminum. But as far as I understand, normal route of exposures, such as ingestion is NOT the same thing as direct injection. From what I've read, very little ingested aluminum actually enters your bloodstream. 

 

Children's Hospital of Philadelphia... hmmm... Offit fan?

 

Quote:

Aluminum is poorly absorbed following either oral or inhalation exposure and is essentially not absorbed dermally.  
Approximately 1.5–2% of inhaled and 0.01–5% of ingested aluminum is absorbed.  The absorption efficiency is dependent on chemical form, particle size (inhalation), and concurrent dietary exposure to chelators such as citric acid 
or lactic acid (oral).

 

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxguides/toxguide-22.pdf

 

Quote:

Children who are exposed to high levels of aluminum exhibit symptoms similar to those seen in adults, including neurological effects and skeletal effects.
 
We do not know if children are more 
susceptible than adults to aluminum 
toxicity.

 

post #165 of 586

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

We've been using aluminum for a very long time at much higher doses in things like ivs. It has a long history of being safe.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

It doesn't really make any difference. The body is equipped to handle things like that introduced through soft tissue, or else it would be a major hazmat situation everytime your child skinned their knee.

 

These things normally don't happen with regularity to newborns, nor the vast majority of newborns, repeatedly, for the first year or so of life.

 

There is plenty for concern.

 

http://lup.sagepub.com/content/21/2/223.abstract

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15833338?dopt=Abstract

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11522584?dopt=Abstract

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14753387?dopt=Abstract

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15722255?dopt=Abstract

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15793512?dopt=Abstract

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1608913?dopt=Abstract

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1759487?dopt=Abstract

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11334498?dopt=Abstract

 


Edited by slmommy - 4/23/12 at 3:54pm
post #166 of 586

       Quote:

Originally Posted by BeckyBird View Post

While discussing possible causes of autism, you might want to consider the possibility that WiFi and other electromagnetic pollution might cause harm. This is not a joke, and should be investigated.

 

Funny, we invent new medicines, foods, and technologies, unleash them on the public, then wonder why people are getting sick. Deny, deny, deny any relation.  Only after massive damage will there be an investigation. Also, consider this.....some people believe autism is mainly genetic. Well, is there something in our food/environment that could damage DNA of the parent and/or child? Of course (electromagnetic pollution can)! Is damaged DNA related to autism? The mystery continues.

 

BeckyBird, I'm sorry you didn't get the humor in my comment, but it's helped me immensely to deal with having a child with autism and also being bombarded with study after study about what causes it. My husband and I have joked that the next new study is going to reveal that living causes autism. But I suppose it wasn't okay to try to add any levity to this thread, and I will refrain from doing so in the future since it seems to be offensive to some people.  But notice the scared face next to my comment about wireless devices. I get that a lot of things in this world can mess things up, and I'm not denying anything.  I just can't spend my days worrying about it all. I really don't need to be schooled about the seriousness of it.

post #167 of 586
Thread Starter 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

There is no such thing as "classical autism," it is a spectrum disorder and people with autism fall all along the spectrum. Aspergers is actually a type of autism, so people diagnosed with it would "count" in statistics about autism.
The diagnosis criteria for autism were expanded pretty drastically in 1994, so yes, the definition and diagnosis absolutely have changed and people are diagnosed now that wouldn't have been before, plus there is a lot more parental awareness. Not to mention there's more funding attached to serve kids with autism so schools have more of an incentive to get kids diagnosed. A lot of the data just doesn't support this huge increase, either.

 

First of all, I don't know why you would say with such authority and finality that "there is no such thing as 'classical autism.' "  If you want to correct autism-community.com and NIH, they (among MANY mainstream authorities on autism) refer to both "classic autism" and "classical autism."

 

http://www.autism-community.com/autism-spectrum-disorders/classic-autism/:

"Classic Autism (also known as Autistic Disorder) is an Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD). It is generally classified by impairment in social interactions and communication and includes some restrictive or repetitive behaviors."

 

http://www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/autism/detail_autism.htm:

 "Autistic disorder, sometimes called autism or classical ASD, is the most severe form of ASD, while other conditions along the spectrum include a milder form known as Asperger syndrome, and childhood disintegrative disorder and pervasive developmental disorder not otherwise specified (usually referred to as PDD-NOS)."

 

Second of all, while you are correct that the diagnostic criteria changed in 1994, it did not change between 1994 and 2012.  But the autism rate sure as heck did. Therefore, the change in diagnostic criteria of autism affected the rate of autism diagnosed between 1988 and 1994.  It had absolutely no bearing on the change in rate seen between 2008 and 2012.

post #168 of 586

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by AbbyGrant View Post

       Quote:

 

BeckyBird, I'm sorry you didn't get the humor in my comment, but it's helped me immensely to deal with having a child with autism and also being bombarded with study after study about what causes it. My husband and I have joked that the next new study is going to reveal that living causes autism. But I suppose it wasn't okay to try to add any levity to this thread, and I will refrain from doing so in the future since it seems to be offensive to some people.  But notice the scared face next to my comment about wireless devices. I get that a lot of things in this world can mess things up, and I'm not denying anything.  I just can't spend my days worrying about it all. I really don't need to be schooled about the seriousness of it.

 


Sorry about that. I'm a little defensive because I've been mocked for having concerns about EMF pollution. (as I type on my pc with flatscreen monitor and wifi connection...cordless phone nearby...I am a hypocrite, I know...)

 

 

post #169 of 586
I stand corrected. Thank you for that information. What my point was, and I guess what I should've just said instead of making such a definitive statement, is hat autism manifests in many ways, mild to extreme, and they are all included in the data you see. There is not a very accurate autism stereotype, and it's very possible we all know people who have autism without realizing it.

The change in diagnostic criteria was just an example, it is one of many reasons why autism is diagnosed differently and more widely than it used to be. Not all data even supports that big of a change in he last decade or so, but the increase we have seen is quite likely due to more widespread awareness and diagnosis rather than any environmental factor.
post #170 of 586

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by AbbyGrant View Post

       Quote:

 

BeckyBird, I'm sorry you didn't get the humor in my comment, but it's helped me immensely to deal with having a child with autism and also being bombarded with study after study about what causes it. My husband and I have joked that the next new study is going to reveal that living causes autism. But I suppose it wasn't okay to try to add any levity to this thread, and I will refrain from doing so in the future since it seems to be offensive to some people.  But notice the scared face next to my comment about wireless devices. I get that a lot of things in this world can mess things up, and I'm not denying anything.  I just can't spend my days worrying about it all. I really don't need to be schooled about the seriousness of it.

 

Abby…..I did it, too.  Whatever helps.  hug2.gif

 

I am not Beckybird - but I know you know the seriousness of it. One of the things I have greatly appreciated on this thread is how people (for the most part) are not trying to downplay the seriousness of autism.

 

I have made comments on "our families deserve better" and pointing out the seriousness of my nephews autism - but that is mostly for lurkers.  Some people really only see autism as quirky kids with poor social skills who fixate on topics.  

 

 

 

post #171 of 586
Aluminum from vaccines is not injected into the bloodstream, either, it is injected into the soft tissue. Like I said, the body is equipped to handle things entering the body this way, it happens all the time.
post #172 of 586

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post


The change in diagnostic criteria was just an example, it is one of many reasons why autism is diagnosed differently and more widely than it used to be. Not all data even supports that big of a change in he last decade or so, but the increase we have seen is quite likely due to more widespread awareness and diagnosis rather than any environmental factor.

 

Bolding mine.  You don't know that.

 

There are numerous mainstream organisations that believe autism is increasing, even after accounting for awareness and diagnosis differences.

 

I could post oodles of links.

 

Perhaps you could post some as well, refuting my links, but unless you have a crystal ball you do not know for sure or even close to "for sure." 

 

Given the uncertainty (and honestly I think the uncertainty is dwindling away - many people are starting to acknowledge there must be some environmental factors - be it in utero or post-natal), research money should go to both genetics and environment.

 

Here is an interesting article for those interested in in the environmental versus genetics debate ( why the heck does it have to be so divided???)

 

http://commonhealth.wbur.org/2011/07/autism-genetics-vs-environment

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

post #173 of 586
I am not disputing that aluminum in large quantities is toxic. There are lots of things that in large quantities are toxic but in small quantities are harmless or even beneficial. Water, for example.

There is not a substantial difference in how the body processes aluminum injected in the soft tissue vs consumed. Both way the majority is eliminated by the kidneys and a small part is accumulated in the bones, mostly, and some in the brain. I think by the age of five most children have accumulated something like 100 milligrams (they've been exposed to or ingested much more than that, that's just what accumulated) a tiny tiny fraction of that is from vaccines. If aluminum. Aides autism vaccines are the least of our worries.

Again, even when aluminum IS delivered intravenously it is harmless, except in the case of people with compromised kidney function and even then it takes weeks of continuous exposure.
post #174 of 586

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

Aluminum from vaccines is not injected into the bloodstream, either, it is injected into the soft tissue. Like I said, the body is equipped to handle things entering the body this way, it happens all the time.

 

http://www.mothering.com/community/t/656863/where-are-vaccines-injected-into

 

A discussion on the above.  It looks like vaccines do make their way into the bloodstream.  

 

Ingestion is a separate thing - the digestive system is well equipped to handle all sorts of junk.  Intra-muscularly?  Not so much.

 

 

 

 

post #175 of 586

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

Aluminum from vaccines is not injected into the bloodstream, either, it is injected into the soft tissue. Like I said, the body is equipped to handle things entering the body this way, it happens all the time.

 

http://www.mothering.com/community/t/656863/where-are-vaccines-injected-into

 

A discussion on the above.  It looks like vaccines do make their way into the bloodstream.  

 

Ingestion is a separate thing - the digestive system is well equipped to handle all sorts of junk.  Intra-muscularly?  Not so much.

 

 

 

 

 


This line of reasoning begs the question: Would you feel differently about vaccines if they were ingested orally rather than injected into soft tissue? Honest question, again, no snark here.

post #176 of 586

I said vaccines were not injected into the blood stream.  The body is equipped to handle things entering it all kinds of ways, not just through the digestive system.  We're actually pretty rugged creatures, the upside to evolving in a pretty disgusting environment, I guess.  Our immune system is not limited to our stomachs.  There is not a substantial difference between aluminum introduced through an injection and aluminum introduced through a meal.  If you have a scientific explanation to the contrary, please share it.  One person asserting on an internet discussion forum that they go straight to the blood (and I guess the idea is that means they might as well be injected directly into the blood stream? not much medicine backing that idea up) isn't going to cut it, though.

 

Again, there is no evidence that aluminum in these small doses is toxic and examples of it being toxic in large doses is nothing more than a red herring.

 

I don't know that autism is purely genetic, if I did I would be famous!  I actually don't even think that, I think it's a combination of genetics and environment, I just don't think vaccines have much to do with it.  The research supports me on that so I can say it with some degree of certainty, although I don't recall saying anything was "for sure."

 

I also don't dispute that autism is increasing, I just think the bulk of the increase is due to greater awareness and diagnosis.  I am not alone in this.  It is not a foregone conclusion that there really even is an "autism epidemic."  

 

http://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/2009/08/autism-epidemic-not-in-the-nchs-data/

post #177 of 586

It's worth mentioning, too, before I get side tracked, that we know a lot about aluminum toxicity and what the symptoms are, and they're nothing like autism.

post #178 of 586

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Super~Single~Mama View Post

 

 


This line of reasoning begs the question: Would you feel differently about vaccines if they were ingested orally rather than injected into soft tissue? Honest question, again, no snark here.

 

I actually came to erase what I said or edit it.  Mostly because I felt I was being argumentative, lol.

 

I am not convinced aluminum or even thimersol is related to the increase in autism levels.  Heck, I am not even convinced vaccines are an environmental cause of autism.  I simply have enough unanswered questions that I am concerned.  

 

As for your question…. there is an argument from the non-vax corner that items (aluminum, thimersol, etc) are not meant to be injected.  If the level of oral aluminum (for example) is safe for newborns, and in an identical format to aluminum found in food, I suppose that argument might disappear.  I doubt it would affect vax levels in any huge way, as decisions not to vax are usually multi-factorial.  

 

 

 

 


Edited by purslaine - 4/23/12 at 4:18pm
post #179 of 586
Kathy I don't think there's anything wrong with what you said. I didn't find it argumentative,

I hear the argument that injected is different than ingested a lot, both for the "toxins" and the actual germs (germs are meant to enter through the nose and mouth first yadyada) but I've yet to hear an actual explanation of how it's allegedly different, people just assert that it is. Since the goes against my own knowledge and common sense I've been non-plussed by it so far. I look forward to hearing an explanation of the science behind the theory some day, though!
post #180 of 586

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post
\
I hear the argument that injected is different than ingested a lot, both for the "toxins" and the actual germs (germs are meant to enter through the nose and mouth first yadyada) but I've yet to hear an actual explanation of how it's allegedly different, people just assert that it is. Since the goes against my own knowledge and common sense I've been non-plussed by it so far. I look forward to hearing an explanation of the science behind the theory some day, though!

 

How would it NOT be different?  I mean, you don't inject the food you eat, right?  I would think it would be pretty dangerous to inject a liquefied hamburger, wouldn't it?

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Vaccinations Debate
This thread is locked  
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › Misleading reports about autism data