Guest guest Posted November 27, 2008 Report Share Posted November 27, 2008 Porphyrin Testing A French laboratory became one of the first to provide porphyrin testing as an alternative or additional way of checking for mercury poisoning. As with all ground breaking science it may or not be 100 percent on target and very eminent people have shown concerns for this test. We need to step back and look in simple terms at what is going on. Spot a little ink on blotting paper and it will spread out and not in a perfect circle. Variability occurs and in addition separation may be more or less perfect depending on the quality and uniformity of the material through which the chemicals in this case ink travel. Temperatures, amounts of solid dyestuffs and many other factors are involved in the scientific version of this most simple but powerful technique. Porphyrin testing is like this very variable and the separation of the components may be more or less, according to the techniques used and expertise of those doing the tests. The critical USA laboratory uses presumably very careful testing on its part for this secret checking of another laboratory but would this degree of care be typical for all specimens sent there? Essentially in the test, we get say 5 separate peaks and independent even hostile cross checking shows the French laboratory comes up with approximately the same results as the laboratory seeking to denigrate the other. The French laboratory performing no more nor less accurately than the critical laboratory while remembering that one is taking every precaution for accuracy and the other is doing normal, routine everyday analysis. In standard units the results can be 50 units too low or 110 units too high. Neither the French laboratory nor the American counterpart can rest content with this variability but nonetheless the results are reproducable within broad limits and do provide incredibly useful information. Further, the American laboratory claims that on a recovered child the actual values did vary up to 5 fold between the two laboratories. The variability of results do at first sight seem to be worrying to the extent of total unreliabilty but in fact both the American and French laboratories came up with results in the normal range and there is no indication which of the two laboratories has the correct results and even if they have exactly correct results. The variability comes from the fact that levels are around the zero level and small changes are exaggerated to the degree that if one came up with zero and one with an almost zero result the difference would theoretically be infinite. One such result was like this, so a comparison was not possible. The results for some mercury toxified patients are truly remarkable and indicate strongly the mercury toxicity is real according to this test and its reliability is remarkable. One peak comes out at nearly 1 000 units considerably higher than the normal value of 150 units and even with all variability and imperfections of technique are damning for the recognition and proof of mercury toxicity. A reading nearly 1 000 and more than 800 are not totally exact but give no room for doubt that the base non toxic level has been exceeded several times over whoever is doing the work. Little wonder some people want to put a damper on this technique or maybe control it by deflecting testing from this very independent Franch laboratory. The director of the USA laboratory is eminent and trustworthy with highly reputable credentials but has worked for the CDC and has worked for vaccine companies in the past. He has also worked with groups dedicated to exposing the mercury issue to the public. The bias of his criticism is unclear. Perhaps the biggest criticism of the French laboratory is the uncertainty of the exact compostion of the critical peak that show mercury exposure. But the same criticism could be levelled at testing for example of blood alcohol levels. Is the peak purported to be alcohol actually alcohol or is it just a blip on chart when someone wafts past some of this highly sensitive equipment. We work in unknowns and the peaks appearing will be chemically similar in most cases due to the techniques employed in all probability and increased precision costs money. Unknowns or not unknowns, single entities or mixed entities they provide real, repeatable indicators of mercury toxicity that while not absolutely spot on with the scientific levels of mercury contamination do show either contamination or absence of exposure to mercury. Do we really need to know if we 4 times or 5 times too much brain destroying chemical in our body? What we need to know is whether we want to put ourselves at the hazard of yet more doctors and hopefully those that can improve our condition rather than add to our mercury burden by jabbing more mercury vaccines into us. There can be errors and these are already appreciated and more will become known as the technique is employed more widely and hopefully by more than two competing laboratories as at present. For a reasonable test protocol there must be a balance in precision with cost and for this test it does seem broadly reproducible, broadly specific in diagnosing mercury exposure and will of course be improved like all new techniques with continued use of this most valuable of tests for mercury exposure. The last concern is perhaps the most devastating of all. The USA director points out that the reference values in France are incorrect and he actually reckons that the critical level declines from 600 units to less than 300 as the child grows up. What he does not appreciate is that this in itself is a major cause for concern. Why do little children show up with mercury metal poisoning across the board from ages 0 to 2 years with a peak at 2 or 3 months and another at around 6 to 9 months? The USA infants get lots of vaccines in the first year of life and these peaks broadly correspond to the vaccination schedule with figures of mercury contamination dropping off as the child becomes a teenager. These are taken by the USA director as base levels of normal children but may be indicative of general across the board mercury contamination of every USA child from the policy of continuing to use mercury vaccines for pregnant mothers and young infants in 2008 until a real and total ban for mercury in all vaccines made in the USA is obtained. My view is that it by sending your samples to the French laboratory you will be more likely to get a postive result as in France the vaccines and those with mercury are in any case close to zero so the French experience will be that your normal USA level will be highly toxic to those seen in French children. The American laboratory is more or less saying that you cannot complain about your mercury level as it is no better or worse than every other child. The fact that the health of USA children is at the bottom of the first world countries is sad but true and prehaps a direct result of advocating mercury in vaccines and refusing to condemn the practice? Children classed as mercury poisoned in the USA cannot be so classed so if they only have as much mercury as their healthy but equally contaminated fellow child. The USA standard of allowing mercury contaminated children to be classed as normal because all children are exposed to mercury vaccines but do not become recognisable ill is sick. You have a sick child but no more sick than every other USA child receiving mercury vaccines? Porphyrin testing for mercury does work but is exposed to highly political manipulation possibly if you chose the current USA facility to test for mercury toxicity? A real problem of this type of testing is like everything it costs and for me the major concern is can you afford to have the test not does the result show anything worthwhile. But if you have the money to get the test and the ability to realise your flu vaccine at pregnancy or flu shot at 6 months has mercury, would you put yourself or your child in the position of needing this test? Education can save the double cost of injecting with mercury and the costs of testing and drugs to undo the harm by your first doctor. Ear problems are common from even the odd vaccine. Is it comforting or worrying to have vaccines now for ear problems? And will we one day be offered a vaccine to make us resistant to mercury toxicity. Sadly the answer is likely to be yes. Porphyrin Testing Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 28, 2008 Report Share Posted November 28, 2008 Dear Fryer, While interesting, your rant seems to miss the point as do the those who would include mercury- injected children/adults in the " controls " group. Factually, the CoMeD website: http://www.mercury-freedrugs.org maintains a " UPPA " (Urine Porphyrin Profile Analysis) web page that tries to keep up with the issue of comparative results between labs, between dates, after chelation, and the like. At present the blinded samples sent to both Laboratoire pe Auguste and LabCorp appear to give " equivalent " results when the results are appropriately assessed. The limited experience on blinded samples tested at both Metametrics and LabCorp seem to indicate that the " ratio " results are comparable even though absolute results from Metametrix seem to be a little lower (possibly sensitivity related) BUT that, in cases of a suspected co-eluting fluorescent contaminant, Metametrix's LC-MS specificity allowed the contaminant's interference to be confirmed and, in that case, provided a correction for the one " minor " porphyrin that was artificially elevated in the LC-Fluorescence measurement used by LabCorp and Laboratoire pe Auguste. However, though Great Lakes admits that they send their samples for UPPA to LabCorp for testing, the results they report and the control ranges they use preclude CoMeD from including them in the list of laboratories that appear to give " similar " results that can be used in an " UPPA " test to determine whether or not the person whose urine was tested IS mercury poisoned and/or to infer, from the appropriate ratios, the approximate degree of mercury poisoning. But, lacking the funding required to do a large-scale double-blinded trial involving split common samples sent to all of the labs, the small number of comparable test results are not sufficient to quantitatively assess the overall comparative precision and accuracy of the test results produced by the labs in question much less rank them other than qualitatively. The issue of the valid control range is a more serious one in the USA for the reasons that you have listed. Ideally, the labs in the USA would be looking to a non-vaccinating population NOT living near a coal-fired power plant, crematorium, cement kiln, or chlor-alkali plant that uses mercury-diaphram cells as their controls but, so far, this does NOT seem to have been done -- thus, it would seem that any USA control ranges would be somewhat suspect. In this regard, it might be possible to use the level of mercury found in the red blood cells as a discriminator for selecting individuals for the " control " groups in a given range -- though some studies need to be published before this seemingly valid discriminator can be used. Finally, I agree that the use of mercury should be BANNED from all of medicine, all in-date drugs (including vaccines) that contain any level of an added mercury component in their production should be RECALLED and DESTROYED as the hazardous waste they most certainly are, and the LIMITS on the content of mercury in any drug or food should be set at the appropriate ppb level that is NO higher than 1 parts in 1 x 10^7 parts of the product (<= 0.1 ppm) with the limits reduced as the frequency and/or amount administered/consumed at any one time increases from the seldom (1-2 times a a year) to multiple times a day or daily for years BECAUSE mercury, in ALL its forms is a BIOACCUMULATIVE poison in humans! Hopefully, after reading the information on the current CoMeD " UPPA " webpage, you will find that, for the 3 labs that seem to give comparable results, when the vari- ables such as " innately variable dilution " and " dietary variation [in composition and amount] " , which naturally occur, are appropriately addressed, MUCH of the resul- tant variation in raw porphyrin values can be removed by ratioing the other urine porphyrins to the basic " uroporphyrin " and appropriately using these values to determine the degree of " mercury poisoning " . [Note: Provided there is sufficient sensitivity to provide values above the limit of quantitation for all of the porphyrins which a given lab reports, the ratioing minimizes the effects of " volume of sample " dilution and/or " creatinine level " on decision making process.] ******************************************* *The information provided in this email * *and any attachment thereto is just that * * -- information. * * * *It is not medical advice and it does not * *require any specific action or actions. * * * *While the information is thought to be * *accurate, no representation is made as * *to the accuracy of the information posted* *other than it is my best understanding of* *the facts on the date that this email and* *any attachments thereto are posted. * * * *Everyone should verify the accuracy of * *the information provided for themselves * *before acting on it. * ******************************************* Respectfully, Dr. King http://www.dr-king.com PS: Please e-mail me privately with the name of the lab and person as well as the documents, if any, that contain the claims of which you are speaking so that i may increase my understanding of what is happening. Also, let me assure you that there are at least 2 labs in the USA (LabCorp and Metametrix) that actually work up and test samples. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ At 19:08 11/27/08 +0100, johnfryer@... wrote: > >Porphyrin Testing > > > >A French laboratory became one of the first to provide >porphyrin testing as an alternative or additional way >of checking for mercury poisoning. > > > >As with all ground breaking science it may or not be >100 percent on target and very eminent people have >shown concerns for this test. > > > >We need to step back and look in simple terms at what >is going on. Spot a little ink on blotting paper and >it will spread out and not in a perfect circle. Vari- >ability occurs and in addition separation may be more >or less perfect depending on the quality and unifor- >mity of the material through which the chemicals in >this case ink travel. Temperatures, amounts of solid >dyestuffs and many other factors are involved in the >scientific version of this most simple but powerful >technique. > > > >Porphyrin testing is like this very variable and the >separation of the components may be more or less, >according to the techniques used a nd expertise of >those doing the tests. The critical USA laboratory >uses presumably very careful testing on its part for >this secret checking of another laboratory but would >this degree of care be typical for all specimens sent >there? > > > >Essentially in the test, we get say 5 separate peaks >and independent even hostile cross checking shows the >French laboratory comes up with approximately the same >results as the laboratory seeking to denigrate the >other. The French laboratory performing no more nor less >accurately than the critical laboratory while remembering >that one is taking every precaution for accuracy and the >other is doing normal, routine everyday analysis. In >standard units the results can be 50 units too low or >110 units too high. Neither the French laboratory nor the >American counterpart can rest content with this varia- >bility but nonetheless the results are reproducable within >broad limits and do provide incredibly useful information. > > > >Further, the American laboratory claims that on a re- >covered child the actual values did vary up to 5 fold >between the two laboratories. The variability of results >do at first sight seem to be worrying to the extent of >total unreliabilty but in fact both the American and >French laboratories came up with results in the normal >range and there is no indication which of the two labora- >tories has the correct results and even if they have >exactly correct results. The variability comes from the >fact that levels are around the zero level and small >changes are exaggerated to the degree that if one came >up with zero and one with an almost zero result the >difference would theoretically be infinite. One such >result was like this, so a comparison was not possible. > > > >The results for some mercury toxified patients are >truly remarkable and indicate strongly the mercury >toxicity is real according to this test and its >reliability is remarkable. One peak comes out at >nearly 1 000 units considerably higher than the >normal value of 150 units and even with all varia- >bility and imperfections of technique are damning >for the recognition and proof of mercury toxicity. A >reading nearly 1 000 and more than 800 are not >totally exact but give no room for doubt that the >base non-toxic level has been exceeded several times >over whoever is doing the work. > > > >Little wonder some people want to put a damper on >this technique or maybe control it by deflecting >testing from this very independent FrEnch laboratory. > > > >The director of the USA laboratory is eminent and >trustworthy with highly reputable credentials but has >worked for the CDC and has worked for vaccine companies >in the past. He has also worked with groups dedicated to >exposing the mercury issue to the public. The bias of >his criticism is unclear. > > > >Perhaps the biggest criticism of the French laboratory >is the uncertainty of the exact compostion of the >critical peak that show mercury exposure. But the same >criticism could be levelled at testing for example of >blood alcohol levels. Is the peak purported to be al- >cohol actually alcohol or is it just a blip on chart >when someone wafts past some of this highly sensitive >equipment. We work in unknowns and the peaks appearing >will be chemically similar in most cases due to the >techniques employed in all probability and increased >precision costs money. Unknowns or not unknowns, single >entities or mixed entities they provide real, repeatable >indicators of mercury toxicity that while not absolutely >spot on with the scientific levels of mercury contamina- >tion do show either contamination or absence of exposure >to mercury. Do we really need to know if we 4 times or 5 >times too much brain destroying chemical in our body? >What we need to know is whether we want to put ourselves >at the hazard of yet more doctors and hopefully those >that can improve our condition rather than add to our >mercury burden by jabbing more mercury vaccines into us. > > > >There can be errors and these are already appreciated >and more will become known as the technique is employed >more widely and hopefully by more than two competing >laboratories as at present. > > > >For a reasonable test protocol there must be a balance >in precision with cost and for this test it does seem >broadly reproducible, broadly specific in diagnosing >mercury exposure and will of course be improved like >all new techniques with continued use of this most >valuable of tests for mercury exposure. > > > >The last concern is perhaps the most devastating of all. >The USA director points out that the reference values >in France are incorrect and he actually reckons that >the critical level declines from 600 units to less than >300 as the child grows up. What he does not appreciate >is that this in itself is a major cause for concern. >Why do little children show up with mercury metal >poisoning across the board from ages 0 to 2 years with >a peak at 2 or 3 months and another at around 6 to 9 >months? The USA infants get lots of vaccines in the >first year of life and these peaks broadly correspond >to the vaccination schedule with figures of mercury >contamination dropping off as the child becomes a teen- >ager. These are taken by the USA director as base levels >of normal chi ldren but may be indicative of general >across the board mercury contamination of every USA >child from the policy of continuing to use mercury vac- >cines for pregnant mothers and young infants in 2008 >until a real and total ban for mercury in all vaccines >made in the USA is obtained. > > > >My view is that it by sending your samples to the French >laboratory you will be more likely to get a postive re- >sult as in France the vaccines and those with mercury are >in any case close to zero so the French experience will >be that your normal USA level will be highly toxic to >those seen in French children. The American laboratory >is more or less saying that you cannot complain about >your mercury level as it is no better or worse than every >other child. The fact that the health of USA children is >at the bottom of the first world countries is sad but true >and prehaps a direct result of advocating mercury in vac- >cines and refusing to condemn the practice? > > > >Children classed as mercury poisoned in the USA cannot >be so classed so if they only have as much mercury as >their healthy but equally contaminated fellow child. The >USA standard of allowing mercury contaminated children >to be classed as normal because all children are exposed >to mercury vaccines but do not become recognisable ill is >sick. You have a sick child, but no more sick than every >other USA child receiving mercury vaccines? > > > >Porphyrin testing for mercury does work but is exposed >to highly political manipulation possibly if you chose >the current USA facility to test for mercury toxicity? > > > >A real problem of this type of testing is like everything >it costs and for me the major concern is can you afford >to have the test not does the result show anything >worthwhile. > > > >But if you have the money to get the test and the ability >to realise your flu vaccine at pregnancy or flu shot at >6 months has mercury, would you put yourself or your child >in the position of needing this test? Education can save >the double cost of injecting with mercury and the costs of >testing and drugs to undo the harm by your first doctor. > > > >Ear problems are common from even the odd vaccine. Is it >comforting or worrying to have vaccines now for ear >problems? And will we one day be offered a vaccine to >make us resistant to mercury toxicity. Sadly the answer >is likely to be yes. > > > > > > > >Porphyrin Testing > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 28, 2008 Report Share Posted November 28, 2008 Dear Fryer, While interesting, your rant seems to miss the point as do the those who would include mercury- injected children/adults in the " controls " group. Factually, the CoMeD website: http://www.mercury-freedrugs.org maintains a " UPPA " (Urine Porphyrin Profile Analysis) web page that tries to keep up with the issue of comparative results between labs, between dates, after chelation, and the like. At present the blinded samples sent to both Laboratoire pe Auguste and LabCorp appear to give " equivalent " results when the results are appropriately assessed. The limited experience on blinded samples tested at both Metametrics and LabCorp seem to indicate that the " ratio " results are comparable even though absolute results from Metametrix seem to be a little lower (possibly sensitivity related) BUT that, in cases of a suspected co-eluting fluorescent contaminant, Metametrix's LC-MS specificity allowed the contaminant's interference to be confirmed and, in that case, provided a correction for the one " minor " porphyrin that was artificially elevated in the LC-Fluorescence measurement used by LabCorp and Laboratoire pe Auguste. However, though Great Lakes admits that they send their samples for UPPA to LabCorp for testing, the results they report and the control ranges they use preclude CoMeD from including them in the list of laboratories that appear to give " similar " results that can be used in an " UPPA " test to determine whether or not the person whose urine was tested IS mercury poisoned and/or to infer, from the appropriate ratios, the approximate degree of mercury poisoning. But, lacking the funding required to do a large-scale double-blinded trial involving split common samples sent to all of the labs, the small number of comparable test results are not sufficient to quantitatively assess the overall comparative precision and accuracy of the test results produced by the labs in question much less rank them other than qualitatively. The issue of the valid control range is a more serious one in the USA for the reasons that you have listed. Ideally, the labs in the USA would be looking to a non-vaccinating population NOT living near a coal-fired power plant, crematorium, cement kiln, or chlor-alkali plant that uses mercury-diaphram cells as their controls but, so far, this does NOT seem to have been done -- thus, it would seem that any USA control ranges would be somewhat suspect. In this regard, it might be possible to use the level of mercury found in the red blood cells as a discriminator for selecting individuals for the " control " groups in a given range -- though some studies need to be published before this seemingly valid discriminator can be used. Finally, I agree that the use of mercury should be BANNED from all of medicine, all in-date drugs (including vaccines) that contain any level of an added mercury component in their production should be RECALLED and DESTROYED as the hazardous waste they most certainly are, and the LIMITS on the content of mercury in any drug or food should be set at the appropriate ppb level that is NO higher than 1 parts in 1 x 10^7 parts of the product (<= 0.1 ppm) with the limits reduced as the frequency and/or amount administered/consumed at any one time increases from the seldom (1-2 times a a year) to multiple times a day or daily for years BECAUSE mercury, in ALL its forms is a BIOACCUMULATIVE poison in humans! Hopefully, after reading the information on the current CoMeD " UPPA " webpage, you will find that, for the 3 labs that seem to give comparable results, when the vari- ables such as " innately variable dilution " and " dietary variation [in composition and amount] " , which naturally occur, are appropriately addressed, MUCH of the resul- tant variation in raw porphyrin values can be removed by ratioing the other urine porphyrins to the basic " uroporphyrin " and appropriately using these values to determine the degree of " mercury poisoning " . [Note: Provided there is sufficient sensitivity to provide values above the limit of quantitation for all of the porphyrins which a given lab reports, the ratioing minimizes the effects of " volume of sample " dilution and/or " creatinine level " on decision making process.] ******************************************* *The information provided in this email * *and any attachment thereto is just that * * -- information. * * * *It is not medical advice and it does not * *require any specific action or actions. * * * *While the information is thought to be * *accurate, no representation is made as * *to the accuracy of the information posted* *other than it is my best understanding of* *the facts on the date that this email and* *any attachments thereto are posted. * * * *Everyone should verify the accuracy of * *the information provided for themselves * *before acting on it. * ******************************************* Respectfully, Dr. King http://www.dr-king.com PS: Please e-mail me privately with the name of the lab and person as well as the documents, if any, that contain the claims of which you are speaking so that i may increase my understanding of what is happening. Also, let me assure you that there are at least 2 labs in the USA (LabCorp and Metametrix) that actually work up and test samples. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ At 19:08 11/27/08 +0100, johnfryer@... wrote: > >Porphyrin Testing > > > >A French laboratory became one of the first to provide >porphyrin testing as an alternative or additional way >of checking for mercury poisoning. > > > >As with all ground breaking science it may or not be >100 percent on target and very eminent people have >shown concerns for this test. > > > >We need to step back and look in simple terms at what >is going on. Spot a little ink on blotting paper and >it will spread out and not in a perfect circle. Vari- >ability occurs and in addition separation may be more >or less perfect depending on the quality and unifor- >mity of the material through which the chemicals in >this case ink travel. Temperatures, amounts of solid >dyestuffs and many other factors are involved in the >scientific version of this most simple but powerful >technique. > > > >Porphyrin testing is like this very variable and the >separation of the components may be more or less, >according to the techniques used a nd expertise of >those doing the tests. The critical USA laboratory >uses presumably very careful testing on its part for >this secret checking of another laboratory but would >this degree of care be typical for all specimens sent >there? > > > >Essentially in the test, we get say 5 separate peaks >and independent even hostile cross checking shows the >French laboratory comes up with approximately the same >results as the laboratory seeking to denigrate the >other. The French laboratory performing no more nor less >accurately than the critical laboratory while remembering >that one is taking every precaution for accuracy and the >other is doing normal, routine everyday analysis. In >standard units the results can be 50 units too low or >110 units too high. Neither the French laboratory nor the >American counterpart can rest content with this varia- >bility but nonetheless the results are reproducable within >broad limits and do provide incredibly useful information. > > > >Further, the American laboratory claims that on a re- >covered child the actual values did vary up to 5 fold >between the two laboratories. The variability of results >do at first sight seem to be worrying to the extent of >total unreliabilty but in fact both the American and >French laboratories came up with results in the normal >range and there is no indication which of the two labora- >tories has the correct results and even if they have >exactly correct results. The variability comes from the >fact that levels are around the zero level and small >changes are exaggerated to the degree that if one came >up with zero and one with an almost zero result the >difference would theoretically be infinite. One such >result was like this, so a comparison was not possible. > > > >The results for some mercury toxified patients are >truly remarkable and indicate strongly the mercury >toxicity is real according to this test and its >reliability is remarkable. One peak comes out at >nearly 1 000 units considerably higher than the >normal value of 150 units and even with all varia- >bility and imperfections of technique are damning >for the recognition and proof of mercury toxicity. A >reading nearly 1 000 and more than 800 are not >totally exact but give no room for doubt that the >base non-toxic level has been exceeded several times >over whoever is doing the work. > > > >Little wonder some people want to put a damper on >this technique or maybe control it by deflecting >testing from this very independent FrEnch laboratory. > > > >The director of the USA laboratory is eminent and >trustworthy with highly reputable credentials but has >worked for the CDC and has worked for vaccine companies >in the past. He has also worked with groups dedicated to >exposing the mercury issue to the public. The bias of >his criticism is unclear. > > > >Perhaps the biggest criticism of the French laboratory >is the uncertainty of the exact compostion of the >critical peak that show mercury exposure. But the same >criticism could be levelled at testing for example of >blood alcohol levels. Is the peak purported to be al- >cohol actually alcohol or is it just a blip on chart >when someone wafts past some of this highly sensitive >equipment. We work in unknowns and the peaks appearing >will be chemically similar in most cases due to the >techniques employed in all probability and increased >precision costs money. Unknowns or not unknowns, single >entities or mixed entities they provide real, repeatable >indicators of mercury toxicity that while not absolutely >spot on with the scientific levels of mercury contamina- >tion do show either contamination or absence of exposure >to mercury. Do we really need to know if we 4 times or 5 >times too much brain destroying chemical in our body? >What we need to know is whether we want to put ourselves >at the hazard of yet more doctors and hopefully those >that can improve our condition rather than add to our >mercury burden by jabbing more mercury vaccines into us. > > > >There can be errors and these are already appreciated >and more will become known as the technique is employed >more widely and hopefully by more than two competing >laboratories as at present. > > > >For a reasonable test protocol there must be a balance >in precision with cost and for this test it does seem >broadly reproducible, broadly specific in diagnosing >mercury exposure and will of course be improved like >all new techniques with continued use of this most >valuable of tests for mercury exposure. > > > >The last concern is perhaps the most devastating of all. >The USA director points out that the reference values >in France are incorrect and he actually reckons that >the critical level declines from 600 units to less than >300 as the child grows up. What he does not appreciate >is that this in itself is a major cause for concern. >Why do little children show up with mercury metal >poisoning across the board from ages 0 to 2 years with >a peak at 2 or 3 months and another at around 6 to 9 >months? The USA infants get lots of vaccines in the >first year of life and these peaks broadly correspond >to the vaccination schedule with figures of mercury >contamination dropping off as the child becomes a teen- >ager. These are taken by the USA director as base levels >of normal chi ldren but may be indicative of general >across the board mercury contamination of every USA >child from the policy of continuing to use mercury vac- >cines for pregnant mothers and young infants in 2008 >until a real and total ban for mercury in all vaccines >made in the USA is obtained. > > > >My view is that it by sending your samples to the French >laboratory you will be more likely to get a postive re- >sult as in France the vaccines and those with mercury are >in any case close to zero so the French experience will >be that your normal USA level will be highly toxic to >those seen in French children. The American laboratory >is more or less saying that you cannot complain about >your mercury level as it is no better or worse than every >other child. The fact that the health of USA children is >at the bottom of the first world countries is sad but true >and prehaps a direct result of advocating mercury in vac- >cines and refusing to condemn the practice? > > > >Children classed as mercury poisoned in the USA cannot >be so classed so if they only have as much mercury as >their healthy but equally contaminated fellow child. The >USA standard of allowing mercury contaminated children >to be classed as normal because all children are exposed >to mercury vaccines but do not become recognisable ill is >sick. You have a sick child, but no more sick than every >other USA child receiving mercury vaccines? > > > >Porphyrin testing for mercury does work but is exposed >to highly political manipulation possibly if you chose >the current USA facility to test for mercury toxicity? > > > >A real problem of this type of testing is like everything >it costs and for me the major concern is can you afford >to have the test not does the result show anything >worthwhile. > > > >But if you have the money to get the test and the ability >to realise your flu vaccine at pregnancy or flu shot at >6 months has mercury, would you put yourself or your child >in the position of needing this test? Education can save >the double cost of injecting with mercury and the costs of >testing and drugs to undo the harm by your first doctor. > > > >Ear problems are common from even the odd vaccine. Is it >comforting or worrying to have vaccines now for ear >problems? And will we one day be offered a vaccine to >make us resistant to mercury toxicity. Sadly the answer >is likely to be yes. > > > > > > > >Porphyrin Testing > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.