Not true. The single Hep B vaccination (the one they try to give babies on their first day of life before they've built an immune system) still contains Thimerosal. There is a Thimerosal-free version but you have to specifically ask for it (if you know to).
26 injections/immunisations does it really matter? If we were talking about needles there's at least 15, but that is not what I was personally talking about - the p.rick from a needle is fairly benign (they bleed - it clots - done) . Why do I consider it cruel? (Note, I'm talking personal opinion here). Because I don't think it's right to expect MY little baby to cope with the fall-out effects of 26 different immunisations in the first year of life. The immunisations are meant to have a physical effect - they don't go in there and do nothing. Every immunisation DEMANDS that baby's body to work in either accepting it or rejecting it and it's adding artificial exposure on top of what they are already being exposed to naturally (things like the flu, pollens, animals, solid food's - with whatever it's had added to it if it's not organic, detergents and other chemicals). Plus they're growing, tripling the size of their brain and learning. Baby's body has a LOT to do in the first year of life. I think it's nonsensical to flog it some more and then wonder why it starts to shut down, create intolerances and syndromes etc... Ingredients aside, if the schedule was of single vaccinations (even though this does mean more needles), spread out over time based upon what is more immediately detrimental I could understand that logic a little bit more. But I cant say I understand the logic of risking creating a life threatening wheat allergy in order to immunise my kids to *slightly* reduce the effects of gastro.
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks