Peanut oil in Vaccines causing massive peanut allergy? - Page 4 - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#91 of 309 Old 03-19-2013, 04:40 AM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,155
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
The claim was made early on that at some point something changed and "they" said vaccine manufacturers no longer had to list all ingredients. Also it sounds like there is some kind of policy that says they don't have to list food ingredients? I'm just lookin for some documentation other than Internet rumor.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#92 of 309 Old 03-19-2013, 04:42 AM
 
serenbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,369
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 101 Post(s)

I was doing some OLD reading - incase anyone else is interested (I found it to be!!)

 

 http://www.mothering.com/community/t/297360/peanut-oil-as-an-adjuvant

http://www.mothering.com/community/t/1354539/peanut-oil-as-adjuvant-in-vaccines


 

 pro-transparency advocate

&

lurk.gif  PROUD member of the .3% club!

 

Want to join? Just ask me!

 

"You know, in my day we used to sit on our ass smoking Parliaments for nine months.

Today, you have one piece of Brie and everybody goes berserk."      ROTFLMAO.gif 

serenbat is offline  
#93 of 309 Old 03-19-2013, 05:00 AM
 
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 Marnica View Post

Its a well established historical fact that emulsified peanut oil was used routinely in vaccines in the 60's and 70's in certain adjuvants and growth mediums. At some point manufacturers (not sure what year) were not required to list the ingredients of whats in growth mediums. So just because it's not listed on a package insert doesn't mean it's not there.


Who isn't requiring them to list the ingredients? Where is the policy change that says they no longer have to? Where is any documentation showing they ever used them (for a well established historical fact I haven't been able to find anything about it)?

Where are the easily obtainable tests showing peanut oil is in vaccines? If various groups believe that peanut oil is in there and being hidden and causing harm, why haven't they generated a list of which vaccines contain it and made the list available for parents?
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#94 of 309 Old 03-19-2013, 08:49 AM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,202
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 56 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

The claim was made early on that at some point something changed and "they" said vaccine manufacturers no longer had to list all ingredients. Also it sounds like there is some kind of policy that says they don't have to list food ingredients? I'm just lookin for some documentation other than Internet rumor.

No, that's not correct.

 

It was pointed out that there is no law requiring vaccine manufacturers to list all ingredients, and that, like many other non-food manufacturers, their "trade secrets" are therefore protected.

 

Nobody said that there is a policy saying that food ingredients do not have to be listed.  Quite the opposite: 

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post

It doesn't matter how extensive the ingredients list is if they are not required by law to disclose each and every ingredient.  Packaged food items are required to do so.  Vaccines are not.  If you can provide documentation that they ARE so required, by all means, please present that to us.

 

 

Please read more carefully so that you don't inadvertently divert the focus from what I requested from you:  

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post

It doesn't matter how extensive the ingredients list is if they are not required by law to disclose each and every ingredient.  Packaged food items are required to do so.  Vaccines are not.  If you can provide documentation that they ARE so required, by all means, please present that to us.

 

 

Taximom5 is offline  
#95 of 309 Old 03-19-2013, 09:06 AM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,155
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Taxi read the quote. It is correct
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#96 of 309 Old 03-19-2013, 09:08 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 not the one making a claim here. I don't know if they're required to or not, although considering the level of detail provided on the cdc web page and inserts it doesn't make sense to me that they dot have to list inactive ingredients or food products, because they do. I'm asking for some verification of a claim that has been repeatedly made.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#97 of 309 Old 03-19-2013, 09:11 AM
 
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 Taximom5 View Post

The vaccine manufacturers don't have to declare peanut derivatives or any other food prodcut since vaccines are not a food.  They are not required to disclose all the ingredients of vaccines, nor ingredients used in processing but considered inactive, because these are considered trade secrets.

So you're not saying here that vaccine manufacturers don't have to disclose food products as ingredients?
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#98 of 309 Old 03-19-2013, 09:12 AM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,155
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Where is some verification that 1. They can apparently declare anything a trade secret and 2. They don't have to list ingredients that are trade secrets?
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#99 of 309 Old 03-19-2013, 10:32 AM
 
serenbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,369
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 101 Post(s)

http://www.who.int/vaccine_research/documents/IVR_IPR_Tokyo_Session1_Kaplan_presentation.pdf  worth reading winky.gif

 

http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/Transparency/PublicDisclosure/TradeSecrets/default.htm

 

I have to go through my saved searches I think I have another.

 

 

This has links to other mentions of "secrets" that are allowed to be kept - 

 

http://barbfeick.com/vaccinations/allergy/801-secret_ingredients.htm

 

 

 

 

An Access to Information request to Health Canada for the 100% composition of vaccines given to infants received the response, "I regret to inform you that the exact composition of these vaccines cannot be disclosed to you as the information is protected under ATIA (Access to Information Act) Section 20(1)(a)(b)(c). This is a mandatory exemption which protects confidential business information."

The Act, under Third Party Information, states, 20. (1) Subject to this section, the head of a government institution shall refuse to disclose any record requested under this Act that contains a) trade secrets of a third party; b) financial, commercial, scientific or technical information that is confidential information supplied to a government institution by a third party and is treated consistently in a confidential manner by the third party; c) information the disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to result in material financial loss or gain to, or could reasonably be expected to prejudice the competitive position of, a third party; or d) information the disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to interfere with contractual or other negotiations of a third party."

http://www.vran.org/vaccines/anaphylaxis/vaccine-ana.htm

 

 

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9a00e2d8153ff934a15754c0a9609c8b63

The nature of GlaxoSmithKline's adjuvant is a trade secret

applejuice likes this.

 

 pro-transparency advocate

&

lurk.gif  PROUD member of the .3% club!

 

Want to join? Just ask me!

 

"You know, in my day we used to sit on our ass smoking Parliaments for nine months.

Today, you have one piece of Brie and everybody goes berserk."      ROTFLMAO.gif 

serenbat is offline  
#100 of 309 Old 03-19-2013, 11:59 AM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,155
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Some of that is only relevant to Canada. The New York Times link ony applies to a bird flu vaccine not licensed in the us because it uses a novel adjuvant. The ony adjuvant licensed for use in the is are aluminum salts.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#101 of 309 Old 03-19-2013, 12:04 PM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,155
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
The FDA link seems to imply that while the precise formula might be a trade secret, there's no reason why all ingredients wouldn't be listed (vs all ingredients and exact amounts). It also says trade secrets only apply to innovative techniques (so if peanut oil is widely recognized as having been used in the 60s and 70s that wouldn't apply) and is weighed against public harm caused by lack of disclosure.

This all still seems like a lot of rumor and unfounded speculation. It's so easy to get conclusive evidence, yet random speculation is all we have. I think that says it all.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#102 of 309 Old 03-19-2013, 01:00 PM
 
serenbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,369
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 101 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post
 It's so easy to get conclusive evidence, yet random speculation is all we have. I think that says it all.

and that means you are not correct because you can not prove what you saying conclusively 


 

 pro-transparency advocate

&

lurk.gif  PROUD member of the .3% club!

 

Want to join? Just ask me!

 

"You know, in my day we used to sit on our ass smoking Parliaments for nine months.

Today, you have one piece of Brie and everybody goes berserk."      ROTFLMAO.gif 

serenbat is offline  
#103 of 309 Old 03-19-2013, 01:22 PM
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 2,345
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by serenbat View Post

and that means you are not correct because you can not prove what you saying conclusively 

Right back atcha. 

erigeron is offline  
#104 of 309 Old 03-19-2013, 01:30 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 serenbat View Post

and that means you are not correct because you can not prove what you saying conclusively 

Again, I'm not the one making a claim. I have nothing to prove.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#105 of 309 Old 03-19-2013, 01:39 PM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,202
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 56 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post


So you're not saying here that vaccine manufacturers don't have to disclose food products as ingredients?

It's not just vaccine manufacturers.

If you go to a restaurant or even the deli counter and buy chicken salad, they are not required to disclose the ingredients in their chicken salad, even though they are food products!  As long as it's not a pre-packaged food, they can (and do) claim that their recipe is a trade secret and they do not have to disclose the ingredients!


There's no law stating, "the following manufacturers are protected from listing ingredients in their products."  

 

There IS a law stating that packaged foods must clearly label the top 8 common food allergens.  There is no law that food products must list ingredients that are used in processing, but are not added to the final product.  Therefore, something like Rice Dream Rice Milk does not have to list the barley enzymes they use in their list of ingredients, because barley is not one of the top 8 food allergens, even though it is a gluten source.  In fact, they say on the carton that Rice Dream is gluten-free--except very sensitive celiacs react to the amount of gluten in it (they can call it "gluten-free" if it has less than 20 ppm gluten).

 

Even medications are not required by law to list ingredients, like gluten-derived ingredients, which makes things very, very difficult for celiacs when "food-grade starch" can come from rice, wheat, or corn.

 

And if something is not required by law (like, listing each and every ingredient), your insisting that I produce a law SAYING that it's not required is not helping the discussion along. You might as well ask me to produce a law saying that I am not required to wear chartreuse socks in public. It actually seems like you are purposely trying to derail the discussion by insisting on being shown a non-existent and therefore totally irrelevant law.

 

YOU show us the law that says that vaccine manufacturers are required to list each and every ingredient--including those that are used in processing--and please stop trying to get out of it by asking ME to produce a law of un-requirement.

applejuice likes this.
Taximom5 is offline  
#106 of 309 Old 03-19-2013, 01:40 PM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,202
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 56 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post


Again, I'm not the one making a claim. I have nothing to prove.

You have everything to prove.2whistle.gif

applejuice likes this.
Taximom5 is offline  
#107 of 309 Old 03-19-2013, 01:46 PM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,202
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 56 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

The FDA link seems to imply that while the precise formula might be a trade secret, there's no reason why all ingredients wouldn't be listed (vs all ingredients and exact amounts). 

Translation:  Rrrrrachel seems to be saying that just because pharmaceutical companies are not required by the FDA to list every ingredient in their formulas, that doesn't mean that they don't do so. Out of the goodness of their hearts, of course.  Because they have such a strong track record of being honest, and caring about those whom their products have injured.

 

It also sounds like she is saying, "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain."

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWyCCJ6B2WE

applejuice likes this.
Taximom5 is offline  
#108 of 309 Old 03-19-2013, 01:49 PM
 
prosciencemum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,779
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 116 Post(s)
What would be the benefit to the vaccine companies of hiding the peanut oil.

Also if its so easy to just not list stuff, how come they aren't hiding the thimerosol, or formaldehyde, or possible trace amounts of cells grown from an aborted fetus?

Going back to the original point - would the presence of unvaccinated children with peanut allergies disprove it?

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  
#109 of 309 Old 03-19-2013, 01:53 PM
 
serenbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,369
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 101 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post

Translation:  Rrrrrachel seems to be saying that just because pharmaceutical companies are not required by the FDA to list every ingredient in their formulas, that doesn't mean that they don't do so. Out of the goodness of their hearts, of course.  Because they have such a strong track record of being honest, and caring about those whom their products have injured.

 

 

ah, maybe it's like ahhhhh, when vaccine manufactures need to play down safety because all us pesky people are questioning them-kind of heard something about that lately blowkiss.gif

applejuice likes this.

 

 pro-transparency advocate

&

lurk.gif  PROUD member of the .3% club!

 

Want to join? Just ask me!

 

"You know, in my day we used to sit on our ass smoking Parliaments for nine months.

Today, you have one piece of Brie and everybody goes berserk."      ROTFLMAO.gif 

serenbat is offline  
#110 of 309 Old 03-19-2013, 02:33 PM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,155
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
I see no evidence the ingredient lists aren't complete. They specifically say they include inactive ingredients and growth medium, the two ways peanut oil has been purported to be used. Other controversial ingredients are known to be used as growth medium and adjuvants, including eggs. There's no reasonable motivation to use peanut oil and hide it.

If the ingredient lists aren't complete, the evidence would be readily obtainable. Why hasn't someone produced it?

Ultimately, like all the other vaccine issues, this comes down to weighing the evidence and making the decision you think is best for you and your family.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#111 of 309 Old 03-19-2013, 02:36 PM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,155
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
From the CDC site on vaccine ingredients, linked up thread.
Quote:
To find out what chemical additives are in specific vaccines, ask your healthcare provider or pharmacist for a copy of the vaccine package insert, which lists all ingredients in the vaccine and discusses any known adverse reactions.

So either the CDC was lying (which some folks will readily believe, I'm sure, which is fine), all doesn't mean all, or those ingredient lists really are complete.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#112 of 309 Old 03-19-2013, 05:12 PM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,202
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 56 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

From the CDC site on vaccine ingredients, linked up thread.
So either the CDC was lying (which some folks will readily believe, I'm sure, which is fine), all doesn't mean all, or those ingredient lists really are complete.

The CDC has been caught in lies before:

http://www.bolenreport.com/Mark%20Geier/foiasuit3.htm

applejuice likes this.
Taximom5 is offline  
#113 of 309 Old 03-19-2013, 05:23 PM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,155
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Like I said, everyone will have to weigh the evidence for themselves.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#114 of 309 Old 03-19-2013, 08:32 PM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,202
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 56 Post(s)

Here's a fascinating survey, apparently done by a Harvard student named Devi Lockwood in 2006, concerning vaccines and peanut allergy:

 

http://www.avoidingmilkprotein.com/vacandpea.htm

 

"This research project attempts to answer the question of (1) whether there is a difference between the incidence of peanut allergies in a group of children with a relatively low vaccination rate (80%) versus a group of children with a high vaccination rate (99%), and (2) whether there is a difference between the vaccination rates in a group of children with a high incidence (100%) of peanut allergies versus a group of children with a relatively low incidence (1%) of peanut allergies."

 

and the conclusion:
 

V. Conclusion
"This goal of this research project was to determine whether there is a difference between the incidence of peanut allergies in a group of children with a relatively low vaccination rate (80%) versus a group of children with a high vaccination rate (99%), and whether there is a difference between the vaccination rates in a group of children with a high incidence (100%) of peanut allergies versus a group of children with a relatively low incidence (approximately 1%) of peanut allergies."

"My original hypothesis was that there would be a statistically significant difference, indicating a possible link between vaccines and peanut allergies. The data collected in all three parts of this study unambiguously support the hypothesis. In the case of the peanut allergy surveys, there was a greater than 2% difference between vaccination rate in the nationwide group of children with peanut allergies and the national vaccination rate as reported by the CDC. The results of the data collected in the Vashon-Ridgefield case-control study are even more dramatic. The elementary school and middle school population in Vashon currently has a vaccination compliance rate of 80.2%, and a peanut allergy rate of only 0.3%. An elementary and middle school population of roughly the same size in Ridgefield currently has a vaccination compliance rate of greater than 99.9%, and a peanut allergy rate of 1.8% - six times larger than that of Vashon."
 

 

Oh, and in case anybody is worried about the 100-word limit, the author of the study gives permission to share this with anyone who is interested:

""Thank you so much for posting my survey! Using the data I collected, I was able to win first place at the regional science fair and qualify for states. I couldn't have done any of this without your help and generosity. I've attached the research report for my project. Please feel free to share it with anyone who's interested."  Devi Lockwood, 2006

Taximom5 is offline  
#115 of 309 Old 03-19-2013, 09:02 PM
 
C is for Cookie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Kansas City, MO
Posts: 376
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

This topic has become of interest to me now. DS is allergic to peanuts and treenuts. He had an allergic reaction a couple days before his first birthday trying some peanut butter on bananas. DS has an extremely selective and delayed vaccine schedule. At the time, he only had the DTaP vaccine. I only came up with a few conclusions on why he has allergies to peanuts and treenuts. Either 1) DTaP must be the culprit to his allergy or 2) I was on a raw vegan diet when he was 3 months old and it consisted of a lot of nut based recipes (I was nursing him) For some reason, I find it hard to believe that there is, in fact, peanut oil (which, YES, kids can get allergic to! I asked this to an immunologist and an allergist) in DTaP but on the otherhand, I wouldn't be surprised if there was. I don't know. This is sort of wishy-washy to me and would love to figure out the truth on this. It might put my mind to ease to figure out what caused his allergies but I would also be even more angry about vaccine ingredients not being shown when it should. 


SAHM, college student, AND expecting #2 EDD March 20 2014! belly.gif(25)  * DS (10/2010)jog.gif *

 

Loving life with DBF (24) flowersforyou.gif since 10/2009 heartbeat.gif

Rainbow.gif *intactlact.gif* selectivevax.gifdelayedvax.gif* goorganic.jpg * familybed1.gif *cd.gif

C is for Cookie is offline  
#116 of 309 Old 03-20-2013, 05:26 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 curious how he came up with his results being statistically significant when there's no discussion of pvalues or what kind of inference he used.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#117 of 309 Old 03-20-2013, 09:55 AM
 
prosciencemum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,779
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 116 Post(s)
What kind of regional science fair did he win with this study? (I mean high school, college?).

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  
#118 of 309 Old 03-20-2013, 10:16 AM
 
Marnica's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 5,585
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

What kind of regional science fair did he win with this study? (I mean high school, college?).

read the post again - it clearly says he was a Harvard student


If the people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny." Thomas Jefferson.

Marnica is offline  
#119 of 309 Old 03-20-2013, 12:40 PM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,202
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 56 Post(s)

She.  Not he.

Taximom5 is offline  
#120 of 309 Old 03-20-2013, 12:46 PM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,202
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 56 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

I'm curious how he came up with his results being statistically significant when there's no discussion of pvalues or what kind of inference he used.

 

Translation:  "I have to find a way to invalidate any and all research indicating a link between vaccines and peanut allergies."

 

(Taken in the context of the majority of the 2700+ posts on this forum that seem to be an attempt to invalidate any and all research indicating a link between vaccines and the severe adverse reactions reported following those vaccinations.  Or vaccines and autism.  Or vaccines and autoimmune disorders.  Or vaccines and bowel disorders.  Or vaccines and...)

applejuice likes this.
Taximom5 is offline  
Reply

Tags
Allergies , Vaccinations , Vaccines

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