or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › Is acetaminophen behind the autism epidemic?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Is acetaminophen behind the autism epidemic? - Page 3

post #41 of 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post
 

 

I don't know why you would consider 25 micrograms of mercury or 250 micrograms of aluminum to be trace amounts, especially when
1)   Multiple shots are given at once, so babies might be given up to 175 micrograms at once,

2) infants might be given both mercury-containing and aluminum-containing shots at the same time, which could seriously increase the toxicity

3) there could be a cumulative effect, particularly in individuals who are unable to properly excrete heavy metals from their bodies (for example, individuals with vitamin D deficiency) or in individuals who have intestinal malabsorption problems (people with celiac, IBS, etc).

I find this pdf to be very informative and helpful:  http://thinktwice.com/aluminum.pdf

 

"For example, in 1997 the New England Journal of Medicine published data showing that premature babies injected with aluminum build up toxic levels in the blood, bones and brain, and that aluminum toxicity can lead to neurological damage, including mental handicaps at 18 months of age." 

(Bishop, NJ., et al. “Aluminum neurotoxicity in preterm infants receiving intravenous-feeding solutions.” New England Journal of

Medicine 1997;336(22):1557-62.)

 

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is also aware that aluminum is dangerous. In a critical FDA document on drug evaluation, the following statement is made: “Research indicates that patients with impaired kidney function, including premature neonates, who receive [injections] of aluminum at greater than 4 to 5mcg per kilogram of body weight per day, accumulate aluminum at levels associated with central nervous system and bone toxicity. Tissue loading may occur at even lower rates.”  

(Rappaport, B. “Document NDA 19-626/S-019.” FDA: Office of Drug Evaluation II, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (February

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
 

 

*anything* is dangerous in high enough dosages.  Water can kill you. 

 

"I don't know why you would consider 25 micrograms of mercury or 250 micrograms of aluminum to be trace amounts" 

 

They are trace amounts. Look at this graph. 

 

 

That tiny spec is 1,000 bigger than the amount of aluminum in a vaccine.  That is a *trace* amount. 

So are you saying that the FDA is actually WRONG?  You know, that part where they say, "

Research indicates that patients with impaired kidney function, including premature neonates, who receive [injections] of aluminum at greater than 4 to 5mcg per kilogram of body weight per day, accumulate aluminum at levels associated with central nervous system and bone toxicity. Tissue loading may occur at even lower rates.”  

(Rappaport, B. “Document NDA 19-626/S-019.” FDA: Office of Drug Evaluation II, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (February

 

Or you are you admitting that that particular amount is, in fact, as dangerous as they say, but you're quibbling about terminology, calling it a "trace amount" because it's smaller than a breadbox?

post #42 of 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post
 

 

 

So are you saying that the FDA is actually WRONG? (impression I got from how she replied to me - anything just like WATER!!)  You know, that part where they say, "

 

Or you are you admitting that that particular amount is, in fact, as dangerous as they say, but you're quibbling about terminology, calling it a "trace amount" because it's smaller than a breadbox?

spitdrink.gif it's from the earth - it's safe…………as long as it's smaller than a breadbox according to Tea

post #43 of 97
Quote:
 

Research indicates that patients with impaired kidney function, including premature neonates, who receive [injections] of aluminum at greater than 4 to 5mcg per kilogram of body weight per day, accumulate aluminum at levels associated with central nervous system and bone toxicity. Tissue loading may occur at even lower rates.”  

(Rappaport, B. “Document NDA 19-626/S-019.” FDA: Office of Drug Evaluation II, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (February

 

First, your link does not work.

 

Second, where "injections" is conveniently inserted in brackets?  The original words in the document are "parenteral levels", which generally means intravenous, and the entire document refers to IV infusion fluids.  Injections are different than IVs.  The altering of the quote changed its meaning.


Edited by chickabiddy - 11/20/13 at 6:46am
post #44 of 97
Thanks for editing, chickabiddy.
 
I agree that parenteral and injected aluminum may have different effects.  But so far, there are no studies showing what, if any, difference there is, particularly in individuals who have impaired ability to excrete heavy metals.

Edited by Taximom5 - 11/20/13 at 10:28am
post #45 of 97

Document NDA 19-626/S-019 on the FDA (http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2004/19626scs019_dextrose_lbl.pdf) reads in part:  "Research indicates that patients with impaired kidney functions, including premature neonates, who receive parenteral levels of aluminum..."

 

The quote you provided substitutes "[injections]" for "parenteral levels", which changes the meaning of the quoted material.  Perhaps you did not make the change yourself, but it remains that injections are rather different from parenteral nutrition.

 

I will edit to reflect that even though you were not the one to alter the document quoted you chose to use it, but I choose not to edit the fact that the quote does not accurately reflect the source document.


Edited by chickabiddy - 11/20/13 at 5:58pm
post #46 of 97

quoted instead of edited, sorry

post #47 of 97
So both sides are guilty: injected aluminum is not ingested aluminum, & ProVax will often compare the two (by saying things like 'BreastMilk contains aluminum har har'). Okay, but only 1% is absorbed through the GI.

100% of injected aluminum is absorbed, says Paul Offit, however, it does seem that IM is released more slowly/absorbed less than IV.

To top it off, there are two different types in Vaxes, Phosphate & Hydroxide, which seem to have different safety/absorption/excretion timelines/profiles.
post #48 of 97

I think this part about aluminum on the CHOP website is talking about the NEJM study linked.  In the references it appears they are.  This is what CHOP has to say about it :

 

"Q. Is the amount of aluminum in vaccines safe?
A. Yes. The best way to answer this question is to look at people 
who are harmed by aluminum. These people can be divided 
into two groups: severely premature infants who receive large 
quantities of aluminum in intravenous fluids, and people with 
longstanding kidney failure who receive large quantities of 
aluminum, primarily in antacids. (The average recommended 
dose of antacids has about 1,000 times more aluminum than a 
vaccine does.) Both of these groups of patients can suffer brain 
dysfunction, bone abnormalities or anemia because of the very 
high quantities of aluminum that have accumulated in their 
bodies.
For aluminum to be harmful, two criteria must be met: People 
must have kidneys that don’t work well or don’t work at all, and 
they must receive very large quantities of aluminum for months 
or years. In these situations, a lot of aluminum enters the body 
and not enough leaves the body." 

 

Bishop NJ, Morley R, Day JP, Lucas A. Aluminum neurotoxicity 
in preterm infants receiving intravenous-feeding solutions. New 
England Journal of Medicine. 1997;336:1557-1561.

 

Committee on Nutrition: Aluminum toxicity in infants and 
children. Pediatrics. 1996;97:413-416.

 

Again, they are talking about massive amounts of aluminum compared to what is in vaccines. Additionally, these pre term infants were getting these amounts of aluminum everyday for sometimes months at a time, not comparable to a vaccine. 

post #49 of 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by chickabiddy View Post
 

Document NDA 19-626/S-019 on the FDA (http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2004/19626scs019_dextrose_lbl.pdf) reads in part:  "Research indicates that patients with impaired kidney functions, including premature neonates, who receive parenteral levels of aluminum..."

 

The quote you provided substitutes "[injections]" for "parenteral levels", which changes the meaning of the quoted material.  Perhaps you did not make the change yourself, but it remains that injections are rather different from parenteral nutrition.

 

I will edit to reflect that you may not have been the one to alter the document quoted, but I choose not to edit the fact that the quote does not accurately reflect the source document.

Please edit this as well.  It's obvious that I did not make the change myself, so please do not post veiled inferences that I might have.  There's no "may" or "may not" about it.  I didn't alter anything.

post #50 of 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
 

I think this part about aluminum on the CHOP website is talking about the NEJM study linked.  In the references it appears they are.  This is what CHOP has to say about it :

 

"Q. Is the amount of aluminum in vaccines safe?
A. Yes. The best way to answer this question is to look at people 
who are harmed by aluminum. These people can be divided 
into two groups: severely premature infants who receive large 
quantities of aluminum in intravenous fluids, and people with 
longstanding kidney failure who receive large quantities of 
aluminum, primarily in antacids. (The average recommended 
dose of antacids has about 1,000 times more aluminum than a 
vaccine does.) Both of these groups of patients can suffer brain 
dysfunction, bone abnormalities or anemia because of the very 
high quantities of aluminum that have accumulated in their 
bodies.
For aluminum to be harmful, two criteria must be met: People 
must have kidneys that don’t work well or don’t work at all, and 
they must receive very large quantities of aluminum for months 
or years. In these situations, a lot of aluminum enters the body 
and not enough leaves the body." 

 

Bishop NJ, Morley R, Day JP, Lucas A. Aluminum neurotoxicity 
in preterm infants receiving intravenous-feeding solutions. New 
England Journal of Medicine. 1997;336:1557-1561.

 

Committee on Nutrition: Aluminum toxicity in infants and 
children. Pediatrics. 1996;97:413-416.

 

Again, they are talking about massive amounts of aluminum compared to what is in vaccines. Additionally, these pre term infants were getting these amounts of aluminum everyday for sometimes months at a time, not comparable to a vaccine. 

First of all, CHOP is quoting studies from 16 years ago.  They are conveniently ignoring more recent research which discusses other situations that might predispose someone to harm from aluminum (like inability to properly excrete heavy metals in spite of functioning kidneys, for example).  They are also ignoring recent research that links aluminum in adjuvants with autoimmune disorders.  What CHOP is doing is basically lying by omission.

Secondly, I wonder how many mothers of autistic children consumed large amounts of aluminum-containing antacids while pregnant.  Perhaps that prenatal hit of aluminum, combined with other predispositions, like vitamin D deficiency, set the stage for vaccines to be the straw that broke the camel's back.

post #51 of 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by ma2two View Post
 

 

Why do you think that? Do you think vaccines are nothing except weak viruses? 

 

Not at all. I can just never keep up with which part of vaccination is being blamed for what? Sometimes it's the theory of the vax itself (the virus part and the fact that children don't build natural immunity to certain viruses), sometimes the aborted babies in it are blamed. Then it's mercury, then it's aluminium. At other times it's the fact that there are state regulations and people are sort of told what to do and that is the bit they dislike. Sometimes it's the big Pharma.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post
 



Secondly, I wonder how many mothers of autistic children consumed large amounts of aluminum-containing antacids while pregnant.  Perhaps that prenatal hit of aluminum, combined with other predispositions, like vitamin D deficiency, set the stage for vaccines to be the straw that broke the camel's back.

 

Is alumium now being blamed for autism? Or is it still mercury?  Or paracetamol? 

 

 

And secondly... I do resent the notion that all autistic people are now suddenly seen as being faulty. Poisoned. Like there is something wrong with them. Yes, severely affected kids with autism DO have something wrong with them, be it caused by encephalitis, tuberous sclerosis, brain trauma, FAS, mitochondrial or metabolic disease. 

 

BUT not everyone these days diagnosed on the spectrum is somehow "damaged". Personality traits don't all have to be pathologised and the US is great at patholigising and medicating normal behaviour. Albert Einstein would now be diagnosed with autism. I resent the fact that people would now think there is something wrong with him, that he is poisoned, damaged and sick. Tesla, Mozart? My maths and physics professors at Uni displayed what would now be called classic Asperger's. There is NOTHING wrong with them, they are just different. 

 

http://kingsreview.co.uk/magazine/blog/2013/02/12/pathologising-the-norm-the-spread-of-mental-illness/

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/suffer-the-children/201203/why-french-kids-dont-have-adhd

http://autismandoughtisms.wordpress.com/2012/07/13/two-versions-of-pathologizing-normal/

post #52 of 97
The Liver is the major detoxifying organ. So it it was being blamed, it would be only in synergy with something that needed to be detoxified but was not able to be.
post #53 of 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by EineMutti View Post
 

 

Not at all. I can just never keep up with which part of vaccination is being blamed for what? Sometimes it's the theory of the vax itself (the virus part and the fact that children don't build natural immunity to certain viruses), sometimes the aborted babies in it are blamed. Then it's mercury, then it's aluminium. At other times it's the fact that there are state regulations and people are sort of told what to do and that is the bit they dislike. Sometimes it's the big Pharma.

 

Is alumium now being blamed for autism? Or is it still mercury?  Or paracetamol? 

 

 

And secondly... I do resent the notion that all autistic people are now suddenly seen as being faulty. Poisoned. Like there is something wrong with them. Yes, severely affected kids with autism DO have something wrong with them, be it caused by encephalitis, tuberous sclerosis, brain trauma, FAS, mitochondrial or metabolic disease. 

 

BUT not everyone these days diagnosed on the spectrum is somehow "damaged". Personality traits don't all have to be pathologised and the US is great at patholigising and medicating normal behaviour. Albert Einstein would now be diagnosed with autism. I resent the fact that people would now think there is something wrong with him, that he is poisoned, damaged and sick. Tesla, Mozart? My maths and physics professors at Uni displayed what would now be called classic Asperger's. There is NOTHING wrong with them, they are just different. 

 

http://kingsreview.co.uk/magazine/blog/2013/02/12/pathologising-the-norm-the-spread-of-mental-illness/

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/suffer-the-children/201203/why-french-kids-dont-have-adhd

http://autismandoughtisms.wordpress.com/2012/07/13/two-versions-of-pathologizing-normal/

 
Just because some people with autism are brilliant doesn't mean that autism CAUSES brilliance.  Remember, correlation does not equal causation. 

 

Just think how much better their lives might be if they were brilliant AND able to maintain eye contact, relate to and understand neurotypical peers, and if they had no food allergies, no autoimmune disorders, no severe intestinal problems, no vestibular issues, no seizures, etc.

post #54 of 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post
 

 
Just because some people with autism are brilliant doesn't mean that autism CAUSES brilliance.  Remember, correlation does not equal causation. 

 

Just think how much better their lives might be if they were brilliant AND able to maintain eye contact, relate to and understand neurotypical peers, and if they had no food allergies, no autoimmune disorders, no severe intestinal problems, no vestibular issues, no seizures, etc.

there seems to be the assumption that so many with "spectrum disorder" are high functioning - I really wish that were the case - IRL I know of none - the ones I know of eye contact is the least of the problems, children that are now turing into adults that need not only 24 supervision, but 24 assistance, this the norm, ones that can not be left alone for even a few minutes - these are not even close to moderate functioning - when it's sever it's clear there is damage

post #55 of 97

nm

post #56 of 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post
 

 
Just because some people with autism are brilliant doesn't mean that autism CAUSES brilliance.  Remember, correlation does not equal causation. 

 

Just think how much better their lives might be if they were brilliant AND able to maintain eye contact, relate to and understand neurotypical peers, and if they had no food allergies, no autoimmune disorders, no severe intestinal problems, no vestibular issues, no seizures, etc.

 

I am not saying that autism causes brilliance. I am saying that Tesla, Einstein and my physics professors didn't have autism. They were just different. It is getting overdiagnosed atm and people who are different are now being seen as somehow damaged. Many geniuses cannot understand peers or maintain eye contact. Neither do they have food allergies or intestinal issues, seizures. They are just different, but not sick. Einstein was non-verbal until he was four and acted VERY differently from his peers, in fact, could never really relate. If he was a US-American child now, he would be diagnosed with something. Same goes for Tesla and Edison. 

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by serenbat View Post
 

there seems to be the assumption that so many with "spectrum disorder" are high functioning - I really wish that were the case - IRL I know of none - the ones I know of eye contact is the least of the problems, children that are now turing into adults that need not only 24 supervision, but 24 assistance, this the norm, ones that can not be left alone for even a few minutes - these are not even close to moderate functioning - when it's sever it's clear there is damage

 

 

That is how it used to be before the criteria of diagnosis has changed. A while ago, I worked with young adults with autism and they were all severely impaired. Developmentally between 12 and 36 months, mostly non-verbal. But then, 100 years ago, they wouldn't have been diagnosed with autism either, but with "mental retardation". 

 

I just simply can't see how an 18-year-old, who is developmentally at the age of a toddler, who is incontinent and highly aggressive, is supposed to have the same diagnosis as a six-year-old, who has normal or high intelligence, but has trouble changing routine and instead of relating to peers, gets obsessed with dinosaur books? The "spectrum" is a little wide now and more and more people are getting included, many of them not sick or damaged. That goes for ADHD, too. 

post #57 of 97
Actually tho: if you read the early, academic papers on Autism, it isn't like: hey, now we have a word for this thing that has always been observed. It is like 'this is a new phenomenon we have never observed before'. I personally do not believe in over diagnosis playing a major factor in the epidemic increase, nor am I a fan of 'retroactively diagnosing historical geniuses'.
post #58 of 97

Anecdata I know, but still when I grew up there were not that many kids with autism/mental retardation. We didn't hide impaired kids in our small town community. Moms of such kids were expected to take care of them. There weren't many. My mom was a special ed teacher. She didn't see many severely impaired kids until the 2000s. She worked from 1972-2008 and taught a lot lot lot of classes (her kind of school got all of the special eds - from slow learners to autistic to "mentally retarded" to behavioral issues such as violence/stealing - they were all put in the same school). Apart from non-processed foods and plenty outside time kids back behind the Iron Curtain had younger parents, which might be part of the puzzle. It wasn't uncommon for 18=20 year olds to get married and be parents, it was actually the norm. When my mom had me at the ripe age of 31 doctors tried to talk her into an abortion for advanced maternal age as at her age kids apparently usually are retarded (their words); another argument was she had 2 kids already why risk a retarded one now; fun times to live in, no?? Luckily my parents didn't listen to them phew. But my point I guess my point is that parental age was usually under 30.

post #59 of 97
^But not really in the era before widespread use of Formula & Birth Control. My Nana had 6 FF kids on top of each other before 30 but HER mother had children spaced through the lifespan, her last one was born @ 48.
post #60 of 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by dinahx View Post

Actually tho: if you read the early, academic papers on Autism, it isn't like: hey, now we have a word for this thing that has always been observed. It is like 'this is a new phenomenon we have never observed before'. 

That is not true. 

 

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Qb-xYFxyKXkC&pg=PR5&dq=kimberly+schreck++autism++historical&hl=en&sa=X&ei=zwyOUvKZIKnm7AaIp4HQBw&ved=0CDQQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=kimberly%20schreck%20%20autism%20%20historical&f=false

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by dinahx View Post
 I personally do not believe in over diagnosis playing a major factor in the epidemic increase, nor am I a fan of 'retroactively diagnosing historical geniuses'.
 

Why not? Especially when it is so obvious it hits you in the face?

Quote:
Originally Posted by nia82 View Post
 

Anecdata I know, but still when I grew up there were not that many kids with autism/mental retardation. We didn't hide impaired kids in our small town community. Moms of such kids were expected to take care of them. There weren't many. My mom was a special ed teacher. She didn't see many severely impaired kids until the 2000s. She worked from 1972-2008 and taught a lot lot lot of classes (her kind of school got all of the special eds - from slow learners to autistic to "mentally retarded" to behavioral issues such as violence/stealing - they were all put in the same school). Apart from non-processed foods and plenty outside time kids back behind the Iron Curtain had younger parents, which might be part of the puzzle. It wasn't uncommon for 18=20 year olds to get married and be parents, it was actually the norm. When my mom had me at the ripe age of 31 doctors tried to talk her into an abortion for advanced maternal age as at her age kids apparently usually are retarded (their words); another argument was she had 2 kids already why risk a retarded one now; fun times to live in, no?? Luckily my parents didn't listen to them phew. But my point I guess my point is that parental age was usually under 30.

 

Many East Germans share that observation. And that was in a place where vaccinations were compulsory and denying would have landed you in jail. Again, same for ADHD. However, autism gets diagnosed more often, despite an immunisation coverage and little change. 

 

http://www.bmj.com/content/322/7284/460

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Vaccinations Debate
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › Is acetaminophen behind the autism epidemic?