Delayed/Selective Vaccine Schedules?

[E B]

Are any (other) new or soon-to-be new moms looking at delayed/selective vaccine schedules for their little ones? If so, will you share them? Veteran moms too, please!

(I don''t mean for this to tun into a debate- we''ve already had a few of those!

Just looking for specifics.)

 

[E B]

My son (two months old today) had a doctor's appointment for his first shots. I'd already discussed wanting to space them out with the doctor, but found myself less prepared than I'd have liked for the decision today. I like Dr. Sears' 'delayed/spaced' schedule, but when I mentioned it to Henry's ped., she recommended her own version of Sears' schedule, which goes:

Hib/Prevnar: 2, 4, 6 months
DTaP/IPV/Hep B: 7 months

...and that's as far as we got (other vaccines coming later). Dr. Sears plan is similar, but calls for DTaP and Rotovirus at 2, 4, and 6 months, with Hib and Pc at 3, 5, and 7 months.

I OK'ed the Hib and Prevnar, but now I'm wondering if I should ask for DTaP before 7 months, Pertussis being my main concern. My son is in a low-risk category as it is (BFed, stays at home) but I hear Pertussis can be pretty awful, especially for an infant.

 

[TravelingGal]

Date: 8/19/2009 9:52:45 PM
Author: EBree
My son (two months old today) had a doctor''s appointment for his first shots. I''d already discussed wanting to space them out with the doctor, but found myself less prepared than I''d have liked for the decision today. I like Dr. Sears'' ''delayed/spaced'' schedule, but when I mentioned it to Henry''s ped., she recommended her own version of Sears'' schedule, which goes:

Hib/Prevnar: 2, 4, 6 months
DTaP/IPV/Hep B: 7 months

...and that''s as far as we got (other vaccines coming later). Dr. Sears plan is similar, but calls for DTaP and Rotovirus at 2, 4, and 6 months, with Hib and Pc at 3, 5, and 7 months.

I OK''ed the Hib and Prevnar, but now I''m wondering if I should ask for DTaP before 7 months, Pertussis being my main concern. My son is in a low-risk category as it is (BFed, stays at home) but I hear Pertussis can be pretty awful, especially for an infant.

EBree, pertussis is not one I would mess with. I looked up some info on that awhile back, and it was just scary. I would get him the vac.

 

[Mandarine]

Ebree, I don''t have any advice but I want to investigate a different/delayed schedule also....so thanks for asking the question

 

[Dreamer_D]

No debate sought, but in short, what is the general reason to choose a spaced/selecting schedule? Just curious.

I opted to go with what Health Canada recommends, which all kids get here as a matter of course, and I actually have no idea what the shots were! Didn''t think much about it.

 

[neatfreak]

Date: 8/19/2009 10:34:36 PM
Author: dreamer_dachsie
No debate sought, but in short, what is the general reason to choose a spaced/selecting schedule? Just curious.

I also am curious about this as I haven''t seen any research to support it yet; but it''s a popular idea among many moms who I think are pretty smart. So I will be watching this thread as I am curious...

 

[mrssalvo]

Date: 8/19/2009 10:37:23 PM
Author: neatfreak

Date: 8/19/2009 10:34:36 PM

Author: dreamer_dachsie

No debate sought, but in short, what is the general reason to choose a spaced/selecting schedule? Just curious.

I also am curious about this as I haven't seen any research to support it yet; but it's a popular idea among many moms who I think are pretty smart. So I will be watching this thread as I am curious...

all the mom's I know that do it is because of the possible link to autism. one of my very close friends chose this for her son. her husband's niece has autism and they worry about a possible direct genetic link. her hubby wanted to skip vac's altogether and she said no way but agreed to a delayed schedule compromise.

 

[E B]

TGal- I've heard some pretty scary things about it too, and was fully prepared to OK it for Henry today. He won't be 7 months until the middle of January, and I'd like him to be protected before that.

dreamer and neat- When we went for Henry's first visit (at three or four days, I believe) they gave us a schedule of vaccines they recommend. There were six to begin with, all at once. That sounded like a lot to me, and if he were to have a reaction, how would we know which was the culprit? I started to do some research, found Dr. Sears' schedule, and what he explains (that I've posted below from his website) makes a lot of sense to me:

The main difference in my suggested alternative vaccine schedule is it spreads the infant vaccines out over the first few years of life, instead of bunching them all up in the first 18 months. It gives fewer vaccines at a time, gives the most important vaccines first, and slightly delays the less important vaccines. But ultimately the end result is the same - a fully vaccinated child. What are the benefits of my alternative schedule compared to the standard one?

- By only giving two vaccines at a time (instead of as many as 6), I decrease the chance of chemical overload from grouping so many vaccines chemicals all together at once. This allows a baby's body to better detoxify the chemicals one or two at a time.
- I give only 1 aluminum-containing vaccine at a time (instead of the recommended 4). Overloading on this metal can be particularly toxic to the brain.
- I give only one live-virus vaccine component at a time to allow the body's immune system to better handle the live viruses in these vaccines.
- Giving fewer shots at a time may decrease the side effects, in my experience.
- Giving fewer shots at a time also makes it easier to figure out which vaccine a child is reacting to if a severe reaction occurs.

I'm not too worried about autism. I know the doctor who found the link falsified the data. Plus, the vaccine in question- MMR, correct?- isn't given for a while, so I have a bit more time to research it.

And that's the name of that tune. I don't mean to offend/anger anyone going with a more traditional schedule, this is just what felt right to me. Obviously, babies have and continue to do just fine with traditional schedules.

 

[Dreamer_D]

Interesting. I was curious so I looked up what the protocol is in Canada:

Diphtheria, Pertussis, Tetanus, Poliomyelitus, Hib, Hepatitis B, Pneumococcal conjugate - 2mo, 4mo, 6mo
Meningococcal C Conjugate - 2mo, 12mo
MMR - 12mo
Chicken Poz - 12mo

Plus some other boosters at later ages.

He''s already had the 2mo and 4 mo rounds, so I''ll just stick with the status quo. I have a feeling there may not be much option in Can because of the socialixed health care? I am curious so I am going to ask my doc at the 6mo next week.

 

[Camille]

As a vet mom, I wasn't scared with our daughter's US schedule, when DS was born 4 years after, we were living in Victoria, glad he had spaced shots, because a dear friend of ours in AZ [her boy 2 weeks older than mine] had a major reaction to Pertussis. Traditional methods have worked for decades but still too very scary

 

[TravelingGal]

Date: 8/19/2009 10:56:25 PM
Author: EBree
TGal- I've heard some pretty scary things about it too, and was fully prepared to OK it for Henry today. He won't be 7 months until the middle of January, and I'd like him to be protected before that.

dreamer and neat- When we went for Henry's first visit (at three or four days, I believe) they gave us a schedule of vaccines they recommend. There were six to begin with, all at once. That sounded like a lot to me, and if he were to have a reaction, how would we know which was the culprit? I started to do some research, found Dr. Sears' schedule, and what he explains (that I've posted below from his website) makes a lot of sense to me:

The main difference in my suggested alternative vaccine schedule is it spreads the infant vaccines out over the first few years of life, instead of bunching them all up in the first 18 months. It gives fewer vaccines at a time, gives the most important vaccines first, and slightly delays the less important vaccines. But ultimately the end result is the same - a fully vaccinated child. What are the benefits of my alternative schedule compared to the standard one?

- By only giving two vaccines at a time (instead of as many as 6), I decrease the chance of chemical overload from grouping so many vaccines chemicals all together at once. This allows a baby's body to better detoxify the chemicals one or two at a time.
- I give only 1 aluminum-containing vaccine at a time (instead of the recommended 4). Overloading on this metal can be particularly toxic to the brain.
- I give only one live-virus vaccine component at a time to allow the body's immune system to better handle the live viruses in these vaccines.
- Giving fewer shots at a time may decrease the side effects, in my experience.
- Giving fewer shots at a time also makes it easier to figure out which vaccine a child is reacting to if a severe reaction occurs.

I'm not too worried about autism. I know the doctor who found the link falsified the data. Plus, the vaccine in question- MMR, correct?- isn't given for a while, so I have a bit more time to research it.

And that's the name of that tune. I don't mean to offend/anger anyone going with a more traditional schedule, this is just what felt right to me. Obviously, babies have and continue to do just fine with traditional schedules.

6 seems like a lot. I didn't think Amelia EVER had 6, but looking at her vac record, it says....

She was born 4.1.08

4.4.08 Hep B
6.2.08 Two months old: Hep B, Rotavirus (which was oral I think), DTaP (Dipteria, Tetanus and Pertussis), Haemophilus Influenzae Type B (HIB), Pneumococcal, Polio
8.1.08 Four months old: Rotavirus, DTaP, Pneumococcal, Polio
10.2.09 Six months old: Rotavirus, DTap, Pnenumococcal
1.8.09 Nine months old: Hep B, HIB
4.3.09 One year Old: MMR, Varicella (ChickenPox) and TB skin test
8.12.09 Sixteen months (it should have been at 15 months but I screwed up on the appt): DTaP, HIB, Pneumococcal, Polio.

Some of the vacs are combined. For instance, the most recent last week it was only two injections, as there was a 3 in one shot. I don't recall her ever getting more than 4 injections so perhaps some were combined.

She has had no problems. The ONLY change I noticed in her was MMR - she was cranky about 2 weeks afterward, when fever can spike.

 

[neatfreak]

Mine never had more than 4 at a time either and at most have had 3 pokes at each visit.

Ebree-thanks for explaining. It seems to me that there has been no real link/reason to do this past Dr. Sears'' justification, correct? That''s not enough evidence for me personally...but other than having a larger window of being unvaccinated I don''t see how it is likely to cause harm...so I can understand why one might want to do it.

 

[Kaleigh]

I spaced out the MMR vacine with my son. I am glad I did, I think it could have gone very wrong if given the full dose.. He was highly allergic to eggs, and at the time the vaccine was egg based. I was ahead of my time, but my pediatrcian listened to me... She was fine with it.

 

[E B]

neat- I think the biggest concern is the amount of aluminum in certain vaccines and if the amount in the 'bundles' is truly and completely safe, as there seems to be no solid proof either way. I also want to be able to better pinpoint the cause of a reaction, if one occurs. I never had any serious reactions to a vaccine, but my husband did, to his tetanus booster. He experienced a two-week-long migraine after receiving the shot as a pre-teen.

Kaleigh- When you say spaced out, do you mean he received the M, M, and R separately? It only comes in a single shot now, apparently- I would have preferred one at a time.

 

[TravelingGal]

Date: 8/20/2009 1:48:50 AM
Author: EBree
neat- I think the biggest concern is the amount of aluminum in certain vaccines and if the amount in the ''bundles'' is truly and completely safe, as there seems to be no solid proof either way. I also want to be able to better pinpoint the cause of a reaction, if one occurs. I never had any serious reactions to a vaccine, but my husband did, to his tetanus booster. He experienced a two-week-long migraine after receiving the shot as a pre-teen.

Kaleigh- When you say spaced out, do you mean he received the M, M, and R separately? It only comes in a single shot now, apparently- I would have preferred one at a time.

My ped says it does come separately but it is more expensive for you (as you have to come in at different times to get the kids his shots) and they are harder to get, as supply can be low of any one of them. I asked my doc about this early on. After discussing it with him, I opted to have Amelia get the regular MMR.

EBree, if you are not concerned with autism and are only concerned primarily with allergic reactions, I would get the shots as scheduled. I don''t know too much about allergic reactions to these shots but it seems to me that reactions would be a way better option than what could happen if your son contracts any of these diseases. As for aluminum, what exactly does it do when Sears says it''s toxic to the brain?

But then again, I kind of think Sears is a bit of a crackpot. JMHO.

 

[atroop711]

Date: 8/19/2009 10:34:36 PM
Author: dreamer_dachsie
No debate sought, but in short, what is the general reason to choose a spaced/selecting schedule? Just curious.


I opted to go with what Health Canada recommends, which all kids get here as a matter of course, and I actually have no idea what the shots were! Didn't think much about it.

I have 3 kids (the youngest is 9mo) and many moms I know delay vaccines because of the fear of autism. I've never delayed but will look into the reasoning behind the MMR delay. My sister who's a Dr delayed the MMR until my nephew was talking.
I think it's completely acceptable to delay if that's what makes someone comfortable BUT just as long as the kids get vaccinated.

I know another Dr who completely got spooked with the rumor of the link to autism and didn't vaccinate her son. She even lied to the preschool about his vaccinations

 

[Dreamer_D]

Here you can''t even get your kids into a group daycare unless they have followed the regular vacc schedule.

 

[littlelysser]

Hey there Ebree!

I''m not a mom quite yet...I''m due September 5 - but the bebe is already measuring 8 pounds...so he may come a bit early.

Anyhoodle, I am most definitely interested in a delayed vaccine schedule. One of the reasons we chose the pediatrician we did was because he was willing to discuss the issues with us, and spread vaccines out as we desired. I definitely want the baby to be fully vaccinated - not so sure about the chicken pox vaccine, but otherwise, I do want him to be fully vaccinated. Our pediatrician is fine with that - my DH and I both felt very comfortable with him.

Like you, I like the idea of spacing out the vaccines so that he will only get one or two a visit - if that means more visits to the doc, I''m alright with that.

I''m sure we''ll be talking with the doc more, once the bebe gets here, but for now, we are just sort of doing some research and some thinking.

 

[E B]

TGal- Good to know they're still available separately. I don't mind an extra cost, so I guess I'll talk to his ped. about what she'd advise. As far as concerns go, I've got a few, some of which Sears addressed above (which I'd had before even starting the research). I agree with the dangers of not vaxxing at all, but I'm not too concerned with exposure in the small windows of time between delays- for example, his spaced schedule has IPV (Polio) given first at 9 months instead of at 2 months. Not a large enough window to be too worried about, especially as H won't be in daycare or interacting much with other children before that time.

Here's what Dr. Crackpot (

) has to say about aluminum: Aluminum Information from The Vaccine Book

Lysser- I'm glad you found a flexible pediatrician. That was important to me, too. I'm also undecided on Varicella, and I'm leaning toward delaying Hep B for a while. I asked a nurse why infants are scheduled to receive the vaccine shortly after birth and she gave me two reasons: one, to protect babies whose parents have the disease (we don't), and two, because they're assuming that once the parent(s) leave the hospital, the baby won't be receiving up-to-date medical care (H will), so they're 'doing it while they can.' The chances of him coming into contact with infected bodily fluids as a baby are very, very slim, so I think it's safe to hold off until he needs it for school.

I'm sure my hesitance makes me look like an alarmist to some, but I'm okay with that. I've got to do what feels right while also being responsible, which is why he'll be vaccinated- just on a different schedule.

For Mandarine, Lysser and anyone interested, here's a timeline from US News & World Report comparing Sears' delayed schedule with the CDCs, as well as a link to the article:

A Parent's Guide to Managing Vaccinations

 

[Rhapsody]

Date: 8/20/2009 11:51:48 AM
Author: EBree

I''m also undecided on Varicella, and I''m leaning toward delaying Hep B for a while. I asked a nurse why infants are scheduled to receive the vaccine shortly after birth and she gave me two reasons: one, to protect babies whose parents have the disease (we don''t), and two, because they''re assuming that once the parent(s) leave the hospital, the baby won''t be receiving up-to-date medical care (H will), so they''re ''doing it while they can.'' The chances of him coming into contact with infected bodily fluids as a baby are very, very slim, so I think it''s safe to hold off until he needs it for school.

Another problem with Hep B is that it can remain infectious for weeks on a surface that was contaminated. Most other viruses and bacteria don''t have the viability outside of the body that Hep B has. So even if your child doesn''t have much contact with other children/adults, infection is still entirely possible. I know 7 months doesn''t seem like that long of a time, but unless you plan to keep your child in a bubble there is a lot of chance for exposure.

 

[E B]

Date: 8/20/2009 12:29:05 PM
Author: Rhapsody

Another problem with Hep B is that it can remain infectious for weeks on a surface that was contaminated. Most other viruses and bacteria don't have the viability outside of the body that Hep B has. So even if your child doesn't have much contact with other children/adults, infection is still entirely possible. I know 7 months doesn't seem like that long of a time, but unless you plan to keep your child in a bubble there is a lot of chance for exposure.

Rhapsody,

That's interesting (and scary!)- thank you for bringing it up. The WHO gives it a life of about a week but notes it "does not cross the skin or the mucous membrane barrier." So while the chance of exposure is there, it's still very low. Something to consider, though, absolutely. I haven't completely made my mind up yet; I've got more research to do.

 

[TravelingGal]

Date: 8/20/2009 11:51:48 AM
Author: EBree
TGal- Good to know they''re still available separately. I don''t mind an extra cost, so I guess I''ll talk to his ped. about what she''d advise. As far as concerns go, I''ve got a few, some of which Sears addressed above (which I''d had before even starting the research). I agree with the dangers of not vaxxing at all, but I''m not too concerned with exposure in the small windows of time between delays- for example, his spaced schedule has IPV (Polio) given first at 9 months instead of at 2 months. Not a large enough window to be too worried about, especially as H won''t be in daycare or interacting much with other children before that time.

Here''s what Dr. Crackpot (

) has to say about aluminum: Aluminum Information from The Vaccine Book

Lysser- I''m glad you found a flexible pediatrician. That was important to me, too. I''m also undecided on Varicella, and I''m leaning toward delaying Hep B for a while. I asked a nurse why infants are scheduled to receive the vaccine shortly after birth and she gave me two reasons: one, to protect babies whose parents have the disease (we don''t), and two, because they''re assuming that once the parent(s) leave the hospital, the baby won''t be receiving up-to-date medical care (H will), so they''re ''doing it while they can.'' The chances of him coming into contact with infected bodily fluids as a baby are very, very slim, so I think it''s safe to hold off until he needs it for school.

I''m sure my hesitance makes me look like an alarmist to some, but I''m okay with that. I''ve got to do what feels right while also being responsible, which is why he''ll be vaccinated- just on a different schedule.

For Mandarine, Lysser and anyone interested, here''s a timeline from US News & World Report comparing Sears'' delayed schedule with the CDCs, as well as a link to the article:

A Parent''s Guide to Managing Vaccinations

Hehehe, I know a lot of people like Sears. It''s just my personal preference. And I say crackpot loosely, in the sense that I think the guy is responsible for quite a bit of guilt in some of today''s moms!

But I''ve always said you''ve gotta do what you think is right for your kids. Chances are whichever way you go, your bubs will be fine.

 

[Rhapsody]

Date: 8/20/2009 12:44:12 PM
Author: EBree

Date: 8/20/2009 12:29:05 PM

Rhapsody,


That''s interesting (and scary!)- thank you for bringing it up. The WHO gives it a life of about a week but notes it ''does not cross the skin or the mucous membrane barrier.'' So while the chance of exposure is there, it''s still very low. Something to consider, though, absolutely. I haven''t completely made my mind up yet; I''ve got more research to do.

No, it wont cross non-disrupted skin, but all it takes is a scratch to break that barrier. I just looked at the CDC data at it says "at least 7 days", it can live much longer depending on the conditions. I work with human tissues, and we have insane protocols for disinfecting all surfaces and tools we use because of the risk of infection. Hep B is pretty nasty, and infants have a 90% chance of developing the chronic disease if they are infected.

I see nothing wrong with spreading the vaccine schedule out if it makes you more comfortable. But please dont wait too long. A lot of parents like to convince themselves themselves that "it wont happen to my child" and I think that''s a big gamble.

I don''t have kids yet, but when I do they will receive all their vaccines as soon as they can, because all my research indicates that the risk from the vaccines is lower than the risk of serious complications from any of these preventable diseases.

 

[fieryred33143]

Ebree-thank you for posting this. Its an argument in my home because Mr. Fiery does not want her to get any vaccines at all. He was really upset when she was given the hep b shot. We are talking to the pedi about a more flexible schedule as a compromise.

 

[E B]

Date: 8/20/2009 1:19:27 PM
Author: Rhapsody

No, it wont cross non-disrupted skin, but all it takes is a scratch to break that barrier. I just looked at the CDC data at it says ''at least 7 days'', it can live much longer depending on the conditions. I work with human tissues, and we have insane protocols for disinfecting all surfaces and tools we use because of the risk of infection. Hep B is pretty nasty, and infants have a 90% chance of developing the chronic disease if they are infected.

I see nothing wrong with spreading the vaccine schedule out if it makes you more comfortable. But please dont wait too long. A lot of parents like to convince themselves themselves that ''it wont happen to my child'' and I think that''s a big gamble.

You''re absolutely right about not waiting too long, and that is precisely why these decisions have been a bit more difficult than I''d expected. One side screams, "But the toxins in the vaccines...!" while the other side screams, "But the diseases....!" I''m just trying to find a safe, happy medium.

 

[Rhapsody]

Date: 8/20/2009 1:37:06 PM
Author: EBree

Date: 8/20/2009 1:19:27 PM

You''re absolutely right about not waiting too long, and that is precisely why these decisions have been a bit more difficult than I''d expected. One side screams, ''But the toxins in the vaccines...!'' while the other side screams, ''But the diseases....!'' I''m just trying to find a safe, happy medium.

Dosage makes the toxin. Even water (plain happy non-contaminated water) is toxic if you drink too much. The dosage of the chemicals in the carriers for vaccines is extremely low, far below the amounts known to be toxic. Allergic reactions are still an issue, but if the medical staff is prepared to react if something happens than even that becomes easy to overcome.

 

[MustangGal]

Kyle has had the regular schedule up to 6 months now, and had no reaction to any of them. At 2 months and 6 months he got 3 pokes and an oral, and at 4 months just 2 pokes plus the oral. I looked into it a bit, but decided to just go ahead with what the doc suggested, and since he hasn''t had any reactions I don''t feel too guilty about it.

On the chicken-pox vaccine, my MIL works at a public school in California, and as of this school year it is now one of the required vaccines. She also mentioned in Cali that if you start vaccines, and then stop in the middle and claim "religous reasons", they don''t allow the child in. It has to be all vaccines or none. They also have to be within a certian time frame from the first dose to the last or they''ll make them repeat. So for the Cali moms you might want to check the delayed schedule with what the schools require.

 

[E B]

Date: 8/20/2009 1:55:02 PM
Author: Rhapsody

Dosage makes the toxin. Even water (plain happy non-contaminated water) is toxic if you drink too much. The dosage of the chemicals in the carriers for vaccines is extremely low, far below the amounts known to be toxic.

This is where the ''other side'' disagrees. For example, thimerisol: not present in most vaccines, but apparently still in some (flu and tetanus). The NVIC states that 50,000 ppb of mercury is the "current ''preservative'' level mercury in multi-dose flu (94% of supply), meningococcal and tetanus (7 and older) vaccines." Only 200 ppb of mercury is the “level in liquid the EPA classifies as hazardous waste.” Source

It''s now a concern (my doc mentioned it before I did) but was being given to children at 50,000 ppbs in the DTaP and Hib vaccines as recently as the 90s.

 

[neatfreak]

Date: 8/20/2009 2:54:36 PM
Author: EBree

Date: 8/20/2009 1:55:02 PM

Author: Rhapsody


Dosage makes the toxin. Even water (plain happy non-contaminated water) is toxic if you drink too much. The dosage of the chemicals in the carriers for vaccines is extremely low, far below the amounts known to be toxic.

This is where the ''other side'' disagrees. For example, thimerisol: not present in most vaccines, but apparently still in some (flu and tetanus). The NVIC states that 50,000 ppb of mercury is the ''current ''preservative'' level mercury in multi-dose flu (94% of supply), meningococcal and tetanus (7 and older) vaccines.'' Only 200 ppb of mercury is the “level in liquid the EPA classifies as hazardous waste.” Source


It''s now a concern (my doc mentioned it before I did) but was being given to children at 50,000 ppbs in the DTaP and Hib vaccines as recently as the 90s.

Not to start a fight-but you do realize that the website you linked to is not backed by solid research, right? It''s an advocacy group website...

Not saying anyone is right or wrong-just that you might want to find a more unbiased source of information to do your research.

 

[Rhapsody]

Date: 8/20/2009 2:54:36 PM
Author: EBree

Date: 8/20/2009 1:55:02 PM

This is where the ''other side'' disagrees. For example, thimerisol: not present in most vaccines, but apparently still in some (flu and tetanus). The NVIC states that 50,000 ppb of mercury is the ''current ''preservative'' level mercury in multi-dose flu (94% of supply), meningococcal and tetanus (7 and older) vaccines.'' Only 200 ppb of mercury is the “level in liquid the EPA classifies as hazardous waste.” Source


It''s now a concern (my doc mentioned it before I did) but was being given to children at 50,000 ppbs in the DTaP and Hib vaccines as recently as the 90s.

The source you cite has an obvious interest in discrediting vaccines, so I would take their data with a grain of salt. I dont have enough time to read through everything and do the calculations, but theres a few quick points.

The mercury in thimerosal is metabolized into ethyl mercury which is chemically different that methyl mercury. The data indicates ethyl mercury is cleared from the body faster then methyl or inorganic mercury and is less toxic (http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=16079072). The EPA numbers and the cell culture toxicity studies your source references all use methyl mercury, so we''re comparing apples to oranges.

The concentration of mercury in the vaccine (quoted as 50,000 ppb) is irrelevant. What matters is the final concentration in the infant after injection. If the shot was intravenous, assuming a half liter of blood that would be 50 bbp, and this will be less really since it will distribute to other tissues and not just the blood since the shot is IM.

The EPA safety limits refer to amounts that are safe to ingest daily, the amount that is safe for an acute single exposure would be different.

And the epidemiology shows no evidence that decreasing the concentration of thimerosal in the vaccines has altered health outcomes. This issue has been studied intensely and nothing has been found.