or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › Re: Toxic ingredients in "minute" amounts
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Re: Toxic ingredients in "minute" amounts

post #1 of 41
Thread Starter 

Are there any other highly dangerous, highly toxic synthetic ingredients which have been deemed safe for exposure in very small amounts (aside from those in vaccines and other medicines)? 

 

Are there any examples of toxic ingredients which have been shown to be dangerous even in small amounts?

 

What evidence do we have  to support that tiny amounts of injected neurotoxic heavy metals are safe or harmful?

 

What about concerns about "cumulative" effects of these ingredients?  Any evidence either way?

 

 

Thanks!

post #2 of 41

http://gaia-health.com/gaia-blog/2013-04-14/vaccines-alum-adjuvant-path-to-brain-found-studyvaccines-alum-adjuvant-path-to-brain-found/

Quote:
Only a small amount of the alum surrogate injected into the standard C57 lab mice reached the brain on day 4, but you can readily see how the pace picks up by day 21, and more than doubles again by day 90, the endpoint of the study on C57 mice.

 

Quote:
The study also documented that an inefficient blood-brain barrier, as is found in the youngest babies, allows significantly more alum through to the brain.

 

Quote:
The toxic potential of aluminum is high. This study has demonstrated that injecting alum adjuvants with vaccines results in transferrence to the brain, where it persists. Most people have a high tolerance to alum. However, there are limits in anyone. In the case of people with high levels of CCL2—such as those with a genetic variant leading to high CCL2 levels, as found in ASIA patients—even small amounts of injected alum can be disastrous.
post #3 of 41
post #4 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by emma1325 View Post

Are there any other highly dangerous, highly toxic synthetic ingredients which have been deemed safe for exposure in very small amounts (aside from those in vaccines and other medicines)? 

Yes.
Public drinking water is one example.
post #5 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by marsupial-mom View Post


Yes.
Public drinking water is one example.

I would also add all conventionally grown, non-organic food which is laden with multiple pesticides. 

 

Personally I feel just because something has been deemed "safe" in small amounts doesn't mean that it is safe  when one is exposed to it repeatedly (or at all which is why myself and numerous others try and reduce exposure to any and all toxic chemicals)

post #6 of 41
I lived where the water supply was a municipal well. We received reports on how our well water tested on various toxins, and the acceptable levels. I didn't keep the reports, so I don't know what all was being checked, but there was more than 10 toxins, as I recall.

Fluoride is toxic, and added to municipal water. It's not allowed to be dumped into fresh water, or the ocean, because it is harmful to wildlife, or so I've read.

What about the chemicals used to grow conventional food? How much is allowed to be in the food?

There are regulations about what can be in the air, contributing to global warming, ozone depletion, etc.
post #7 of 41
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marnica View Post

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11064-011-0427-0

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17481684

 

http://homeoint.ru/pdfs/haley.pdf

 

Synergistic toxicity is never taken into consideration 

 

Pro-vaccine response?

post #8 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by emma1325 View Post

 

Pro-vaccine response?

huh? I'm not sure what you are asking?

post #9 of 41

We'd first need to establish what we define as "safe" and "dangerous"... Some people's definition of "safe" is to just not die. 

post #10 of 41
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marnica View Post

huh? I'm not sure what you are asking?

"Synergistic toxicity is never taken into consideration"

 

I was asking for a pro-vaccine response to this assertion.

post #11 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by emma1325 View Post

"Synergistic toxicity is never taken into consideration"

 

I was asking for a pro-vaccine response to this assertion.

I know I got that after I posted! duh. orngbiggrin.gif interesting that none of them have come to answer. However I think i already know what they would say winky.gif

post #12 of 41
Why not try. I'm interested what your interpretation of the "pro vax" viewpoint is.
post #13 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by emma1325 View Post

Are there any other highly dangerous, highly toxic synthetic ingredients which have been deemed safe for exposure in very small amounts (aside from those in vaccines and other medicines)? 

 

Are there any examples of toxic ingredients which have been shown to be dangerous even in small amounts?

 

What evidence do we have  to support that tiny amounts of injected neurotoxic heavy metals are safe or harmful?

 

What about concerns about "cumulative" effects of these ingredients?  Any evidence either way?

 

 

Thanks!

 

I don't seriously intend this to be "evidence", but my dad grew up in the 50's in a small, rural town with not much to do... as a practical joke they used feed mercury to unsuspecting friends (not just once but regularly) or play with it with their bare hands. I've met these people, they're now in their 60's... they all seem fine. Leads me to think that trace amounts of mercury isn't as bad as we're led to believe. 

post #14 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by Escaping View Post

 

I don't seriously intend this to be "evidence", but my dad grew up in the 50's in a small, rural town with not much to do... as a practical joke they used feed mercury to unsuspecting friends (not just once but regularly) or play with it with their bare hands. I've met these people, they're now in their 60's... they all seem fine. Leads me to think that trace amounts of mercury isn't as bad as we're led to believe. 

You might be interested to read about pinks disease:

 

http://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/bhcv2/bhcarticles.nsf/pages/Pink_disease

 

"Pink disease is caused by exposure to mercury. Babies who developed pink disease were particularly sensitive to mercury. Mercury was a common additive in teething powders and other baby products until the 1950s. Symptoms include bright pink hands and feet. Other names for pink disease include acrodynia, erythroedema, Feer's disease, infantile mercury (Hg) poisoning and Swift's disease."

 

It is possible your father was not particulalry sensitive to mercury.

It is also interesting to note that grandchildren  of those who had Pinks disease are more much more likely to have autism:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21797771.

It has been a long time since I took a child for a vaccine - but I wonder if parents are asked if anyone in their family had pinks disease?  I doubt it.

post #15 of 41

I didn't know that....

 

My son has every single other risk factor for autism, engineer grandparents, c-section, advanced maternal/paternal age (my parents were old when they had me, I was old when I had him), we live in the city and next to a highway, vinyl floors, MDF furniture, no early prenatal care (didn't know I was pregnant), he's a boy, he was vaccinated, formula fed (supplemented), I grew up sucking in pesticides (orchard next to us was sprayed once a week), lived on microwaved popcorn while I was pregnant, the car my husband was driving at the time my son was conceived had the catalytic converters removed, I discovered after I had my son that the super sour candies my husband had been feeding me from Chinatown were actually illegally acquired, imported from China and sold by some store and recalled after someone discovered them and that they were made mainly of lead... The city sent us a letter half way through my pregnancy saying my area tested really high for lead so we should probably be drinking bottled water... the list goes on... so it's going to be hard to pinpoint what caused it if he does end up having autism, but so far, so good :)

post #16 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by Escaping View Post

I didn't know that....

 

My son has every single other risk factor for autism, engineer grandparents, c-section, advanced maternal/paternal age (my parents were old when they had me, I was old when I had him), we live in the city and next to a highway, vinyl floors, MDF furniture, no early prenatal care (didn't know I was pregnant), he's a boy, he was vaccinated, formula fed (supplemented), I grew up sucking in pesticides (orchard next to us was sprayed once a week), lived on microwaved popcorn while I was pregnant, the car my husband was driving at the time my son was conceived had the catalytic converters removed, I discovered after I had my son that the super sour candies my husband had been feeding me from Chinatown were actually illegally acquired, imported from China and sold by some store and recalled after someone discovered them and that they were made mainly of lead... The city sent us a letter half way through my pregnancy saying my area tested really high for lead so we should probably be drinking bottled water... the list goes on... so it's going to be hard to pinpoint what caused it if he does end up having autism, but so far, so good :)

How old is your son?

 

I saw a really interesting video on thinkingmoms the other day where they asked a bunch of mothers  what, if anything caused or exacerbated their childs autism - and while many mentionned vaccines, many mentionned antibiotics as well.  It is a bit of a chicken/egg thing - are kids who will ultimately be diagnosed with autism more likely to need antibiotics, or are antibiotics more likely to induce autism in susceptible individuals?  if anyone wants the link, let me know and I will dig it up.

 

Don't get me wrong - I love love.gif antibiotics.  Nothing beats them for dangerous infections.  I would try hard to avoid them for young kids, though, and make sure the child really needs them.

 

There are some risks factors we can lessen and some we cannot.  I tend to try and lessen the ones we have control over, but that is just me.   

post #17 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

Why not try. I'm interested what your interpretation of the "pro vax" viewpoint is.

I don't think so. The question was posed to a provaxer - so go ahead

post #18 of 41
He's 13.5 months old. He's never been sick so far so hasn't required any antibiotics or any pain reliever medication (knock on wood). My family doctor has been excellent at letting me know I have all of these risk factors since finding out I was pregnant lol so I spend a lot of time going over lists and charts to needlessly worry myself.
post #19 of 41
I really expected Canada to have stricter laws for emissions, and water safety, than the US.
post #20 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by pek64 View Post

I really expected Canada to have stricter laws for emissions, and water safety, than the US.

I am not sure it does.  I would have to look it up.

 

Harper, who has been in power for a number of years, is a real ass.  He is not keen on environmental stuff.  

 

I am pretty rah-rah about most things Canadian, but I do not think out track record on environmental protection is that great.

 

ETA:  Sadly, and at first glance, it looks like I am correct.  This study out of UBC has Canada second to last out of 28 industrialised countries.    You are correct - we did beat the USA (they are last)  not that that is much of an accomplishment.

 

 http://www.ubcpress.ca/books/pdf/chapters/unnaturallaw/chap1.pdf


Edited by kathymuggle - 5/10/13 at 6:25pm
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Vaccinations Debate
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › Re: Toxic ingredients in "minute" amounts