It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Long Lance
There are other reasons for susceptibility, besides genetic disposition, f-ex. nutrition works both ways, perhaps their diet leaves many enzymes intact which help mitigate toxicicity?
Not to mention that vaccines given to children who remember don't really count (too old), it's all about the first year and a half or so,
the fact that autism started slowly in the 1930's speaks volumes, too, doesn't it?
Originally posted by bsl4doc
[
Not to mention that vaccines given to children who remember don't really count (too old), it's all about the first year and a half or so,
I'm sorry, I must have missed the source that mentioned mercury only affects the CNS during the first year and a half of life...
Oh wait, there wasn't one. Any affects seen due to mercury in vaccines should be present as long as there is brain tissue, which would be your entire life.
Originally posted by Long Lance
Há Hà, very funny, there are many things i could say now, the reasonable thing is to state that body weight, (if administered shortly after birth) limited excretion capability, speed of growth and therefore uptake of material will play a role, to say the least. of course, interrupting a child's early development phase results has to result in different damage characterisitcs, it's like exposing an unfinished vs. finished building to an earthquake.
I don't know about polysterene or some other factor I'm overlooking, but the following question is very simple: if it started in the 1930s but really took off in the 1990s and seems to have an affinity to developed nations, while opt-outs like the amish remain unaffected, then what is it?
PS: if diet doesn't affect your capability to deal with poison then i don't know what does, ever heard of antidotes?
Originally posted by MonoIonic_Gold
bsl4doc, I gave you far too much credit, you are making foolish arguements. You haven't learned anything in the entirety of the 2 threads.
Vaccines had as a preservative a known neurotoxin injeccted directly into a baby bloodstream without a bloodbrain barrier.
Proven by the EPA to be far, far over the safe limit.
Nobody on either side of the issue anywhere is trying to argue that... except you...
Your rates for Mercury Poisoning from your "big thick medical tome", are they for inhalation? Skin contact? or Injections? Because..... theres a big difference.
And when was that book printed.. originally?
Originally posted by bsl4doc
I never said mercury OR thimerosal was good for. I'm saying the amount currentl found in flu vaccines is not harmful.
Originally posted by MonoIonic_Gold
What is this strange logic that something toxic is ok as long as it isn't above some imaginary threshold in a book?
This threshold could be very different for different people.
Some people are more sensitive than others based on genetics.
You have to account for those people.
Originally posted by bsl4doc
Infants excrete faster a nd more often than adults do, and they also have a higher metabolism. This would lead one to suggest that any mineral/vitamin/nutrient entering their body would be used/excreted faster and would need to be replenished, thus the reason infants and young children need such nutrient rich food so often. That doesn't really jive with your idea, but then neither does the rest of medical science.
Well, Ford Motors became the number one car manufacturer in 1927, and has steadily increased the number of cars sold throughout the world, mostly in developed nations, and the Amish don't drive cars...OH MY GOD! HENRY FORD IS THE CAUSE OF AUTISM!
PS: if diet doesn't affect your capability to deal with poison then i don't know what does, ever heard of antidotes?
Originally posted by golemina
I see you took a warning ThickHeaded.
MODERATORS and good people in these medical threads:
Most of us discuss medical issues with a good deal of good faith. Such is NOT the case with our good doctor.
As participants in these threads, you NEED to be consciously aware of what here true purpose here seems to be based on her behavior... More important NOT rise to her CONSTANT BAITING.
Originally posted by riley
IMO my genes are suseptable to these 'reactions'.
Infants excrete faster and more often than adults do, and they also have a higher metabolism. This would lead one to suggest that any mineral/vitamin/nutrient entering their body would be used/excreted faster and would need to be replenished, thus the reason infants and young children need such nutrient rich food so often. That doesn't really jive with your idea, but then neither does the rest of medical science.
Originally posted by Dae
Originally posted by MonoIonic_Gold
What is this strange logic that something toxic is ok as long as it isn't above some imaginary threshold in a book?
This threshold could be very different for different people.
Some people are more sensitive than others based on genetics.
You have to account for those people.
Yes. Its an absolute disgrace when the medical profession uses adult males to set a standard for safe limits. Adult males are different from adult females and pregnant adult females are different again. You also have pre verses post menopausal females. Then of course you have a newborn which is physiologically different from a 10 year old.
But they know that right?