Guest guest Posted March 30, 2006 Report Share Posted March 30, 2006 I can't answer your question about the study. Our ds was born at 28 weeks. Elaine > > Hi I'm looking for anybody who knows if the CDC study regarding the > mercury vaccines causing autism used any children who were born > premature. > Anybody in this forum have a child who was born premature and diagnosed > with autism? My son is one of those. I'd like more contact with parents > with kids like my son.. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 31, 2006 Report Share Posted March 31, 2006 Marsha -- can't speak about the study -- my hunch is that didn't ask about prematurity. I have identical twin boys born at 25 6/7 weeks. One has ASD and one not. (SO much for the genetic theory) I persoanlly think there would be a higher instance of preemies with ASD due to the fact that I believe that ASD is rooted in teh autoimmunie system, which is a problem for preemies. I think there is an environmental trigger (could be mercury, etc.). Unfortunately, both of my boys received 4 shots with thimerosal before we stopped vaccinating (all after the gvo't recommendation to remove it too!) so it can't just be that (a non-toxin has no busienss being in or around any child or person!) The ASD answer is much more comlicated than just genetics or mercury. BTW, my son with ASD was (and is) the sicker of the two. Diane Feel free to email directly ... > > Hi I'm looking for anybody who knows if the CDC study regarding the > mercury vaccines causing autism used any children who were born > premature. > Anybody in this forum have a child who was born premature and diagnosed > with autism? My son is one of those. I'd like more contact with parents > with kids like my son.. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 31, 2006 Report Share Posted March 31, 2006 Actually, I think just because only one of your twins is ASD doesn't rule out the genetic link. It is generally thought to be a genetic predisposition that our kids have and what happens to them after they are born determines whether they get it or not. You said your ASD twin was sicker than the other. I have read of other sets where the one that is ASD was either the sickly one or was sick at vaccination time. Being sick is a risk factor for vaccine reaction. Other things that play into it are food allergies, antibiotic use, how ill a child is at vaccination time, how well the child is able to detox, other issues a child might have with it's health, and even the diet of the child. Lots to play into it but I would bet the root of it all is a genetic predisposition that makes the child unable to detox effectively. When these kids are exposed to a certain level their bodies just start showing the effects. Babies before age 6 months don't produce bile to be able to detox. When babies are already gifted with a toxic load from their mothers it is hard to say how much they have when they are born and how much is necessary to reach this level. The toxins in the vaccines are many. Some kids seemingly tolerate them but we also don't know if these are the kids who will be getting alzheimers later or other dreaded disease that is now being attributed to metals/toxins. We also don't know what they could have accomplished. People say their kids are normal but what if those kids were affected and lost several IQ points. Maybe now they will manage to get into an okay college where if they had all the capability born to them they would be full ride Ivy League. I think the effects of toxins/vaccinations is something we will never know the full scope of. I do know my least toxic child is so different than my other two. Brighter, smarter, quick to learn and process information, figures out how to do things/get into things quick, has many more words available to use...the differences are huge. I would also think premature babies are at more risk because they are smaller when they begin vaccination. Some docs don't allow to put shots off until they gestationally reach two months. They are given the shots when most other babies are still unborn. If the babies are often sickly, that will play into it. Got way off what you asked about, sorry! dpowell605 <POWDER914@...> wrote: Marsha -- can't speak about the study -- my hunch is that didn't ask about prematurity. I have identical twin boys born at 25 6/7 weeks. One has ASD and one not. (SO much for the genetic theory) I persoanlly think there would be a higher instance of preemies with ASD due to the fact that I believe that ASD is rooted in teh autoimmunie system, which is a problem for preemies. I think there is an environmental trigger (could be mercury, etc.). Unfortunately, both of my boys received 4 shots with thimerosal before we stopped vaccinating (all after the gvo't recommendation to remove it too!) so it can't just be that (a non-toxin has no busienss being in or around any child or person!) The ASD answer is much more comlicated than just genetics or mercury. BTW, my son with ASD was (and is) the sicker of the two. Diane Feel free to email directly ... > > Hi I'm looking for anybody who knows if the CDC study regarding the > mercury vaccines causing autism used any children who were born > premature. > Anybody in this forum have a child who was born premature and diagnosed > with autism? My son is one of those. I'd like more contact with parents > with kids like my son.. > ======================================================= Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 31, 2006 Report Share Posted March 31, 2006 The CDC VSD study did have a component on premature infants. However, the findings are hard to interpret because the study methodology looked at thimerosal exposure by dose within the first 2, 4, or 6 months of life. Premies usually get their shots a little later (or they did in the 1990s which comprises the birth cohort for the study) and the sicker babies who are most at risk for adverse outcomes tended to get them even later, thus they had lower thimerosal exposures within the designated time frame, even if their total dose in the first 2 years of life was equal or higher. So it looked like the thimerosal was protective (ie, " lower " dose meant fewer adverse outcomes) but this is probably due to the sicker infants getting the vaccines later in life. I hope I explained this so it makes sense. dpowell605 wrote: >Marsha -- can't speak about the study -- my hunch is that didn't ask >about prematurity. > >I have identical twin boys born at 25 6/7 weeks. One has ASD and one >not. (SO much for the genetic theory) > >I persoanlly think there would be a higher instance of preemies with >ASD due to the fact that I believe that ASD is rooted in teh >autoimmunie system, which is a problem for preemies. I think there is >an environmental trigger (could be mercury, etc.). Unfortunately, both >of my boys received 4 shots with thimerosal before we stopped >vaccinating (all after the gvo't recommendation to remove it too!) so >it can't just be that (a non-toxin has no busienss being in or around >any child or person!) The ASD answer is much more comlicated than >just genetics or mercury. > >BTW, my son with ASD was (and is) the sicker of the two. > >Diane > >Feel free to email directly ... > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 1, 2006 Report Share Posted April 1, 2006 This sounds OK, but what's the reality? What sort ethics and laws prevented pediatric MDs from disobeying a manufacturer's contraindication suggestions? They are after all just suggestions and recommendations. I never knew how cloak and dagger the pediatric medical profession was until somebody on the outside actually tried to look at the VSD. Re: [ ] Re: Mercury Autism Study The CDC VSD study did have a component on premature infants. However, the findings are hard to interpret because the study methodology looked at thimerosal exposure by dose within the first 2, 4, or 6 months of life. Premies usually get their shots a little later (or they did in the 1990s which comprises the birth cohort for the study) and the sicker babies who are most at risk for adverse outcomes tended to get them even later, thus they had lower thimerosal exposures within the designated time frame, even if their total dose in the first 2 years of life was equal or higher. So it looked like the thimerosal was protective (ie, " lower " dose meant fewer adverse outcomes) but this is probably due to the sicker infants getting the vaccines later in life. I hope I explained this so it makes sense. dpowell605 wrote: >Marsha -- can't speak about the study -- my hunch is that didn't ask >about prematurity. > >I have identical twin boys born at 25 6/7 weeks. One has ASD and one >not. (SO much for the genetic theory) > >I persoanlly think there would be a higher instance of preemies with >ASD due to the fact that I believe that ASD is rooted in teh >autoimmunie system, which is a problem for preemies. I think there is >an environmental trigger (could be mercury, etc.). Unfortunately, both >of my boys received 4 shots with thimerosal before we stopped >vaccinating (all after the gvo't recommendation to remove it too!) so >it can't just be that (a non-toxin has no busienss being in or around >any child or person!) The ASD answer is much more comlicated than >just genetics or mercury. > >BTW, my son with ASD was (and is) the sicker of the two. > >Diane > >Feel free to email directly ... > > > > > > ======================================================= Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 1, 2006 Report Share Posted April 1, 2006 Sallie -- the question is were the preemies given the shots based upon their chronological age or adjusted age? In our case, my sons were given shots in the NICU at two months chronological age, yet they were 4 months early, so they were technically -2 (the adjusted clock starts from when they should have been born). Also, preemies tend to be smaller, my kids were given the shots weighing only 3-4 lbs -- so the amount compared to body weight is huge, not even taking account the compromised immune system. No preemie should ever be given a vaccine in the NICU (which they told me the law required -- of course, I didn't know any better at the time -- figured these people had kept my sons alive, they wouldn't harm them. Even worse, two of the shots had thimerosal and this was Feb. 2001!) Diane > The CDC VSD study did have a component on premature infants. However, > the findings are hard to interpret because the study methodology looked > at thimerosal exposure by dose within the first 2, 4, or 6 months of > life. Premies usually get their shots a little later (or they did in the > 1990s which comprises the birth cohort for the study) and the sicker > babies who are most at risk for adverse outcomes tended to get them even > later, thus they had lower thimerosal exposures within the designated > time frame, even if their total dose in the first 2 years of life was > equal or higher. So it looked like the thimerosal was protective (ie, > " lower " dose meant fewer adverse outcomes) but this is probably due to > the sicker infants getting the vaccines later in life. I hope I > explained this so it makes sense. > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 1, 2006 Report Share Posted April 1, 2006 The science page of nomercury.org references a study showing thimerosal being harmful to premature infants I believe. > > Hi I'm looking for anybody who knows if the CDC study regarding the > mercury vaccines causing autism used any children who were born > premature. > Anybody in this forum have a child who was born premature and diagnosed > with autism? My son is one of those. I'd like more contact with parents > with kids like my son.. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 1, 2006 Report Share Posted April 1, 2006 Diane - I has a very similar expereicne with my twins. Heb B in the NICU 93- 4 lbs). No more until they were discharged, which only caused the pediatrician to double up as soon as they got out (weighing only 5.5 lbs). WHen I asked why we couldn't wait until they were bigger, he said, " that would be against the law. " My kids also got thimerasol in April 2001. Ruth > > Sallie -- the question is were the preemies given the shots based > upon their chronological age or adjusted age? In our case, my sons > were given shots in the NICU at two months chronological age, yet > they were 4 months early, so they were technically -2 (the adjusted > clock starts from when they should have been born). Also, preemies > tend to be smaller, my kids were given the shots weighing only 3-4 > lbs -- so the amount compared to body weight is huge, not even > taking account the compromised immune system. No preemie should > ever be given a vaccine in the NICU (which they told me the law > required -- of course, I didn't know any better at the time -- > figured these people had kept my sons alive, they wouldn't harm > them. Even worse, two of the shots had thimerosal and this was Feb. > 2001!) > > Diane > > > The CDC VSD study did have a component on premature infants. > However, > > the findings are hard to interpret because the study methodology > looked > > at thimerosal exposure by dose within the first 2, 4, or 6 months > of > > life. Premies usually get their shots a little later (or they did > in the > > 1990s which comprises the birth cohort for the study) and the > sicker > > babies who are most at risk for adverse outcomes tended to get > them even > > later, thus they had lower thimerosal exposures within the > designated > > time frame, even if their total dose in the first 2 years of life > was > > equal or higher. So it looked like the thimerosal was protective > (ie, > > " lower " dose meant fewer adverse outcomes) but this is probably > due to > > the sicker infants getting the vaccines later in life. I hope I > > explained this so it makes sense. > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 1, 2006 Report Share Posted April 1, 2006 The study method used chronological age. dpowell605 wrote: >Sallie -- the question is were the preemies given the shots based >upon their chronological age or adjusted age? In our case, my sons >were given shots in the NICU at two months chronological age, yet >they were 4 months early, so they were technically -2 (the adjusted >clock starts from when they should have been born). Also, preemies >tend to be smaller, my kids were given the shots weighing only 3-4 >lbs -- so the amount compared to body weight is huge, not even >taking account the compromised immune system. No preemie should >ever be given a vaccine in the NICU (which they told me the law >required -- of course, I didn't know any better at the time -- >figured these people had kept my sons alive, they wouldn't harm >them. Even worse, two of the shots had thimerosal and this was Feb. >2001!) > >Diane > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 1, 2006 Report Share Posted April 1, 2006 Another factor could be if the needle went deeper into the vaccine vial and picked up more thimerosal. Another factor could be which vein or artery the needle dumped the stuff in... (what one kids thimerosal went straight into the islets of Langerhans or the brain, while the other went somewhere easier to detoxify). Anyway we have fraternal twins, and as with all twins, they were premature (1 month in our case). The one with autism was more jaundiced, and developed " breast-milk jaundice " at one point. He had sort of an unhealthy pastey skin tone, and didn't sit up as much, during his first year. Mark > > > > Hi I'm looking for anybody who knows if the CDC study regarding the > > mercury vaccines causing autism used any children who were born > > premature. > > Anybody in this forum have a child who was born premature and > diagnosed > > with autism? My son is one of those. I'd like more contact with > parents > > with kids like my son.. > > > > > > > > > ======================================================= > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 3, 2006 Report Share Posted April 3, 2006 , -- I agree 100% -- I just get frustrated with the researchers looking for a gene for ASD instead of the other factors. I wholeheartedly believe in a genetic predisposition and of course my material toxins (5 amalgrams alone) -- but I don't think there is a pure genetic (DNA) cause (like there is in down's syndrome) -- I think there has to be a trigger to the immune system. Diane > > Actually, I think just because only one of your twins is ASD doesn't rule out the genetic link. It is generally thought to be a genetic predisposition that our kids have and what happens to them after they are born determines whether they get it or not. You said your ASD twin was sicker than the other. I have read of other sets where the one that is ASD was either the sickly one or was sick at vaccination time. Being sick is a risk factor for vaccine reaction. > > Other things that play into it are food allergies, antibiotic use, how ill a child is at vaccination time, how well the child is able to detox, other issues a child might have with it's health, and even the diet of the child. Lots to play into it but I would bet the root of it all is a genetic predisposition that makes the child unable to detox effectively. When these kids are exposed to a certain level their bodies just start showing the effects. Babies before age 6 months don't produce bile to be able to detox. When babies are already gifted with a toxic load from their mothers it is hard to say how much they have when they are born and how much is necessary to reach this level. The toxins in the vaccines are many. Some kids seemingly tolerate them but we also don't know if these are the kids who will be getting alzheimers later or other dreaded disease that is now being attributed to metals/toxins. We also don't know what they could have accomplished. People > say their kids are normal but what if those kids were affected and lost several IQ points. Maybe now they will manage to get into an okay college where if they had all the capability born to them they would be full ride Ivy League. I think the effects of toxins/vaccinations is something we will never know the full scope of. I do know my least toxic child is so different than my other two. Brighter, smarter, quick to learn and process information, figures out how to do things/get into things quick, has many more words available to use...the differences are huge. > > I would also think premature babies are at more risk because they are smaller when they begin vaccination. Some docs don't allow to put shots off until they gestationally reach two months. They are given the shots when most other babies are still unborn. If the babies are often sickly, that will play into it. > > Got way off what you asked about, sorry! > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.