What does that matter when they increased the number of shots given to infants by threefold in the 80’s????? That was one of my MAJOR POINTS!!!! They didn’t even have the HEP B shot until the 90’s when they introduced that one and killed infants and had to take it off the market....3 doses even!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
That trippled the amount of toxins in the first few years of life, mercury included. You did not obviously watch the videos...they made a diagram of the number of shots given in the 70’s , 80’s, 90’s and 00’s which tripled. Do you still think that each shot has NO RISKS when all vaccines contain known toxins? Could that not cause havoc in a tiny little body with an immature immune system?????????????? Where is your logic?????????????????????????????????? (Oh ya, the babies might engage in risky behavior so the toxins are justified to SAVE THEM FROM DEATH—we can destroy some brain cells for THAT!!!!!)
The videos also diagrammed and listed the amount of mercury put into infants which surpassed the amounts allowed by the FDA in adults. The articles I sent stated that when mercury was “removed” they increased the aluminum in the vaccines and they added new shots to the regimen which still had mercury like the flu shots, etc, even to pregnant women which increased the mercury exposure.
You claimed that even though they reduced the amount of mercury in each shot, they wanted to keep injecting babies with the same amount of mercury, so they increased the number of shots.
I understood your claim to be that kids with more shots now receive as much, or more, mercury in their shots than kids received in their shots in the 70s.
Now all you need is proof.
You did not obviously watch the videos
That's correct. Any assclown can stand in front of a camera and spout BS. Obama does it every day.
So please, if you expect anyone to take you seriously, link to something with real numbers, not a video.
Which contains more mercury: tuna sandwich or a vaccine with thimerasol?