Thimerosal DOES Affect the Brain, Even in Utero - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
#1 of 19 Old 03-20-2014, 07:05 AM - Thread Starter
 
beckybird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: The Shattered Paradigm
Posts: 2,036
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 75 Post(s)

Think it's a good idea to receive a thimerosal-laden flu vaccine while pregnant? Not so fast......you might want to research the issue for yourself, and decide if this is the best decision for you and your unborn child. You are free to consider the recommendations from the CDC, but understand that the decision is ultimately yours to make.

 

There is evidence that prenatal exposure to Thimerosal could cause changes in the brain.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2957583/

Quote:
 Thimerosal added to some pediatric vaccines is suspected in pathogenesis of several neurodevelopmental disorders.
 
These data document that exposure to thimerosal during early postnatal life produces lasting alterations in the densities of brain opioid receptors along with other neuropathological changes, which may disturb brain development.

If these neurological changes also occur in humans, could they result in autism and other behavioral disorders? There may not be a single cause of autism, so I would be suspicious of anything that has been shown to harm the developing brain. From this study, it appears Thimerosal does harm the developing brain. Yet, it is now recommended for pregnant women to receive routine flu vaccines--and the multidose vaccines do contain Thimerosal.

 

Quote:
 The neurotoxic/pathological changes are probably initiated during a few days after injections of THIM.......likely to continue for months or be permanent, as documented by the results of our neuropathological and behavioral experiments, conducted many weeks after THIM [thimerosal] administration. The persistent alterations of brain opioid systems ensuing from early life exposure to THIM is just one element of a plethora of neurodevelopmental pathologies induced by this mercurial in animals and humans [69, 11]. Its harmful effects are likely to be augmented by other vaccine adjuvants, such as aluminum, formaldehyde or antibiotics, and by various environmental toxins

 
 
 "Medical propaganda ops are, in the long run, the most dangerous. They appear to be neutral. They wave no political banners. They claim to be science. For these reasons, they can accomplish the goals of overt fascism without arousing suspicion.” — Jon Rappoport
 
 
 
beckybird is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#2 of 19 Old 03-20-2014, 07:21 AM - Thread Starter
 
beckybird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: The Shattered Paradigm
Posts: 2,036
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 75 Post(s)

Video by Frank B. Engley:

Quote:

 dedicated his life to the field of microbiology, having served as a trusted consultant to several government agencies including the FDA, CDC, CIA, NASA, Armed Forces Epidemiological Board (AFEB) and an ad hoc consultant to numerous biomedical companies. He also served on the National Council of the NIH National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. His research first led him to discover that thimerosal was toxic down to "parts per billion" in 1948, and decades later he would tell parents of thimerosal injured children, "they say nobody has ever researched thimerosal, I'm nobody

 

If you vaccinate, you should probably watch this video. It is nice to trust the decisions and recommendations from the CDC and other health officials, but maybe you should have all the necessary info first. Here is a man who actually consulted for the government, and recommended against the use of Thimerosal. Why did they ignore him? Find out!

 

 

Notice how people reveal the truth after they retire? You cannot be fired if you are retired! Coming out with the truth while currently employed would be career suicide.


 
 
 "Medical propaganda ops are, in the long run, the most dangerous. They appear to be neutral. They wave no political banners. They claim to be science. For these reasons, they can accomplish the goals of overt fascism without arousing suspicion.” — Jon Rappoport
 
 
 
beckybird is online now  
#3 of 19 Old 03-20-2014, 09:43 AM
 
Mirzam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Resistance Free Earth
Posts: 7,612
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 135 Post(s)

^^^^^^^^^^

Awesome posts BeckyBird! I couldn't agree more, if you choose to vaccinate it is important you are aware of this information to make your informed decision.

 

 

Of course the CDC knows all this, but chooses to cover it up. (If you think the document is a fake, it is not, the abstract was obtained by Brian Hooker PhD through the FOIA)

 

Increased risk of developmental neurologic impairment after high exposure to thimerosal-containing vaccine in first 
month of life. 

 

 

Quote:
Methods: We categorized the cumulative ethylmercury exposure from thimerosal containing vaccines after one month of 
life and assessed the subsequent risk of degenerative and developmental neurologic disorders and renal disorders before the 
age of six. We applied proportional hazard models adjusting for HMO, year of birth, and gender, excluding premature babies. 
Results: We identified 286 children with degenerative and 3702 with developmental neurologic disorders, and 310 with renal 
disorders. The relative risk (RR) of developing a neurologic development disorder was 1.8 ( 95% confidence intervals [CI] ::: 
1.1-2.8) when comparing the highest exposure group at 1 month of age (cumulative dose> 25 ug) to the unexposed group. 
Within this group we also found an elevated risk for the following disorders: autism (RR 7.6, 95% Cl = 1.8-31.5), non organic 
sleep disorders (RR 5.0, 95% Cl = 1.6-15.9}, and speech disorders (RR 2.1, 95% (1=1.1-4.0). For the neurologic degenerative 
and renal disorders group we found no significantly increased risk or a decreased risk. 

Conclusion: This analysis suggests that high exposure to ethyl mercury from thimerosal-containing vaccines in the first month 
of life increases the risk of subsequent development of neurologic development impairment, but not of neurologic degenerative 
or renal impairment. Further confirmatory studies are needed. 

 

 

Boyd Haley on thimerosal and autism:

 

Quote:

Below are my rationale (not exclusive to me) for pointing directly to thimerosal in vaccines as the major cause of the increase (but not the only contributor) .

1. The toxin has to be one that affects boys more than girls.
2. The toxin exposure has to occur before 2-3 years of age, including in utero time (excludes most exposures from eats, drinking and drugs).
3. The toxin had to increase in the time frame of 1988-90.
4. The toxin had to increase in all 50 states at the same time (follow the US Dept. of Education Individuals with Disabilities Act data).
5. The toxin had to be able to cause the pleotypic toxic effects as evidenced by the multiple biochemical abnormalities observed in autism by direct or secondary effect mechanisms. Some examples would be low glutathione levels (Dr. James), aberrant methylation (Dr. Deth), low sulfate levels (Dr. Waring), abnormal urinary porphyrin profiles (Dr. Nataf), low Molybdeum levels, elevated neopterin levels (Dr. Nataf), etc.

 

For those that haven't seen this videos, first posted in INV, it is well worth watching, to grasp the extent of Dr Haley's knowledge of vaccines vs that of Dr Paul Offit. This video will be made into a high quality documentary when sufficient funds have been raised.

 

 


t
 
"There are only two mistakes you can make in the search for the Truth. Not starting, and not going all the way." ~ Mark Passio
Mirzam is online now  
#4 of 19 Old 03-20-2014, 10:28 AM - Thread Starter
 
beckybird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: The Shattered Paradigm
Posts: 2,036
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 75 Post(s)

Mirzam, your da Vinci quote is spot on!

Quote:
 "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

How many times throughout history were the authorities incorrect or mistaken? I firmly believe they are mistaken about the safety of Thimerosal, and there is plenty of evidence if you just look! One day they will change their position (as is the case with Fluoride, slowly but surely) and where will that leave the millions of dedicated followers who believed their assurance that Thimerosal was safe? You may consider the current recommendation from the CDC and FDA, but ultimately, you must research elsewhere for a complete understanding. The truth does not begin and end with the CDC and FDA. They have been wrong before, and there is ample evidence that they are wrong now. 


 
 
 "Medical propaganda ops are, in the long run, the most dangerous. They appear to be neutral. They wave no political banners. They claim to be science. For these reasons, they can accomplish the goals of overt fascism without arousing suspicion.” — Jon Rappoport
 
 
 
beckybird is online now  
#5 of 19 Old 03-20-2014, 10:48 AM
 
Mirzam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Resistance Free Earth
Posts: 7,612
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 135 Post(s)

You are very kind to the authorities to attribute it to mistakes.


t
 
"There are only two mistakes you can make in the search for the Truth. Not starting, and not going all the way." ~ Mark Passio
Mirzam is online now  
#6 of 19 Old 03-20-2014, 10:52 AM
 
keakiepie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Near the land of cream cheese
Posts: 146
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Great posts! smile.gif

Happy mama to our sweet pea  (08/25/13), loving wife to my brilliant gentleman  (09/10/11)
 
Breastfeeding, babywearing, and promoting natural health one day at a time!

*Cautiously expecting number TWO May 30, 2014*

keakiepie is offline  
#7 of 19 Old 03-20-2014, 11:34 AM
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,588
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 437 Post(s)

If this is the study I'm thinking about, they used many times more thimerosal than is found in any vaccine. 

 

Having said that, I use the thimerosal free flu vaccine while pregnant.  


“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson
teacozy is offline  
#8 of 19 Old 03-20-2014, 01:49 PM - Thread Starter
 
beckybird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: The Shattered Paradigm
Posts: 2,036
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 75 Post(s)

Frank Engley insists the amount of Thimerosal in vaccines is toxic and harmful. He should know, as he did the studies. Please watch his video.

 

Quote:
 Dr. Frank Engley determines Thimerosal is significantly toxic to human tissue culture cells at 10 parts-per-billion (ppb). 

 
 
 "Medical propaganda ops are, in the long run, the most dangerous. They appear to be neutral. They wave no political banners. They claim to be science. For these reasons, they can accomplish the goals of overt fascism without arousing suspicion.” — Jon Rappoport
 
 
 
beckybird is online now  
#9 of 19 Old 03-20-2014, 08:20 PM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,314
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 97 Post(s)

I'm curious to know what those who (so far) believe that thimerosal is safe and effective think of Dr. Engley's interview here.

Taximom5 is offline  
#10 of 19 Old 03-21-2014, 07:10 AM
 
Mirzam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Resistance Free Earth
Posts: 7,612
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 135 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post
 

I'm curious to know what those who (so far) believe that thimerosal is safe and effective think of Dr. Engley's interview here.

 

I would be interested to know too. Of course the interview is quite long........

 

Something else to read:

 

Thimerosal and Autism Timeline 


t
 
"There are only two mistakes you can make in the search for the Truth. Not starting, and not going all the way." ~ Mark Passio
Mirzam is online now  
#11 of 19 Old 03-21-2014, 01:52 PM
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,588
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 437 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeckyBird View Post
 

Frank Engley insists the amount of Thimerosal in vaccines is toxic and harmful. He should know, as he did the studies. Please watch his video.

 

 

Link to his studies on vaccines please?  I looked and all I could find was stuff from the 50s, and nothing specifically about vaccines. 


“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson
teacozy is offline  
#12 of 19 Old 03-21-2014, 02:44 PM
 
Mirzam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Resistance Free Earth
Posts: 7,612
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 135 Post(s)

^^^^^^^

 

Ethylmercury is ethylmercury, it doesn't magically transform itself into a harmless substance when put in a vaccine. Quite the opposite in fact.


t
 
"There are only two mistakes you can make in the search for the Truth. Not starting, and not going all the way." ~ Mark Passio
Mirzam is online now  
#13 of 19 Old 03-21-2014, 04:08 PM
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,588
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 437 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirzam View Post
 

^^^^^^^

 

Ethylmercury is ethylmercury, it doesn't magically transform itself into a harmless substance when put in a vaccine. Quite the opposite in fact.

 

Again, all I could find was stuff from the 50s.  There's been a ton of research on thimerosal/ethylmercury since then.  Here's a list of some of those studies http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/library/bytopic/thimerosal_faq_refs.html

 

I can remember more than once being told my studies were "too old" on these forums.  One of them was a study from Pediatrics from 2005 about pertussis.  I also remember linking something from CHOP about aluminum in vaccines and being told by at least one member that the study was too old because it was from the late 90s and there was new research since that time.    But now all of a sudden studies can't be too old? stuff from the 50s is now considered convincing evidence?  

 

Interesting double standard. 


“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson
teacozy is offline  
#14 of 19 Old 03-21-2014, 05:03 PM
 
Mirzam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Resistance Free Earth
Posts: 7,612
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 135 Post(s)

So what you are saying is you didn't bother to watch Dr Engley's interview, because you clearly don't have anything constructive to say about it other than his his research was done in the 1950s. Well, he is the only person that has done the research. 


t
 
"There are only two mistakes you can make in the search for the Truth. Not starting, and not going all the way." ~ Mark Passio
Mirzam is online now  
#15 of 19 Old 03-21-2014, 09:42 PM - Thread Starter
 
beckybird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: The Shattered Paradigm
Posts: 2,036
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 75 Post(s)

If Dr. Engley studied Thimerosal in the '50's, and Thimerosal is still used TO THIS DAY, then yes, his studies are relevant. His presentation covers a lot more than vaccines.  He is one of these "experts" who consulted for the FDA, NIH, and CDC, well beyond the 50's. You can thank him for helping remove Thimerosal from over the counter medications.

 

Good for you for avoiding the Thimerosal-preserved flu vax. How do you feel about other vaccines containing Thimerosal for your child? I think if you listened to Dr. Engley's interview, you might change your mind.

Can't listen, too long you say? How do I find the time to listen to all these videos? Well, we don't have tv. We have computers here. Instead of watching hours of mindless tv and commercials, just watch a documentary or informational video. Half the time, I will listen from another room while working. It can be done if you are dedicated. Oh, and I want to know the "dirt" on anything I put into my kids' bodies.....meaning, if there is information that my favorite supplement is contaminated, I WANT to know this. I WANT to know if  my favorite alternative doctor is lying or corrupt. If there is something out there better than what I am doing, I Want to know.

Shouldn't you Want to know if your vaccines are harmful?


 
 
 "Medical propaganda ops are, in the long run, the most dangerous. They appear to be neutral. They wave no political banners. They claim to be science. For these reasons, they can accomplish the goals of overt fascism without arousing suspicion.” — Jon Rappoport
 
 
 
beckybird is online now  
#16 of 19 Old 03-22-2014, 07:40 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,232
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 229 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
 

 

Again, all I could find was stuff from the 50s.  There's been a ton of research on thimerosal/ethylmercury since then.  Here's a list of some of those studies http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/library/bytopic/thimerosal_faq_refs.html

 

I can remember more than once being told my studies were "too old" on these forums.  One of them was a study from Pediatrics from 2005 about pertussis.  I also remember linking something from CHOP about aluminum in vaccines and being told by at least one member that the study was too old because it was from the late 90s and there was new research since that time.    But now all of a sudden studies can't be too old? stuff from the 50s is now considered convincing evidence?  

 

Interesting double standard. 

Not really.

 

The 2005 link on pertussis looked at pertussis from 1996-2001 or something like that, and was related to pertussis rates.  Reported rates of pertussis have gone up since 1996-2001, so using old data to discuss current rates is inappropriate.

 

Has thimerosal changed since the 1950's?  Or the way we react to it?

If the answer is yes, then the material might not be relevent

If the answer is no, then it is fine.


There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

 

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?).  We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...

kathymuggle is online now  
#17 of 19 Old 03-23-2014, 12:08 PM
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,588
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 437 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post
 

Not really.

 

The 2005 link on pertussis looked at pertussis from 1996-2001 or something like that, and was related to pertussis rates.  Reported rates of pertussis have gone up since 1996-2001, so using old data to discuss current rates is inappropriate.

 

Has thimerosal changed since the 1950's?  Or the way we react to it?

If the answer is yes, then the material might not be relevent

If the answer is no, then it is fine.

 

I don't recall the actual study, but regardless there have been multiple times I can remember where I've been told that a study was old, and ignored more recent data. 

 

One example I found "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..." 

 

http://www.mothering.com/community/t/1390943/is-acetaminophen-behind-the-autism-epidemic/40

 

That comment got three "likes" as well. 

 

There was another time I posted a study about the efficacy of the flu vaccine, and was told it was too old, that there was another study done a couple years later (with a tiny sample size, IIRC) that was newer and should therefore be considered more accurate and up to date.   There have been so many threads about the flu vaccine that it would take way too much time for me to find it, unfortunately. 

 

I posted a link to studies that are a lot more recent than the 1950s about thimerosal/mercury.  But I suppose ignoring those in this case makes sense, because you (general) don't like the results. 

 

For pete's sake, a nobel prize was given to scientists for the lobotomy in 1950.  Science/medicine has come a very long way since then. 


“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson
teacozy is offline  
#18 of 19 Old 03-23-2014, 07:06 PM
 
littlec's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 300
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 27 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
 

 

I don't recall the actual study, but regardless there have been multiple times I can remember where I've been told that a study was old, and ignored more recent data. 

 

One example I found "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..." 

 

http://www.mothering.com/community/t/1390943/is-acetaminophen-behind-the-autism-epidemic/40

 

That comment got three "likes" as well. 

 

There was another time I posted a study about the efficacy of the flu vaccine, and was told it was too old, that there was another study done a couple years later (with a tiny sample size, IIRC) that was newer and should therefore be considered more accurate and up to date.   There have been so many threads about the flu vaccine that it would take way too much time for me to find it, unfortunately. 

 

I posted a link to studies that are a lot more recent than the 1950s about thimerosal/mercury.  But I suppose ignoring those in this case makes sense, because you (general) don't like the results. 

 

For pete's sake, a nobel prize was given to scientists for the lobotomy in 1950.  Science/medicine has come a very long way since then. 


I haven't watched the interview either, but I'm wondering, is there anything more recent that would counter what he's saying on it? Because there may well be a time when old data isn't relevant, there may also be a time when non-vaxers were cherry picking and choosing to ignore something, but either way, is that going to stop you from looking at it and maybe trying to find something to dispute (or back up) his claims? I imagine you already think thimerosal is the less safe option since you avoided that one during pregnancy, right? If thimerosal free had not been available, would you have skipped or delayed the shot? I'm truly just curious as several of my pro-vaccine friends opted to do the same thing during pregnancy.


"Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect." ~Mark Twain

 


 
littlec is offline  
#19 of 19 Old 03-23-2014, 10:22 PM - Thread Starter
 
beckybird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: The Shattered Paradigm
Posts: 2,036
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 75 Post(s)

Teacozy,

We're talking about an ingredient that was created in 1927, and still used to this day. In this thread, we are not talking about studies of disease rates from the '50's, or the '90's, or 2001. Rate of disease vs. ingredient = not the same topic. We are talking about a specific ingredient which has not changed since 1927, and since Dr. Engley's studies. I believe Dr. Engley was the only one who did this type of research on Thimerosal. He found it was dangerous, and not even effective against bacteria,  yet people continued to use it for years....and to the present day. Oh, and it was officially banned from OTC medicines in 1998--is that recent enough? This was inspired when Engley presented his research to the panel. Thanks Dr. Engley!

Quote:
 
It is difficult to understand why it took the FDA 18 years to remove mercury from over the counter products. It is equally difficult to understand why the expert panel’s 1980 findings on thimerosal’s safety in topical ointments did not prompt the FDA to further and immediately review the use of thimerosal in
vaccines.

 

From your post, I am assuming you did not watch any of the videos or read Mirzam's link. I understand that videos are difficult to watch, especially if you are biased from the start. I will repost this link, because it details the history of Thimerosal. Maybe you could read it.

http://www.ashotoftruth.org/history

 

As for Dr.Engley's research, I found his testimony to be more interesting than his Thimerosal findings. He was on the inside, he was a top advisor, and he knows what he is talking about. Rarely do we get a glimpse inside of the industry. I suppose if you wanted to keep your head in the sand, and go on thinking it is a solid, virtuous, caring, all-knowing, always right industry, then by all means do not watch his video!  But, when I hear the official statement that "Thimerosal is safe to inject into pregnant ladies and babies", I do not believe it is true, and for very good reason! (There's that word again--believe.)


 
 
 "Medical propaganda ops are, in the long run, the most dangerous. They appear to be neutral. They wave no political banners. They claim to be science. For these reasons, they can accomplish the goals of overt fascism without arousing suspicion.” — Jon Rappoport
 
 
 
beckybird is online now  
Reply

User Tag List

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


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not 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