Article in the Times health supplement about parents who put their children forward for vaccine trials

[Socci]

Message withdrawn

recent research (some published, some in the process of being published) has shown that the majority of autistics do not excrete heavy metals properly- so in some cases it may be the added ingredients that are a problem, rather than the actual vaccine itself. Especially as more vaccinations are now given in a shorter time. Risk factors for this include autoimmunity and gut problems.

Look up Walsh, metallothionein, Hornig, autism on google.

Message withdrawn

an easy to understand explanation

look at point 15 on the link- vaccines and the gut and MT dysfunction.

Look at point 31- they are trying to develop commercial test for MT dysfunction. This would effectively be a screen for children with a predisposition for developing autism, and would allow identification of children who had to be particularly careful around heavy metals, gluten and casein and live viruses. Maybe they could be given a different vax schedule (hold off until over 3?), maybe they could be given heavty metal free jabs, maybe they could avoid amalgam fillings etc.

It looks promising. At the moment, from a parental point of view the most realiable way to identify a child at risk from jabs is to have had a dodgy reaction in a sibling. Not great- prefer the sound of the commercial test myself.

if only everybody could have heavy metal free jabs. I suspect that a lot of the adjuvants and additives are in there because it is cheap, and because there isn't enough pressure to find safe alternatives. i mean, look at thimersol.It didn't actually have to be there did it? It just saved them having to make jabs in sterile environments. Presumably they still prepare teh vaccines in exactly the same non sterile environment now and then just remove the mercury afterwards. It stuns me how much lack of pressure there is to make vaccines as safe as possible, not just safe enough to please the DOH.

and bakabat or somebody else can you please tell me why vaccines are not tested for carcinogenic or fertility impairment potential? Is this a usual thing in pharmaceutical testing, to avoid looking at this?

I suspect it has more to do with the way vaccinations are developed. So the people who are doing the developing are interested in whether the vaccination "works" ie does it reduce levels of disease. The other questions are not given an equal weighting, if they are considered.

The whole of medicine is like that though. For example although the majority of doctors would say that vaccinations are not involved in autism, that is not true of doctors who are working cilincally with autism. It may be that the majority of those doctors believe vaccinations can be involved (and I mean working clinically and specialising in autism- not people like ds1's paed who are diagnosticicians- but don't actually try and treat autism).