S/O vaccines, autism, "catching" autism,etc

amother

Thu, Jan 29 2015, 9:10 pm

SorGold wrote:

Assuming we stay with Dr. McBride's theory that autism is caused by leaky gut ( a permeable intestinal wall due to lack of proper gut flora), it is inhereited from the flora of the parents. Mainly from the mother , but it is also from the father as it is greatly affected by the flora in the birth canal.
This intestinal permeability causes foreign food particles and toxic substances to enter the blood stream (think gluten /aluminum /formaldehyde etc. Or anything else that autism has been claimed to be linked to) and can cause a host of ailments. She posits that leaky gut causes mental illness, asthma, allergies, autoimmune diseases, only ONE of which condition would be autism. Therefore, some children can be "born with autism" as they inherited leaky gut from birth due to a mothers leaky gut status or even a round of antibiotics during mothers pregnancy or delivery (think strep B+ ). A vaccination as a baby will therefore "cause autism from birth" because the baby's gut was already compromised and substances in the vaccines cross the blood brain barrier and affect the childs brain causing autism. Dr. Mcbride says leaky gut is also caused by steroids or even birth control. A mother having used these substances may have given over the intestinal permeability from birth. Other children may develop a leaky gut from medications after birth from an already compromised gut flora. Vaccinations therefore did not cause the autism. They only acted as the "trigger ." The leaky gut is the underlying problem which needs to be fixed by her "GAPS diet"
Dr. McBride say that if a child "needs" to be vaccinated it should be done well after language is established and given with large doses of vitamin c.

The leaky gut theory explains the genetic link, the some are born and some get at age 2 issue, and the vaccination relationship and why some "recover" from autism.

The leaky gut hypothesis has been pretty much thrown out. If we would have leaky guts, we will all be septic. This hypothesis is no longer considered. We all have sealed colonic epithelial layers. We just don't leak out, c"v, that would be very dangerous.

southernbubby

Thu, Jan 29 2015, 9:29 pm

I have a grandchild who has childhood disintegrative disorder, which is shelved in with autism because it causes severe autistic behaviors but instead of the child being slow to develop, the child initially develops normally and then around age 3, starts regressing until very little cognitive ability exists. It is rare, only 1 in 50,000 have that type of autism.

Believe me, I wish that any of these theories were true because at least we would have an explanation, but at present we have no answers.

amother

Fri, Jan 30 2015, 12:13 am

amother wrote:

Huh? Micro-organisms are constantly migrating from the gut/colon into the bloodstream. Just that in people with a normal immune system, they are eradicated before they can cause disease.

People with severely compromised immune systems often get sick from pathogens that traveled from their own gut to other parts of the body. Even probiotics and other live cultures can make them sick.

amother

Fri, Jan 30 2015, 7:44 am

amother wrote:

The leaky gut hypothesis was thrown out. We do not leak -we selectively transport. They are not "eradicated," they are killed either by complement mediated lysis or phagocytes. But, this is in the case of an infection where the integrity of barrier is destroyed. This is not typical. What is in the gut stays in the gut just like urine stays in our bladder. Urine does not leak out of our bladder.

Immunocompramised does not mean a hole in the gut. It means their immune system has a harder time fighting things off. There are billion possibilities. My family member had a small hole in their colon and was septic. It resulted in a long operation and 6 mo hospitalization with tons of IV antibiotics until the infection was cleared. And, this person was also immunocompramised from the disease that caused the hole in the first place.

supty

Fri, Jan 30 2015, 8:34 am

sky wrote:

How much of each is included in every shot? Can you expand on why these amounts are dangerous, how they build up in the body, what the affects are, How long does it take for the body to break it down? Rather then throwing around scary words can you please give me facts regarding these?

This is what I know about formaldehyde. Can you tell me what the actual issue is?

HepB - Recombivax - 3 doses - 7.5μg/dose
DTaP - Infanrix - 5 doses - 100μg/dose
Hib - ActHIB - 3 doses - 0.5μg/dose
IPV - IPOL - 4 doses - 100μg/dose
Influenza - Fluzone - 7 doses - 100μg/dose
HepA - Havrix - 2 doses - 100μg/dose

the average person gets about 10 - 20 mg of formaldehyde every day from apples, pears, carrots, milk, cosmetics, etc.

A single pear has 38 – 60 mg\kg of formaldehyde. Should I stop eating pears? When pears are in season my family can go through double those in a week.

A banana has 16 mg\kg of formaldehyde. Is it dangerous to feed to my child? That is about how many banans my child may eat over the course of a week.

I'm not anti vax by the way, I'm just answering the questions as I have done A LOT of reading on this. Yes, it's very small amounts, but it is very different for it to be ingested through foods than to be injected directly into the bloodstream. Also aluminum is known to accumulate in the body when injected into the bloodstream. If you read up on it, you'll see there are differences. I'm not saying any of this causes autism, because I don't believe that to be true, just explaining what people's concerns may be based on.

sky

Fri, Jan 30 2015, 9:05 am

supty wrote:

Nothing is going into the bloodstream . Not aluminum and not formaldehyde. Its injected into a muscle. The nurse isn't looking for veins when they inject it.

supty

Fri, Jan 30 2015, 9:31 am

sky wrote:

Nothing is going into the bloodstream . Not aluminum and not formaldehyde. Its injected into a muscle. The nurse isn't looking for veins when they inject it.

Yes, but it's absorbed by the bloodstream. Anyway, my point was that you can't really compare ingested amounts to injected because the body handles it differently. This is what I remember reading, but I'll try to look it up when I have time because obviously I'm not getting it right Wink

Frumdoc

Fri, Jan 30 2015, 9:43 am

supty wrote:

8

Everything you eat gets absorbed into the blood stream too, otherwise how on earth do you think you get your nutrients from food? Of course you can compare it. It isn't identical because of the route of absorption affects the amount and processing, usually in a non significant way, but it all gets into the bloodstream.

So oral antibiotics and iv antibiotics and intramuscular antibiotics all get into the bloodstream, the concentration over time varies according the the route and dose given but penicillin ends up in your bloodstream whether you eat it, inject it into a muscle, under the skin, in a vein or give it rectally. And has the same effect irrelevant of the route of administration.

I love how people are so convinced about the evils of modern medicine and how woo woo alternative practices are so much better and more natural but don't know the basics of natural human physiology, let alone natural pathology or natural pathophysiology.

And they know their doctors must be wrong, despite their own big knowledge gaps.

supty

Fri, Jan 30 2015, 9:54 am

Frumdoc wrote:

Actually I don't believe that medicine is evil at all- I vaccinate and give antibiotics when necessary, and have a great relationship with my doctor and pediatrician. I just don't think there's anything wrong with understanding the other side of the argument. Nothing is ALL good or ALL bad. I apologize if I got some of the specifics wrong; I obviously need to review what I've read, but that doesn't make me an uneducated idiot.

southernbubby

Fri, Jan 30 2015, 9:55 am

frumdoc,

A friend of mine is an alternative practitioner. I was explaining to her at the time that because I have hemophilia C and have only 4% circulating factor 11, that I was going to have fresh frozen plasma before an upcoming surgical procedure. She insisted that there was an alternative way to "build the blood." I saw that I was having a very hard time convincing her that no surgeon in his right mind would operate on someone whose co-aggs were so off and that no swallowed substance could replace a clotting factor.

She also believed that her alternative approach could help cancer patients avoid a recurrence. Of course, it is easy to imagine that a patient who would probably not have had a recurrence anyway, who swallows an alternative product, gives credit to their "no evidence" status to the alternative product.

Scrabble123

Fri, Jan 30 2015, 10:00 am

supty wrote:

Yes, but it's absorbed by the bloodstream.

Absorbed and injected are not the same at all.
There are many things that our bodies can absorb (and are actually beneficial to us); however if those same substances were actually injected it would be extremely dangerous.
Everything we are exposed to can potentially be absorbed by the blood stream, but that is nothing like being injected into the blood stream.

supty

Fri, Jan 30 2015, 10:02 am

Scrabble123 wrote:

You're right, my mistake. But that still doesn't mean that you can equate ingesting with injecting.

supty

Fri, Jan 30 2015, 10:23 am

southernbubby wrote:

why would one path to the bloodstream be different than another path? In fact, something ingested can sometimes reach the bloodstream faster than something injected into a muscle.

From what I've understood, when it's ingested it's first filtered and broken down by the body before reaching the blood, but when it's injected it doesn't get filtered until after. Maybe I'm wrong- this is just what I've understood from what I've read. In not trying to argue, I'm honestly interested in learning more about this, but so far haven't seen any real answers.

southernbubby

Fri, Jan 30 2015, 10:28 am

supty wrote:

If something is injected into a muscle or into area beneath the skin, it first must be absorbed into the tissue and then it reaches the bloodstream. If someone swallows poison, they could be dead within minutes, depending on the poison and the quantity. If someone is bitten by a poisonous snake, it could take hours for them to die.

Frumdoc

Fri, Jan 30 2015, 11:03 am

supty wrote:

Where did I call you an uneducated idiot? .

Do what you want. I don't work in the US so it isn't my job to pick up the pieces.

I think people should be consistent - if you don't believe in conventional medicine you should decline all of it, not go around saying all doctors are evil and under the influence of drug companies what want to give us all autism and kill us with heavy metals, yet expect to be treated with conventional medicine and have your views respected by the very people you malign.