Empirical Data Confirm Autism Symptoms Related to Aluminum and Acetaminophen Exposure - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#1 of 83 Old 11-14-2012, 10:20 AM - Thread Starter
 
Mirzam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: On The Path Of The Truth Seeker
Posts: 7,512
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 87 Post(s)

Wow!

 

 

 

Quote:

Our results provide strong evidence supporting a link between autism and the aluminum in vaccines. A literature review showing toxicity of aluminum in human physiology offers further support. Mentions of autism in VAERS increased steadily at the end of the last century, during a period when mercury was being phased out, while aluminum adjuvant burden was being increased. Using standard log-likelihood ratio techniques, we identify several signs and symptoms that are significantly more prevalent in vaccine reports after 2000, including cellulitis, seizure, depression, fatigue, pain and death, which are also significantly associated with aluminum-containing vaccines.

 

 

The authors also noted a strong corralation between autism and the MMR vaccine which they feel may be partially explained by increased sensitivity to acetaminophne used to control fever.

 

http://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/14/11/2227 (full text downloadable)


Rainbow.giftstillheart.gifsmile.gif

 

"If you find from your own experience that something is a fact and it contradicts what some authority has written down, then you must abandon the authority and base your reasoning on your own findings"~ Leonardo da Vinci

Mirzam is online now  
#2 of 83 Old 11-14-2012, 11:57 AM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,155
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)

It's funny how the "gold standard" of double blind placebo controlled studies, not to mention concerns over the validity of VAERS data, goes out the window all of a sudden.  

Rrrrrachel is offline  
#3 of 83 Old 11-14-2012, 12:24 PM - Thread Starter
 
Mirzam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: On The Path Of The Truth Seeker
Posts: 7,512
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 87 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

It's funny how the "gold standard" of double blind placebo controlled studies, not to mention concerns over the validity of VAERS data, goes out the window all of a sudden.  

I take it you didn't read the study then. The authors are not anti-vax and had some very sane suggestions.


Rainbow.giftstillheart.gifsmile.gif

 

"If you find from your own experience that something is a fact and it contradicts what some authority has written down, then you must abandon the authority and base your reasoning on your own findings"~ Leonardo da Vinci

Mirzam is online now  
#4 of 83 Old 11-14-2012, 12:34 PM
 
MamaMunchkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 356
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)

The first author of the paper has written other related articles - the one Mirzam linked is the 3rd one here ... look under "Papers on Nutrition and Disease"

 

- Stephanie Seneff, Robert M. Davidson and Jingjing Liu, "Is Cholesterol Sulfate Deficiency a Common Factor in Preeclampsia, Autism, and Pernicious Anemia?" Entropy 2012, 14, 2265-2290; doi:10.3390/e14112265

 

- Samantha Hartzell and Stephanie Seneff, "Impaired Sulfate Metabolism and Epigenetics: Is There a Link in Autism?" Entropy 2012, 14, 1953-1977; doi:10.3390/e14101953

 

- Stephanie Seneff, Robert M. Davidson, and Jingjing Liu, "Empirical Data Confirm Autism Symptoms Related to Aluminum and Acetaminophen Exposure," Entropy 2012, 14, 2227-2253; doi:10.3390/e14112227

 

- Stephanie Seneff, Robert Davidson, and Luca Mascitelli, "Might cholesterol sulfate deficiency contribute to the development of autistic spectrum disorder?" Medical Hypotheses, 8, 213-217, 2012.

 

 

It looks like she has looked into other topics that might be of interest to the MDC community as well - e.g. Weston Price.


Pro rights (vaxes).
MamaMunchkin is offline  
#5 of 83 Old 11-14-2012, 01:37 PM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,155
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
I did read the whole article. It's just data mining vaers. Basically found there were more of certain kinds of reports post 2000, and that autism related reports were more likely to involve mmr. That's it. They found a temporal correlation using unreliable data.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#6 of 83 Old 11-14-2012, 01:41 PM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,155
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by MamaMunchkin View Post

The first author of the paper has written other related articles - the one Mirzam linked is the 3rd one here ... look under "Papers on Nutrition and Disease"

- Stephanie Seneff, Robert M. Davidson and Jingjing Liu, "Is Cholesterol Sulfate Deficiency a Common Factor in Preeclampsia, Autism, and Pernicious Anemia?" Entropy 2012, 14, 2265-2290; doi:10.3390/e14112265

- Samantha Hartzell and Stephanie Seneff, "Impaired Sulfate Metabolism and Epigenetics: Is There a Link in Autism?" Entropy 2012, 14, 1953-1977; doi:10.3390/e14101953

- Stephanie Seneff, Robert M. Davidson, and Jingjing Liu, "Empirical Data Confirm Autism Symptoms Related to Aluminum and Acetaminophen Exposure," Entropy 2012, 14, 2227-2253; doi:10.3390/e14112227

- Stephanie Seneff, Robert Davidson, and Luca Mascitelli, "Might cholesterol sulfate deficiency contribute to the development of autistic spectrum disorder?" Medical Hypotheses, 8, 213-217, 2012.


It looks like she has looked into other topics that might be of interest to the MDC community as well - e.g. Weston Price.

It's interesting that she's a computer scientist.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#7 of 83 Old 11-14-2012, 01:57 PM - Thread Starter
 
Mirzam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: On The Path Of The Truth Seeker
Posts: 7,512
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 87 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

I did read the whole article. It's just data mining vaers. Basically found there were more of certain kinds of reports post 2000, and that autism related reports were more likely to involve mmr. That's it. They found a temporal correlation using unreliable data.

That was only part of what was addressed. Shame because there was some useful information on aluminum and advice for vaxing parents on how to protect your child from potential vaccine harm. However, if one choses to believe aluminum isn't a concern, I guess it isn't hard to gloss over that information and dismiss it. Those parents who do have concern about aluminum and the role acetaminophen might have in austim and prefer to make individual vaccination decisions rather than just following the CDC's recommendations, will likely find it a useful resource.


Rainbow.giftstillheart.gifsmile.gif

 

"If you find from your own experience that something is a fact and it contradicts what some authority has written down, then you must abandon the authority and base your reasoning on your own findings"~ Leonardo da Vinci

Mirzam is online now  
#8 of 83 Old 11-14-2012, 02:03 PM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,155
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
There is no hard information here. A lot of correlation based on faulty information and speculation. None of the information is new.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#9 of 83 Old 11-14-2012, 02:06 PM - Thread Starter
 
Mirzam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: On The Path Of The Truth Seeker
Posts: 7,512
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 87 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

There is no hard information here. A lot of correlation based on faulty information and speculation. None of the information is new.

Maybe not to you. 

 

I am happy you are satisified with the safety of aluminum in vaccines. Others might not be so convinced.


Rainbow.giftstillheart.gifsmile.gif

 

"If you find from your own experience that something is a fact and it contradicts what some authority has written down, then you must abandon the authority and base your reasoning on your own findings"~ Leonardo da Vinci

Mirzam is online now  
#10 of 83 Old 11-14-2012, 02:31 PM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,155
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
This study doesn't say anything about the safety of aluminum, except that vaers reports of various types increased as aluminum was phased in as an adjuvant, then some speculation about how aluminum may interact with thimerosal and Tylenol. They say aluminum was phased in in 2000, I'm pretty sure aluminum salts have been around a lot longer than that.

I'm glad studies keep investigating the safety of aluminum salts. This one is hardly the slam dunk your quote makes it initially seem like, though. I find it difficult to understand how you find some studies "junk science" and then laud this one.

Please don't make snarky remarks about what I do and don't believe.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#11 of 83 Old 11-14-2012, 03:56 PM - Thread Starter
 
Mirzam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: On The Path Of The Truth Seeker
Posts: 7,512
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 87 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

This study doesn't say anything about the safety of aluminum, except that vaers reports of various types increased as aluminum was phased in as an adjuvant, then some speculation about how aluminum may interact with thimerosal and Tylenol. They say aluminum was phased in in 2000, I'm pretty sure aluminum salts have been around a lot longer than that.

I'm glad studies keep investigating the safety of aluminum salts. This one is hardly the slam dunk your quote makes it initially seem like, though. I find it difficult to understand how you find some studies "junk science" and then laud this one.

Please don't make snarky remarks about what I do and don't believe.

I am not lauding this one. I found it interesting, nothing is a slam dunk. And I did think it alluded to the safety of aluminum. Yes, I do find some studies junk, mostly those funded by the industry to sell vaccines that attempt to hide safety and efficacy issues. Please refrain from making personal comments, I believe it is against the UA.


Rainbow.giftstillheart.gifsmile.gif

 

"If you find from your own experience that something is a fact and it contradicts what some authority has written down, then you must abandon the authority and base your reasoning on your own findings"~ Leonardo da Vinci

Mirzam is online now  
#12 of 83 Old 11-14-2012, 04:11 PM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,155
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)

So what's the funding for this study?

Rrrrrachel is offline  
#13 of 83 Old 11-14-2012, 05:28 PM
 
MamaMunchkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 356
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post


It's interesting that she's a computer scientist.


Yes - I wish study like this has been done by scientists studying vaxes instead. 


Pro rights (vaxes).
MamaMunchkin is offline  
#14 of 83 Old 11-14-2012, 05:40 PM
 
MamaMunchkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 356
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

It's funny how the "gold standard" of double blind placebo controlled studies, not to mention concerns over the validity of VAERS data, goes out the window all of a sudden.  

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

There is no hard information here. A lot of correlation based on faulty information and speculation. None of the information is new.

 

So, if I understand you ... studies based on VAERS data should - not - be taken seriously?  

 

What about this then?  Should we discount it as well?  What about the following from CDC  ... (bolded mine)

 

A direct copy-n-paste from CDC publication:

Surveillance for Safety After Immunization: Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) --- United States, 1991--2001

 

Interpretation: As a national public health surveillance system, VAERS is a key component in ensuring the safety of vaccines. VAERS data are used by CDC, FDA, and other organizations to monitor and study vaccine safety. CDC and FDA use VAERS data to respond to public inquiries regarding vaccine safety, and both organizations have published and presented vaccine safety studies based on VAERS data. VAERS data are also used by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices and the Vaccine and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee to evaluate possible adverse events after vaccinations and to develop recommendations for precautions and contraindications to vaccinations. Reviews of VAERS reports and the studies based on VAERS reports during 1991--2001 have demonstrated that vaccines are usually safe and that serious adverse events occur but are rare.

 

Full article here:

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5201a1.htm


Pro rights (vaxes).
MamaMunchkin is offline  
#15 of 83 Old 11-14-2012, 05:48 PM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,155
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
You mean examining vaers data and looking for patterns relating to certain adverse events? Good news, it has been! Lots!
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#16 of 83 Old 11-14-2012, 05:49 PM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,155
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
I think vaers data can only go so far. It's used as a first line of defense, for which it is excellent. You cannot use it to draw conclusions about"strong evidence" for anything, because it's just not reliable enough.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#17 of 83 Old 11-14-2012, 05:50 PM
 
MamaMunchkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 356
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

You mean examining vaers data and looking for patterns relating to certain adverse events? Good news, it has been! Lots!

 

So, why would this one be more unreliable or more faulty than the others?


Pro rights (vaxes).
MamaMunchkin is offline  
#18 of 83 Old 11-14-2012, 05:53 PM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,155
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
From your link:
Quote:
Passive surveillance systems (e.g., VAERS) are subject to multiple limitations, including underreporting, reporting of temporal associations or unconfirmed diagnoses, and lack of denominator data and unbiased comparison groups. Because of these limitations, determining causal associations between vaccines and adverse events from VAERS reports is usually not possible. Vaccine safety concerns identified through adverse event monitoring nearly always require confirmation using an epidemiologic or other (e.g., laboratory) study.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#19 of 83 Old 11-14-2012, 05:54 PM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,155
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by MamaMunchkin View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

You mean examining vaers data and looking for patterns relating to certain adverse events? Good news, it has been! Lots!

 

So, why would this one be more unreliable or more faulty than the others?


Well, there are some other issues with their experiment design, but really it's not. It's just that it's drawing much stronger conclusions than are really appropriate with a study of this type, particularly several conclusions involving causation.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#20 of 83 Old 11-14-2012, 05:54 PM
 
MamaMunchkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 356
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

From your link:


Yes, absolutely - but they still use the VAERS data even given the caveats.  In particular, from my link:

 

 

Quote:
The objectives of VAERS are to 1) detect new, unusual, or rare vaccine adverse events; 2) monitor increases in known adverse events; 3) determine patient risk factors for particular types of adverse events; 4) identify vaccine lots with increased numbers or types of reported adverse events; and 5) assess the safety of newly licensed vaccines.

Pro rights (vaxes).
MamaMunchkin is offline  
#21 of 83 Old 11-14-2012, 05:55 PM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,155
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Uh, yeah, like I said, it's an excellent first line of defense.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#22 of 83 Old 11-15-2012, 03:27 AM
 
prosciencemum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,799
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 130 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post


It's interesting that she's a computer scientist.

And she almost always publishes in "Entropy" which is a journal on entropy and information studies. Not sure how good the peer review for immunology would be..... The article seems to have some pretty loose citing of "well known" facts about aluminium, mercury and vaccines. 

 

 So potentially interesting I suppose, but not very convincing by itself. 


Mother of two living in UK. Daughter (2007) born in USA, son (2010) born here. I'm pro natural birth, midwife care, breastfeeding, co-sleeping, baby wearing and a keen advocate of cloth diapering. I'm a full time working research scientist (physical sciences) and I'm pro-vaccine.

prosciencemum is online now  
#23 of 83 Old 11-15-2012, 06:23 AM
 
MamaMunchkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 356
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

And she almost always publishes in "Entropy" which is a journal on entropy and information studies. Not sure how good the peer review for immunology would be..... The article seems to have some pretty loose citing of "well known" facts about aluminium, mercury and vaccines. 

 

 So potentially interesting I suppose, but not very convincing by itself. 


Maybe, maybe not - instead of insinuating and attempting to undermine the credibility of the study, why not just prove her wrong or not ... and put the matter to rest.

Mirzam likes this.

Pro rights (vaxes).
MamaMunchkin is offline  
#24 of 83 Old 11-15-2012, 07:01 AM
 
MamaMunchkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 356
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)

Also, on "Entropy" - the study is based on data mining VAERS among other things - as Rachel pointed out.   This is correct.

Rachel also pointed out that doing so is by no mean sufficient to conclude whether or not X causes Y - this is also correct.

However, this does - not - mean all studies based on VAERS data are meaningless.

 

One does - not - jump from findings based on VAERS alone to vaccine safety or not.  There are other hoops - which I'm glad there are.  There a are health records from (see Vaccine Safety Datalink - http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/Activities/VSD.html) which can be studied to see if there are any patterns - yet another datamining here.

 

And if warranted for further studies (see priority studies in VSD), then experiments with labs, people, mice, epidemiological studies etc might be conducted.

 

The problem is ... it takes time from a pattern being noticed from datamining etc to studies that will prove/disprove it otherwise - we're talking years here, not months, not weeks - as it should be I might add.  In the mean time, parents have to make vax decision, well, pretty much now.  Or, rather, in a time period - much - shorter than it'll take to have the last word established ... this complicates the matter for some of us.


Pro rights (vaxes).
MamaMunchkin is offline  
#25 of 83 Old 11-15-2012, 08:49 AM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,155
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Many of those other steps you describe have already been taken for the safety concerns addressed in this study.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#26 of 83 Old 11-15-2012, 09:13 AM
 
MamaMunchkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 356
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

Many of those other steps you describe have already been taken for the safety concerns addressed in this study.


Of course they have been - as they should - this is nothing new.  It does - not - mean the process stops.  CDC, FDA, and other scientists have the responsibilities to - keep - monitoring the data.  The studies continue.  None of these implies that the study cited in this thread is useless.

 

To recap:

- you dismissed this study right off the bat, because it's based on VAERS data

- I pointed out that VAERS data is and has been used as an important tool in the process of vaccine safety study

 

Now, I can't tell whether you agreed with this or not.  However, assuming, you did

- you then said, well, yeah, the study is no good because finding based on VAERS is data is not enough

- I said, of course it's not sufficient - other studies are needed

 

I don't know whether you agreed or not with this.  However assuming you did

- you then said, yeah, but those studies have been done ...

- and I'm saying, of course, there has been studies but ... what's wrong with more studies?

 

It'd be interesting if they can check her findings using other data, perhaps the health records that VSD uses ... if you have a source/link on this, or anyone else ... I'd love to see this ...

 

Anyway, I'm keeping an open mind.


Pro rights (vaxes).
MamaMunchkin is offline  
#27 of 83 Old 11-15-2012, 09:15 AM
 
MamaMunchkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 356
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)

double post


Pro rights (vaxes).
MamaMunchkin is offline  
#28 of 83 Old 11-15-2012, 09:18 AM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,155
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
I'm dismissing this study because the authors have drawn conclusions and made assumptions that are completely unfounded based on the nature of their study.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#29 of 83 Old 11-15-2012, 09:35 AM
 
MamaMunchkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 356
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

I'm dismissing this study because the authors have drawn conclusions and made assumptions that are completely unfounded based on the nature of their study.

 

I think we have to agree to disagree.  It'd be interesting if we can invite her to MDC and talk about this particular work ... admins?


Pro rights (vaxes).
MamaMunchkin is offline  
#30 of 83 Old 11-15-2012, 11:42 AM
 
Chicharronita's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: In the Candyland of my Imagination
Posts: 1,579
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by MamaMunchkin View Post

 

 

So, if I understand you ... studies based on VAERS data should - not - be taken seriously?  

 

 

I take them seriously, since I automatically assume that there's many adverse reactions that are NOT being reported.

 

I'll never forget how Hannah Poling's mother Teri (who used to be a nurse) admitted in a press conference about her daughter's autism/vaccine case that she didn't even know about VAERS (and I'll guess that neither did her husband, who is a doctor?):


 

Family of Girl in Autism Vaccine Case Holds News Conference

 

 

Quote:

It is my understanding that although Hannah came in and was diagnosed with a post-vaccine varicella reaction, which is a Chickenpox rash, with all my other complaints, they did not report this to VAERS. I didn't even know what VAERS was and I'm a nurse.

 


Chicharronita is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Drag and Drop File Upload
Drag files here to attach!
Upload Progress: 0
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Mothering Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off