Melb baby dies of whooping cough...

[sunshine_sieben]

In a study of children who died of SIDS (Sudden Infant Death Syndrome) two-thirds had been vaccinated with pertussis (whooping cough) prior to death. Of these, 6.5%died with 12 hours of vaccination; 13% within 24 hours; 26% within three days; and 37, 61 and 70% within one, two and three weeks, respectively. Source: Torch, WC. Neurology 1982;32(4): pt.2.

I'm not sure if I'm right, but the way I read these stats is this way:
6.5% died within 12 hours
13% died within 24 hours (which includes the 6.5% from before, so only 6.5 died between12 & 24 hours after vax)
26% died within 3 days (the 13 % that died within the first day + a further 13%)
37% died within a week (26% in the first 3 days and 11% in the next 4 days)
61% died within 2 weeks (37% within the first week, 24% in the second week)
70% died within 3 weeks (61% within the first 2 weeks and 9% in the third week)

So all up 70% died within 3 weeks (the article doesn't say when the other 30& died, might have been much later)
0-12 hours: 6.5%
12-24 hours: 6.5%
Days 2&3:13%
Days 4,5,6%7: 11%
Week 2: 24%
Week 3: 9%
6.5
+ 6.5
+ 13
+11
+24
+9
= 70

[JellyBean]

Lol- Good on you sunshine_sieben.
I hated stats at uni - was never my forte! I figured there must be some reasonable explanation given this study comes from an esteemed medical journal...

[LizLemon]

Those DTP/SIDS stats were from a journal in 1982 - ie nearly 30 years ago. Is there anything more recent that comfirms these findings, beyond other sites that refer to similarly aged references? I am interested in reading further but can't find anything much more recent except for studies showing no correlation.

Can someone point me in the right direction if there is anything more recent?

[JellyBean]

Hi Bug's Mum,

A good place to start would be the book mentioned in my signature, which references over 1000 studies - including recent ones. You can check it out/order it from Think Twice dot com. (No gaps!) And also The Vaccine Safety Manual, also on the site.

When it comes to vaccines we have to keep in mind the amount of money and power the modern pharmaceutical companies possess, and the fact that they largely influence the direction of medical studies by providing research grants to research proposals they deem worthy of investigation. For example, the 1998 Finnish study published in Lancet used by pro-vaxers to dismiss a link between MMR vaccine and autism was funded by the manufacturers of the MMR vaccine, Merck.
It makes absolutely no sense for their personal interests to fund a study which aims to assess the adverse reactions of a vaccine and its potential link to disease or death. Numerous scientists/doctors and whilstle blowers from within the vaccine/pharma industry have been vilified for doing so.
We are living in an increasingly letigious society, and I guess that is one of the reasons many medical researchers increasingly shy away from 'swimming upstream' - so to speak. It doesn't pay to bite the hand that feeds you!

I think it's a good comment you make though, and one of the criticisms from non-vaxers is that there are not enough studies being done to assess the efficacy and safety of vaccines. For example, there has never been a study that compares the rate of autism amoung vaccinated children with unvaccinated children of the same demographic, age etc. Certainly we in the non-vaxing community (especially those with vaxed and unvaxed children) have our hypothesis on that one! However, it is probably more likely that the world will end next year than a study of this nature be awarded attention and publication within the mainstream medical community.

Personally I think the one of the best things to look at is the raw ingredients of a vaccine, and how these measure up against the recommended maximum dosages for such substances in the human body. Many exceed the maximum recommended dosage for adults, let alone newborn babies, even according to the FDA who approve of these vaccines. The WAVE website (World Association for Vaccine Education) lists all the vaccine ingredients according to pathogen type and manufacturer.

I hope this helps you find what you are after. I was skeptical too when I started delving into this stuff 7 years ago, but I am so glad I did. Unfortunately it was not enough to prevent a number of serious adverse reactions to my friends babies and a close family member.....

[RockinSAHD]

Sorry, pretty sure there were a few studies that compared MMR vaccinated kids to not, same stats etc. Don't think the world ended but can't guarantee there weren't big guys in suits and dark glasses fudging the data.

[RockinSAHD]

I'm not trying to be inflammatory here, I do realise that I can talk down to people about this stuff.
I'm not any kind of authority figure and I don't even know what a pro-vax lobby group is, I just hate bad science with a passion and these threads in particular are full of it and this drives me crazy!


I just want to highlight some points related to this thread:

I had a quick look into Dr Mayer Einstein. His theories about autism are a bit off, the statement that we had no autism when we had no vaccinations is missing some important information. Attitudes toward mental health have changes somewhat in the last hundred years and the word autism was first coined in 1910 but referred to morbid self-fascination in schizophrenia diagnosis. Even now definitions are changing rapidly with ASD now used or PDD and diagnosis along the spectrum can be difficult let alone producing prevelance figures. Comparing what we now know as ASD with something that didn't even have a name 100 years ago is a big leap. The reference below discusses whether increasing reported rates are due to actual rises or changes in diagnosis methods.

ewschaffer CJ, Croen LA, Daniels J et al. The epidemiology of autism spectrum disorders [PDF]. Annu Rev Public Health. 2007;28:235–58. doi:10.1146/annurev.publhealth.28.021406.144007. PMID 17367287


I have read where people are complaining that vaccination is not 100% effective in preventing disease. Even natural immunity is not 100% effective. No amount of exposure to a bacteria/virus, no amount of crystals, organic food or Tony Robbins lectures will prevent a human immune system from being overrun by a bacteria or virus if there are enough of them introduced into the body.

The myth of herd immunity seems like a common issue, people claim that it needs to be proven and that its an arbitary figured derived from a flawed study conducted in the 30's. A quick look on the net showed that its not an arbitary number, that there is a fair bit of thought behind it, have a look at:
Herd immunity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Mathamatical modelling spreading of disease is quite sophisticated, have a look on TED for some fantastic demonstrations. Modelling depends on good maths for predictions, in this case herd immunity thresholds are very good maths and can be calculated to a fraction of a percent. Some more journal articles on herd immunity are referenced on the wiki page.Even despite the science of herd immunity, it just makes sense to me that this would happen considering how disease spreads and even natural immunity works. If i had the time or energy I would build a game that would demonstrate the logic better.

...As for a vaccines and SIDS study 30 years old...

[Yeddi]

LOL, Do you only spend your time just stalking vaccination threads trying to correct us wacky anti-vaxers? I swear I've never seen you anywhere else. An agenda maybe...

As for misinformation... well...

Are you seriously trying to tell me that a 273 percent rise over the last 11 years is based purely on better diagnosis? It's an asinine attempt to belittle the rising rates and is the proverbial ostrich head in the sand.

But if we want to talk about how a change in diagnosis criteria fudges the numbers, why don't you have a look at how a diagnosis of Polio changed in 1955 (conveniently 5 years after the introduction of the vaccine). It went from only requiring an examination 24 hours apart to needing a minimum of 10 days, without being able to confirm definitively unless it exceeded 70 days. Don't you think this would change the statistics? There's your polio cure - change the criteria! Perhaps you can cure autism the same way...

As for your proof on vaccine induced herd immunity (I do not disagree that natural exposure will lead to herd immunity), I'm glad the man with his computer was able to make some wonderfully complex mathematical simulations, but anyone who has done something on a simulator knows there is often a very big difference between it and the real thing. Lets see what science says about what is happening in real life....

1. Measles vaccine failures: lack of sustained measles specific immunoglobulin G responses in revaccinated adolescents and young adults. Department of Pediatrics, Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC 20007. Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal. 13(1):34-8, 1994 Jan.

2. Measles outbreak in 31 schools: risk factors for vaccine failure and evaluation of a selective revaccination strategy. Department of Preventive Medicine and Biostatistics, University of Toronto, Ont. Canadian Medical Association Journal. 150(7):1093-8, 1994 Apr 1.

3. Haemophilus b disease after vaccination with Haemophilus b polysaccharide or conjugate vaccine. Institution Division of Bacterial Products, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, Bethesda, Md 20892. American Journal of Diseases of Children. 145(12):1379-82, 1991 Dec.

4. Sustained transmission of mumps in a highly vaccinated population: assessment of primary vaccine failure and waning vaccine-induced immunity. Division of Field Epidemiology, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia. Journal of Infectious Diseases. 169(1):77-82, 1994 Jan. 1.

5. Secondary measles vaccine failure in healthcare workers exposed to infected patients. Department of Pediatrics, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, PA 19104. Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology. 14(2):81-6, 1993 Feb.

6. MMWR (Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report) 38 (8-9), 12/29/89.

7. MMWR "Measles." 1989; 38:329-330.

8. MMWR. 33(24),6/22/84.

9. Failure to reach the goal of measles elimination. Apparent paradox of measles infections in immunized persons. Review article: 50 REFS. Dept. of Internal Medicine, Mayo Vaccine Research Group, Mayo Clinic and Foundation, Rochester, MN. Archives of Internal Medicine. 154(16):1815-20, 1994 Aug 22.

10. Clinical Immunology and Immunopathology, May 1996; 79(2): 163-170.

11. Trevor Gunn, Mass Immunization, A Point in Question, at 15 (citing E.D. Hume, Pasteur Exposed-The False Foundations of Modern Medicine, Bookreal, Australia, 1989.)

12. Physician William Howard Hay's address of June 25, 1937; printed in the Congressional Record.

13. Outbreak of paralytic poliomyelitis in Oman; evidence for widespread transmission among fully vaccinated children. Lancet vol 338: Sept 21, 1991; 715-720.


I've got at least forty more peer reviewed and published references like these if you want, but those should keep you going for now.

[entreat]

Did you really just give us references from the 1980's??? And a spectacular entry from 1937?? And many of those references are incomplete.

Regardless of which side of the fence you fall on, it is worth considering literature & studies (read: NOT an address to congress from the 1930's!) from the last 10-15 years.

In addition, addresses to congress and MMWR reports are NOT peer reviewed. Literature reviews are also not science (it's like a book report).

And lastly: Yes, change the criteria of diagnosis for any disease may fudge the numbers. So so so many diseases have gone under/over/NOT diagnosed for a long time, but that doesn't mean they weren't there. I'm certain a lot of people with spectrum disorders were labled as 'naughty children/teens', or 'peculiar', or worse. I'm sure many ADHD (when I went to school, it was just ADD...) suffers may actually be on the spectrum & never diagnosed. I know of a woman who fought for 9 long years to finally get her son diagnosed correctly - she was told he was just a naughty boy. And I know of family members that probably should be diagnosed, but haven't been for a rainbow of reasons.

(and who cares if RockinSAHD only looks at the vaccination threads. His choice! He might not feel an interest in breastfeeding, cloth pads, or other more feminine things. Vaccination information isn't just for anti-vaxers. Life would be a bit dull with only one POV)

[Yeddi]

Firstly, the dates proving vaccine safety are just as old, and of course there a more recent ones - these were just the first I cut and paste from my list because I've broken it down into the different vaccines. These are for the first vaccines, the one's that some people wrongly say eradicated the diseases, that were given out between 1940-1980. The science, like above, proves there were a lot of issues with these vaccines, hence they changed the formula, going from live cell to synthetic, among other things. The pattern goes release a vaccine, real life proves them to be ineffective (despite how the figures that have no limitations are fudged to say otherwise), it's reformulated and then the current new trend is to release the new formula before it is properly tested (usually because they have pre-approval aka making you and your kids are the lab rats). There are no safety studies on the current vaccines - there hasn't been the time. It might be time to dig a little deeper past popular media, or the conclusions of compromised stakeholder studies, and look at the actual information in the body of the study - they often don't match up. A lot of assumptions and predetermined views find themselves in the conclusion that aren't backed up by the actual facts. Anyway, at least I'm providing entries that can be looked up to back up my POV - have you?

Secondly, I didn't say that all the references above were peer reviewed and published, I said I had others like these that were peer reviewed and published, not that many of the above aren't. The ones that aren't are government sponsored reviews and reports and effect legislature - how can these not be considered relevant? Comprehension can be effected when someone reads something determined to be combative/oppositional rather than in the mind of open discussion.

My little friendly but opposing banter with Rockin is because we have a history of this type of discussion. It wasn't saying these threads were only for anti-vaxers nor was it involving anyone else. As he says, he has a tendency to talk down to people about this stuff - aka gets really offensive because he makes it personal rather than simply discussing the topic. Perhaps it is a little unfair not to give him benefit of the doubt this time. I have no problem entering a discussion of opposites - trolling on the other hand, I have no patience for. You know the saying: once bitten twice shy, an all that.

I, in particular, find the claim that autism rates are only the result of better diagnosis offensive and narrow minded, particularly seeing the cause it theoretically still unknown by the medical establishment. It completely dismisses and belittles what hundreds of thousands of parents have seen with their own eyes just because we haven't had it rubber-stambed by some guy in a lab coat.

To RockinSAHD - did you even read that journal entry that you referenced? I don't actually see how it supports your view. These ones are interesting though (I will warn you, they all disagree with you):

Mark F. Blaxill "What's Going on? The Question of Time Trends in Autism ", Public Health Reports (1974-), Vol. 119, No. 6 (Nov. - Dec., 2004), pp. 536-551

Eric London, Ruth A. Etzel, "The Environment as an Etiologic Factor in Autism: A New Direction for Research " Environmental Health Perspectives, Vol. 108, Supplement 3 (Jun., 2000), pp. 401-404

Michael Szpir, "Tracing the Origins of Autism: A Spectrum of New Studies" Environmental Health Perspectives, Vol. 114, No. 7 (Jul., 2006), pp. A412-A418

Gillian Baird, Hilary Cass, Vicky Slonims "Diagnosis Of Autism" BMJ: British Medical Journal, Vol. 327, No. 7413 (Aug. 30, 2003), pp. 488-493



This on in particular states that "medical sources" combined with an ineffective enzyme (see my statement about CYP450 system) plays a large part in the mercury levels within non-fish eating (just in case people want to blame it on that) autistics. It's 2010 too, hopefully that's recent enough... (not that the dates of the studies above actually change the fact that highly vaccinated groups still caught the disease...)

Irva Hertz-Picciotto, Peter G. Green, Lora Delwiche, Robin Hansen, Cheryl Walker, Isaac N. Pessah, "Blood Mercury Concentrations in CHARGE Study Children with and without Autism" Environmental Health Perspectives, Vol. 118, No. 1 (Jan., 2010), pp. 161-166

[ladybirdflies]

Isn't there currently a class action suit in USA that is currently in the courts. A group of people have been awarded the right to sue after they have now proven autism as a result of immunisation? This is really big and if they win it will open the flood gates for others to follow suit, this would never be able to happen if the company had not been found to be knowingly injecting our children and causing such side affects. I will try and find where I saw this.

PS- Go Yeddi!

[RockinSAHD]

My agenda is that I run a household with 2 young kids, 3 chickens with an overworked full time working wife. I cook, clean, wash, chase, study half time, work, write songs with my band, play gigs... I don't have a lot of time to philosophise or scratch myself.

I'm tapping this response while patting my baby to sleep(almost asleep!) and time I spend researching obscure stats to shout at wacky anti-vaxers is time I don't spend putting away clothes etc.

If I didn't feel passionate I wouldn't be here.

I do appreciate your articles and I will read them with an open mind, I just wish you brought me something topical or less than 16 years old!

In response to polio, your right changing diagnostics must have caused polio to just disappear, amazing what the mind can do. Im still confused as to what you mean. I might agree with you about autism if views on the human brain, psychiatry etc didn't flip around so much. It's a bit complicated (apart from retrospective diagnosis) to look back in time even 11 years given the hype and changing culture.

As for herd immunity, this is the sticking point again isn't it. We've been here before, it's the elephant in the room.

Don't you think that with billions of immunised people, thousands of man hours of analysis of collected vaccination and disease data, reports a mile high that someone, somewhere would realise that none of it works?

To me it's a bit like Bernoulli's principle was actually a lie and that all these aeroplanes, airliners, helicopters don't work but people just think they do. You would think it would be obvious.

Last time I was shown exceptions, which I expect are the gist of the articles you posted. There will always be exceptions to anything biological, even the most perfect part of the most perfect creature will fail occasionally just because of the complexity but when the vast vast majority work as expected 24/7/365 then how can you deny that. The human heart is an amazing thing but sometimes even the best heart in the healthiest body just stops. Would you have us give up on our hearts because they are faulty?

[RockinSAHD]

In real life you wouldn't find someone less likely to talk down or be aggressive. I just got carried away with the anonymity of the medium.

[Bumperstump Cummerbund]

Ooh, vaccine discussion! I'm not very smart, so I'll try to keep up

My question would be - instead of focussing on proving/disproving the effectiveness of vaccines, why not focus on identifying what it is that causes some children to become autistic after being vaccinated. That they do is a fact, it's been seen by parents and documented by doctors. But the problem is, it's a scary thing to cancel all immunizations on the basis that some children MIGHT become autistic. So how about researching testing for individual children? I've read about the links between yeast levels and autism, so I would assume that a childs level could simply be tested prior to immunization. If their natural levels are too high, then the risk outweighs the benefit. But if the level is low enough, the child would be able to cope with the immunization. Hopefully then we'd have the levels required to sustain 'herd immunity', and at the same time reduce the levels of autism.

Or am I oversimplifying things?

[Yeddi]

Don't you think that with billions of immunised people, thousands of man hours of analysis of collected vaccination and disease data, reports a mile high that someone, somewhere would realise that none of it works?

There have been! Many of them in fact, but they get shouted down and discredited based upon biased assumptions and without people even really looking into it because vaccination as the holy grail of health is such an entrenched idea. Have a look at Linus Pauling, another wacky anti-vaxer. Also the only man to win 2 unshared noble peace prizes and is considered the "father of chemistry". He lived out the rest of his life considered a quack by his peers because he dared to question vaccination. Did any studies prove him wrong... nope, who needs facts to ruin the man who discovered the structure of hemoglobin and how proteins work within it. What would the man who has provided the corner stone of what we know about blood know about the effects of intravenous vaccination?

This is just one example, and there are many more like him who have fallen victim to vaccination thought reform.

To me it's a bit like Bernoulli's principle was actually a lie and that all these aeroplanes, airliners, helicopters don't work but people just think they do. You would think it would be obvious.

I would say that is more applicable to our stance really, except you are saying they do work. When statistics reveal a drop in disease because vaccination is out there, they instantly attribute the fall in disease to vaccination, and not because of natural immunity or because we might be experiencing the downward trough of a disease cycle, but time and time again studies have shown that there are "no clusters of disease within the unvaccinated". If vaccination is the protection it claims to be, logically, using our common sense, shouldn't there be?

Keike - no, I don't think you are oversimplifying things. This to me would be basic common sense, something that doesn't seem to find it's way into vaccination methodology. Hence the reason adults get exactly the same does as a 2kg baby.

Over and over again issues that arise from vaccination keep coming back to - an enzyme not working, an enzyme not working, AN ENZYME NOT WORKING! Autism, diabetes, allergies, etc... This is the genetic component. You add things to the body that require this enzyme to process it and that enzyme isn't working like it should, then common sense says it's going to effect them differently. How much it effects them will be relative to how much that enzyme is not working and how much of the stuff that enzyme is meant to process is put in their bodies. Again, I come back to the CYP450 enzyme system. The system that is responsible for processing up to 70% of the chemicals that are put into our bodies. An enzyme system that doesn't even start to develop until two weeks post birth and isn't fully matured until 2 years of age. Is it really a surprise that autism, diabetes and allergy rates have sky rocketed as the medical establishment adds more and more vaccines and their ingredients to the schedule, one of them being on the first day of life before there is even any of this required enzyme. This is why it's not about one particular ingredient, or one particular vaccine, or combination of vaccines, it's about how the enzyme processes those vaccines, and how a vaccine like the hep b (that's made on mutated yeast to boot) puts a demand on this enzyme before the body even produces any.

[RockinSAHD]

I'm still confused. Were not talking a "trough" were talking a major decline in communicable disease. Not natural immunity, not good hygiene but a magic factor that has almost wiped a select group of disease from the human population.

You talk about enzymes, do you mean that the vaccine additives repress expression or deform these enzymes? This would be very basic to show and prove a connection but this kind of effect would have a major effect on all vaccinated people. You, me, everyone sick!

I'm interested in the story of the chemist, I recognise the name. Do you have a link?

Apparently several vaccines are now available with safe additives and those evil pharma labs are working hard to provide more. Soon autism will be a thing of the past!
(I joke but I would be happy to be wrong in this case)

[RockinSAHD]

No, I didn't understand what you mean about the enzyme. Do you mean that vaccines bind up the protein, or that the metals deform the protein?
How can something affect an enzyme that hasn't been expressed yet? Does it damage the DNA or RNA before it's expressed? In the cells of vaccinated babies?

[Schmickers]

Moderator Message »
Just a reminder to keep things civil in ths thread. I don't mind reasoned debate but flaming will result in this thread being closed.

[Yeddi]

I'm still confused. Were not talking a "trough" were talking a major decline in communicable disease. Not natural immunity, not good hygiene but a magic factor that has almost wiped a select group of disease from the human population.

Last year Australia had a whooping cough outbreak of 30,000. The year before it was 3,000. That's an increase. While it might be convenient to blame the unvaccinated for the outbreak, it's not a claim that is supported by the facts. As I said before, there hasn't been one proven cluster amongst the unvaccinated, the rates of infection per capita are the same between the vaccinated and the unvaccinated alike. Popular media also has a way of twisting the facts. For instance, last year there was a mumps outbreak in New York. Of course it hit the media, which deliberately indicated that the outbreak occurred mostly in the orthodox Jewish population knowing that most people in an act of antisemitism would assume that meant that these children were not vaccinated, and this outbreak was used in an anti-vax witch hunt. Problem was, the bulk of these children were vaccinated. 90% of those who caught the mumps were fully vaccinated, of the remaining 10%, 8% were vaccinated but under the age for the MMR. That meant that only 2% were fully unvaccinated and 3 out of the 4 were some of the last to be infected. This was not the case of unvaccinated kids spreading disease it was touted to be, but yet another case of an outbreak amongst the vaccinated hidden behind the veil of propaganda media.

You talk about enzymes, do you mean that the vaccine additives repress expression or deform these enzymes?

No, that's not what I said. I said the enzyme not being as effective would be the genetic component of these disorders. Something that obviously occurs in A blood types more, considering 8/10 autistic kids are A blood types and there is also a greater prevalence of diabetes amongst A and AB blood types too.

Perhaps if I put it in a different way.. The CYP450 enzyme system is what breaks down chemicals in the body, distributes and/or excretes those components where needed. If the enzyme is working only at 80% than that means it is processing 20% less of those chemicals in that person than it would in a person whose enzymes were working at 100%. Now, if we were to switch this to something more relatable like... housework.

You have a set amount of house work you need to do in order to keep the house running. If you work at 100% you get the house work done and have a clean house. But what if you only worked at 80%? 60%? 40%? The less effort you put in, the less work you get done. So would there be a difference in how clean your house was? Of course there would be! You might not get the washing folded. The next day not only does the washing stay undone, but you also don't do the dishes. Then your wife throws you a curve ball and wants to have a dinner party, adding more to the list of things you have to do. So what do you do? You shove everything in the cupboard or spare bedroom where no one can see, while you try to find a way to deal with this extra work she's given you. Eventually, your wife stops having dinner parties, so you don't have those claims anymore, and you eventually get around to doing that work that was in deficit that you've left undone. Problem is, when you go into the spare bedroom mice have made a home in your laundry peeing on your clothes, and there's a possum in your cupboard because this is what happens when you create an environment that attracts pests.

So relating it back to vaccination, if your enzymes are working at 100% all the chemical claims you have on those enzymes (medicines, cleaning products, toiletries, pesticides, pollution, and a huge amount from vaccines) are processed and excreted out like they should be. If your enzymes were working properly you could even have enough to make up retrospective chemical claims like hep b vaccinations that may been stored away before they become a big problem. But if it works at only 60-80% not only would you have to deal with more than you can handle, if you got the hep b vax you'd have deficits to make up too. The more claim you add (by adding more and more vax's to the schedule for instance) the more behind you get, and if those toxins aren't being processed and excreted like they should, they have to go somewhere, so the body stores. For autistics it's in their brains, diabetics in their pancreas and liver, some kids might excrete it through eczema and severe cradle cap. Others might divert the enzyme from their guts so get acute acid reflux or become celiacs or develop other food intolerances. Now add to that the fact this enzyme is not at 100% (full maturity) in children until they are two years old, vaccination for children that have a genetic disposition to have sluggish/ineffective enzyme production are going to cope a double whammy. They will be in an extended deficit for too long, and it eventually starts to cause damage. This is toxic load. Some reach it sooner than others relative to their how ineffective their enzyme system was in comparison to the chemical claims made upon that system.

I'm interested in the story of the chemist, I recognise the name. Do you have a link?

No, I've got the book, but I'm sure you can google him.

Apparently several vaccines are now available with safe additives and those evil pharma labs are working hard to provide more. Soon autism will be a thing of the past!
(I joke but I would be happy to be wrong in this case)

I never said pharma was evil, and I find your repetitive use of this phrase quite condescending. Do they have an agenda? Absolutely. Is there a culture of censorship regarding vaccine damage and ineffectiveness that is very frustrating? It would be naive to say there wasn't. I'd love to know what "safe" additives are. Apparently the ones in there already are safe regardless of race, gender, age, weight - but on that, I'm sure you're not surprised, I disagree. The way Aboriginals metabolise vaccines when ill proves that! Unfortunately, it's not just the individual additives that are the problem, it's the load and timing also.