http://cinemalibrestudio.com/injecting-aluminum/CMSRI-Viewing.html?utm_content=68040658&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter

Not sure if this link will work, but it is a one and a half hour long vimeo 'Injecting aluminium' from CMSR which is free to view until 8th March. It is a bit erratic and I had to click to get it going again a few times, but the information in it is fascinating. Apart from making it very clear that funding for real science these days is practically impossible, the researchers are not anti vaccine. They are very clear, however, that there is a real problem with aluminium in vaccines. One of the most significant things I picked up is that the 'safety' relies on a 1997 study in which 2 rabbits were injected with aluminium salts and in the whole 28 days trial period 6% of the aluminium was excreted. In other words, 94% remained somewhere in the bodies.

On this evidence, our children are subjected to massive amounts of 'safe' aluminium!

Eindecker

No, it is a sarcastic formula for saying that correlation does not equal causation, but btw the the defence of the vaccination program has been entirely based on epidemiological studies in which the correlation has been massaged out, like the De Stefano study on which Vaxxed was based. Well, as a matter of fact you could have thousands of cases in a population and it might not be enough to register epidemiologically. When, De Stefano found an embarrassing subgroup (I wonder whether Berardine Healy knew about it all along) it had to be got rid of (even in 2005 Cochrane was suspicious). Thompson was deeply troubled both in 2004 and a decade later - there was little doubt in his mind of what it was all about. Meanwhile, Dorothy Bishop just cites Snopes - who are they for God’s sake?

PS It is never the easy option to oppose Big Pharma

So, according to this report the seizure of Dr Gatti's computer and records prevented her from giving evidence in a court case regarding military experiments in Sardinia and their fall out.

"The non-profit organization accuses the professor of having used the tool for profit and not for scientific research, but there is a court ruling that authorizes Gatti and Montanari to be able to use the instrument and to be compensated for travel expenses. "Money that they never gave us," explains the doctor, claiming she is not an anti-vaccinationist and claims the abnormality of the times. The story has become a political case in Sardinia, because Gatti should conclude her evidence in court on February 28, but data on the analysis of samples taken at Quirra are in the PCs seized in the mysterious operation."

http://gazzettadimodena.gelocal.it/modena/cronaca/2018/02/24/news/il-giallo-del-sequestro-gatti-in-aula-per-i-militari-malati-1.16520898

Of course, Dorothy Bishop (a Wellcome Trust Princicipal Research Fellow) has always been a reliable rent-a-mouth when it comes to vaccines. Here she is putting the boot in over Vaxxed in 2016 citing Snopes:

https://www.theguardian.com/science/political-science/2016/apr/12/how-can-we-keep-science-honest-in-a-world-of-open-data

Of course, the Wellcome Trust hosts the industry lobby organisation Science Media Centre at its London HQ.

Eindecker

"John, yes maybe I shouldn’t have used that example of drawing false conclusions just from high correlation coefficients, it was the best example I could find, but sorry it was not meant as a joke"

One basic reason we might know it is the vaccines is observation, and the way to counter that is to trash the witnesses - and when you make sarcastic comments about organic food sales that can be read as part of the strategy. But basically, our health officials have no other answer. As I documented they even stopped recording the fall out after 2004.

http://www.ageofautism.com/2016/02/the-true-data-revealed-adult-autism-data-fabrication-in-the-united-kingdom-part-3.html

Benedetta I did not see this until I was searching for brain aluminium levels but the comments here https://www.buzzfeed.com/tomchivers/these-scientists-say-a-british-professors-claim-that?utm_term=.olOY8QbKb#.scEKezdgd are exactly the same points I made:
But Dorothy Bishop, a professor of neurodevelopmental biology at the University of Oxford, told BuzzFeed News that she would dismiss the study's results....The main problem, said Bishop, is that the study lacks controls: It looked at no healthy brains to see whether they were different from the ASD-diagnosed brains. “You always need controls, because you tend otherwise to see what you expect to see, even if there is no deliberate attempt at fudging the data,” she said. “This point is the most serious, in my opinion, and would make me just dismiss the results.”
and
Jonathan Green, a professor of child and adolescent psychiatry at the University of Manchester who specialises in autism, told BuzzFeed News it was “absurd to draw conclusions” from the study.......the study didn’t mention how any of the donors died, which both Bishop and Green felt was relevant. “Clearly the cause of death is pertinent to brain findings and needs to be taken into account,”
and
Dr Alice Howarth, a cellular physiologist… “The very high figures stand out as potentially anomalous,” Howarth told BuzzFeed News. “They’ve taken three pieces of tissue from one lobe of one donor’s brain and measured each separately. One showed a [value of micrograms of aluminium per gram of brain tissue] of 2.44; one was 1.66; and the third was 22.11!”She says most scientists would remove the third result from their findings because it was so anomalous, or at least carry out the test several more times, and that it was “astonishing” Exley had not.
In answer to your first question yes, as the Oxford University Professor said, in answer to your second question Benedetta data on aluminium content of brains is limited, I referenced Exley’s 2011 review on aluminium in the brain where he wrote “the scientific literature has over several decades consistently recorded values for ‘normal’ brains as being in the range 0.1–4.5 µg Al/g tissue (dry wt) with the higher values >2.0 being measured in brains taken from the nondemented elderly”
One serious point that comes out of the Buzz Feed article is that Exley has undeclared and relevant conflicts of interest that certainly were not mentioned in the paper:
Exley is also facing questions over why he did not declare his involvement with a company called SilicaWaters.com, which sells “a unique, natural silica bottled water”, in the “competing interests” section of the research paper. The SilicaWaters website says it donates 10% of its net sales to Exley’s research at Keele University “into the benefits to health of drinking silica-rich water”. Exley has written for the Hippocratic Post (again reproduced in the Daily Mail) that “everyone should drink silicon-rich mineral water every day to remove toxic aluminium from their bodies and brains”.
Exley’s research paper says he and his fellow authors “have no competing interests”
He did acknowledge that it might have been a good thing to add to the competing interests section: “Now I’ve had this conversation, maybe I’ll do it [next time].”
John, yes maybe I shouldn’t have used that example of drawing false conclusions just from high correlation coefficients, it was the best example I could find, but sorry it was not meant as a joke

Eindecker said: "Exley could obtain such precious material such as donor autistic brain tissue from the Oxford Brain Bank that he could not have obtained age matched tissue samples from non-autistic donors."

Is that to see if the age matched tissue samples from non-autistics donors also had aluminum inside those macrophages in their brains too?

Eindecker

I don't think you should make any kinds of jokes here about SEN. As to thimerosal there were huge problems with the Verstraeten, Madsen and Andrews studies which you will never acknowledge because of the official rubber stamp. I agree the ASD cases did not go down after it was removed but more products were added to the schedule and the cases changed character somewhat. There is no doubt the old DPT was a hideously dangerous product that the PTB were happy to inflict on their populations.

Eindecker. As you are so obviously knowledgeable about the statistics of scientific research, I would love to hear your opinion as to why the autism spectrum rate has gone from approx. 1:10,000 in the 1970s to, again approx., 1:36 in U.S. in 2018.

I'm sure you will be able to prove, with those scientific facts and figures, that it has nothing to do with vaccine ingredients.,

John
I’d seen this review, but perhaps you should go beyond the abstract: See the section ”Aluminium adjuvants in the pathogenesis of ASD” where they only quote 1 paper directly in support of this: a Shaw & Tomljenovic article that has been subject to much criticism for using incorrect data. This section concludes However, in spite of these issues those who believe that adjuvants cause “autism” have one question which currently remains unanswered, namely that if aluminium or other adjuvants per se provoke chronic central nervous system and peripheral pathology, why is the prevalence of ASD not far higher than it is now? Given the ubiquity of vaccination one would expect that almost every child would be affected. This fact alone means that adjuvants are highly unlikely to be the main cause of ASD.
The authors pay a lot of attention to the possible role of vaccines in the so-called ASIA syndrome, unfortunately the very existence of this syndrome has been called into question It is also apparent that the broadness of the current ASIA criteria lack stringency and, as a result, very few cases of autoimmune disease could be excluded from a diagnosis of ASIA. The current studies involving human cases are so diverse, in both external stimuli and in resulting conditions, that there is currently a lack of reproducible evidence for any consistent relationship between adjuvant and autoimmune condition. The addition of a mandatory criterion requiring temporal association and clinically relevant adjuvant dose would allow better definition of what constitutes a diagnosis of ASIA. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25794485
You didn’t comment on my analysis of Exley’s raw data but at best you might describe it as erratic and certainly not the ground breaking discovery that is being touted around by some without looking at the data presented by Exley.
Angus
I think your knowledge of geology is a bit limited “ Aluminum is also present in air, water, and many foods. Aluminum enters environmental media naturally through the weathering of rocks and minerals. Anthropogenic releases are in the form of air emissions, waste water effluents, and solid waste primarily associated with industrial processes, such as aluminum production. Because of its prominence as a major constituent of the earth's crust, natural weathering processes far exceed the contribution of releases to air, water, and land associated with human activities (Lantzy and MacKenzie 1979). https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp22-c6.pdf Man has been naturally exposed to aluminium for eons, not just since the mining of aluminum ore, carry on reading the article about it’s occurrence in food.

Benedetta

It’s good experimental practice to include controls, in this case age matched brains from non-autistic people, in a study such as this, then you have a direct comparison, methods vary, and as Exley himself wrote [Al] increases with age. But even if he didn’t using his own published criterion of >4.5µg Al/gm tissue as the top end of the normal range only 14% of his measurements on the brain samples were outside this range, and none of these “high” values were reproduced on repeat analyses of the same sample that’s hardly convincing evidence is it? It’s just not credible that if Exley could obtain such precious material such as donor autistic brain tissue from the Oxford Brain Bank that he could not have obtained age matched tissue samples from non-autistic donors.

Eindecker

Unfortunately, it is not like a football match - this is of course not to underestimate the unpleasantness of corruption in football - it is rather more like Dorit Reiss proclaiming agency capture to be a good thing. So, you don't walk away thinking "win some, lose some" but even more worried because the system is indifferent to it its own failings, and there is no accountability

.Metab Brain Dis. 2017; 32(5): 1335–1355.
Published online 2017 Jul 27. doi: 10.1007/s11011-017-0077-2
PMCID: PMC5596046
The putative role of environmental aluminium in the development of chronic neuropathology in adults and children. How strong is the evidence and what could be the mechanisms involved?
Gerwyn Morris, Basant K. Puri and Richard E. Frye

Abstract
The conceptualisation of autistic spectrum disorder and Alzheimer’s disease has undergone something of a paradigm shift in recent years and rather than being viewed as single illnesses with a unitary pathogenesis and pathophysiology they are increasingly considered to be heterogeneous syndromes with a complex multifactorial aetiopathogenesis, involving a highly complex and diverse combination of genetic, epigenetic and environmental factors. One such environmental factor implicated as a potential cause in both syndromes is aluminium, as an element or as part of a salt, received, for example, in oral form or as an adjuvant. Such administration has the potential to induce pathology via several routes such as provoking dysfunction and/or activation of glial cells which play an indispensable role in the regulation of central nervous system homeostasis and neurodevelopment. Other routes include the generation of oxidative stress, depletion of reduced glutathione, direct and indirect reductions in mitochondrial performance and integrity, and increasing the production of proinflammatory cytokines in both the brain and peripherally. The mechanisms whereby environmental aluminium could contribute to the development of the highly specific pattern of neuropathology seen in Alzheimer’s disease are described. Also detailed are several mechanisms whereby significant quantities of aluminium introduced via immunisation could produce chronic neuropathology in genetically susceptible children. Accordingly, it is recommended that the use of aluminium salts in immunisations should be discontinued and that adults should take steps to minimise their exposure to environmental aluminium.

Dear John allow me to give you a fairly detailed reply
Re Exley only not among those who think there should be no research at all (like yourself). Absolutely not John, I’m all in favour of research, (you obviously know my background so you can judge from that), just not half ar**d research which doesn’t include control material in a study on such valuable material as autistic brains. Here are some relevant quotes from a 2011 review on aluminium in the human brain by Exley https://www.futsci.com/uploads/project/file/f004582d987d2142ba418d26149d258d64e024e9.pdf
the scientific literature has over several decades consistently recorded values for ‘normal’ brains as being in the range 0.1–4.5 µg Al/g tissue (dry wt) with the higher values >2.0 being measured in brains taken from the nondemented elderly. There is a clear trend for an increase in brain aluminium content with age
So point 1 if brain aluminium increases with age there is every need to include age matched controls from non-autistic brains: Exley used donor brains from people aged 15, 22, 33, 44 & 50 with no controls
Point 2 taking his value of 4.5µg/gm as the upper limit for “normal” brains only 8 out of the 57 measurements in the autistic brains exceed this value, all the rest fall into what Exley called normal values indeed 33 of the 57 measurements are <2µg/gm.
Looking at the replicate results >4.5µg/gm there is never more than 1 of the 2 or 3 replicates on the same sample that exceeds 4.5, there are some clear outliers (17.1, 18.5, 22) that are very different from the other repeat tests on the sample. Exley complains that no attention has been paid to this paper, https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.hippocraticpost.com/ageing/autism-aluminium-din-silence/amp/ perhaps it’s because it is so obviously flawed in both design and analysis, so yes indeed let him look for aluminium in autistic brains but for goodness sake include non-autistic controls.
As I replied to Angus let’s see what the Cochrane review discloses re the safety of aluminium adjuvants, although my point was that although aluminium has no known role in our metabolism because of the ubiquitous nature of the element our physiology has evolved to cope with the daily intake of aluminium from the environment, food etc. All the modelling work shows that Al toxicity from adjuvants isn’t an issue, and I’m discounting the heavily criticised Tomljenovic kite flying exercise http://www.who.int/vaccine_safety/committee/topics/adjuvants/Jun_2012/en/
The European Ombudsman’s given her verdict John on the Nordic complaint, sounds like it’s sounds off from the sideline “put your glasses on ref!”.
Re the nanoparticles that’s for another post

And its not just us, that thinks the EMA is as bent as nine bob note(not to be trusted)..

Half of new medicines are ‘nothing new’

19/01/2018

"Can the European Medicines Agency (EMA) be truly independent, if it also is in close contact with the pharmaceutical industry? Last week , experts discussed this (and other related topics) at our event in the European Parliament, which Wemos co-organized with the European Parliament group of SP (GUE/NGL).
But some speakers expressed their concern about EMA’s credibility, and that there is still the need for more trust in the agency. Dick Bijl, who spoke on behalf of Wemos, referred to research on the added therapeutic value of new medicines on the European market, stating that 51% could be described as ‘nothing new’ in terms of therapeutic value (as compared to existing medicines). He stressed that European politicians should facilitate the legal possibilities for EMA to demand from the industry that it includes independent trial data in its market authorization application, as independent research has proven to be more transparent about new medicines’ true value than research that has been financially supported by the pharmaceutical industry.

Ella Weggen (global health advocate): ‘We need independent research, in order to assess the added therapeutic value of new medicines on the European market.’"

https://www.wemos.nl/en/ema-and-big-pharma-conflict-of-interests-or-not/

Pharma For Prison

MMR RIP

Angus rightly reminds me of Camelford and the great aluminium poisoning. At the end of the enquiry in 2013 Chris Exley wrote to BMJ (in term reminiscent of the way Dickens described the Circumlocution Office, the archetypal British government office, in Little Dorrit):

----------------------------------------------------------------

Re: Campaigners criticise report into Camelford water poisoning

It is if nothing else reassuring to read at least one news item on the publication of this report, now more than one month ago.

It does not come as any surprise to learn that this latest enquiry, 13 years in the making, has achieved absolutely nothing. This is not altogether the fault of those who sat on the enquiry. It was not they who chose not to appoint anyone with the relevant experience to the panel. It may have been them who chose not to invite anyone with the relevant experience to make submissions to the panel. I was certainly not asked to do so and I volunteered my services.

The brief point to be made here is that by simply reading between the lines of the very brief section of the report which outlines possible further research it becomes abundantly clear that neither those questions which were asked at the outset nor those questions which should have been asked at the outset have been answered or in some cases even addressed in this report.

This has proven to be a terrible waste of both time, for the panel and for the people of Camelford, and a complete waste of taxpayer's money.

If ever there was a panel set up with the absolute intention of achieving nothing then this is such a model for the future.

The story of Britain's most catastrophic mass poisoning of the public remains to be told. It is not too late to begin to do this and I urge the government to at least act upon the recommendations of this report, actions which could have been instigated 13 years ago if not 25 years ago immediately after this terrible event.

The very limited (and wholly independent) science which has investigated Camelford to date has demonstrated that there is a story to be told. This is perhaps why this report has gone out of its way to prevent this from happening.

-----------------------------------------------------------

The Camelford disaster happened signally in July 1988 (just as MMR was about to be introduced) and the Department of Health moved into cover up. In 2005 the late Elizabeth Sigmund wrote to BMJ:

-----------------------------------------------------------

Handling of the Camelford incident by the Department of Health

I am writing to support the letter published in the BMJ written by Dr
Chris Exley and signed by 58 international aluminium specialists.

Professor Woods is the chairman of the Lowermoor Sub-group, a
subgroup of COT, which is itself an Advisory Body of the Department of
Health (DoH). I would like to draw attention to some of the actions of the
DoH in relation to the Lowermoor incident.

In late July 1988 I made contact with a senior toxicologist at the
DoH, Dr G K Matthew. We spoke many times: he told me that he had attended
committee meetings about the Lowermoor acid water incident and had urged
the department to send an expert team to North Cornwall to gather samples
of the water and other relevant data, and to make clinical assessments of
the health of the people. His words to me were: “I am constantly being
overruled”. He asked me to write a critique of the actions of the DoH in
relation to this incident. His words were: “State what we did that we
should not have done, what we have not done that we should have done, and
name names.”

I was also at that time in contact with Dr Virginia Murray of the
Poisons Unit at Guys Hospital London. She told me that they had a team
ready to go down to North Cornwall but that the DoH told her that there
was no need as the DoH was carrying out an investigation itself. As we now
know, neither the DoH nor the Poisons unit carried out any investigation
of the event.

On the 24 August 1988 Dr C R Grainger, Specialist in Community
Medicine for the Cornwall and Isles of Scilly Health Authority, received a
letter from Michael Waring, Senior Medical Officer at the DoH. In this
letter Mr Waring said: “I have not of course undertaken clinical or
laboratory examination of any of those who may have suffered ill effects,
and have not been in a position to verify any of the clinical reports or
water quality data independently. You will wish to show this letter and
the attached document to interested parties locally.” Under the heading
‘Long-term effects’ he said: “There is no reason to expect long-term or
delayed harm following on the evident effect of these substances on the
gastrointestinal tract. Long-term effects on other organs would not be
expected for several reasons as follows: a) the amount of the substances
absorbed and retained at the time of the incident would have been very
small; b) the period of exposure was relatively short; c) no long-term
effects are reported in the scientific literature for most of these
substances.”

We know that Dr Grainger circulated this letter and attachment to
medical practitioners at all levels in the West Country, so it therefore
had a profound effect on the understanding of the possible effects of this
incident and therefore the treatment of patients.

In the autumn of 1988 I spoke to Christopher Beazley, then MEP for
Plymouth and Cornwall. He told me that he had discovered that the then
Department of the Environment (DoE) had never informed the European
Commission (EC) of this major contamination of drinking water, which,
under EC directive 80/778 Article 10, they are obliged to do. When I spoke
to Paul Douglas at the DoE he said: “We didn’t notify the EC because Mr
Waring at the DoH told us that aluminium is non-toxic.”

We now note with concern that Professor Woods and his committee
appear to be repeating these findings. In para 1.22 (page 16) of the draft
report the executive summary states: “On the basis of the available data,
it is not anticipated that the combination of metals which occurred as a
result of the pollution incident would have caused or would be expected to
cause delayed or persistent additive or synergistic effects.”

On inquiring of the secretariat of the Woods committee whether or not
they had seen the medical records of people claiming to be suffering long-
term effects from consuming the water, or whether or not they were going
to undertake clinical or medical testing or assessments of the health of
these people, I was told that they were not taking either of those
courses. This appears to me to be a most extraordinary decision, as it is
merely reiterating the statements made by Mr Waring and Barbara Clayton.

Many patients lost fingernails and toenails in the months following
the event: one patient presented Professor Woods with a sample bottle of
nails, which Professor Woods acknowledged with a nod but with no
suggestion of conducting a metabolic investigation (para 1.27: “…further
metabolic investigation of the patients’ nails was not required.”)
Professor Woods and his team are highly qualified people, albeit without
the presence on the committee of an expert in aluminium toxicity, it is
therefore even more surprising that thoroughgoing and convincing clinical
investigations have not been undertaken.

Elizabeth Sigmund
Hon D Sc

"Angus aluminium is circulating 24/7 in you, me and everyone else, it has no known role in the body’s metabolism but I suggest you wait for the results of the Cochrane review into the safety of aluminium adjuvants, "

Eindecker what will you and the Cochrane kangeroo review,do about Carole Cross in the Camelford disaster..I am sure the driver of the lorry in the Camelford Disaster wished he could have put the tooth paste back in the tube also..or even the Big Al back in the lorry.Sadly just so much evidence against you all that Big Al is bad for you and any living microorganism`s (show me I am wrong one link will do anywhere).What will the review have to do with real science,the science on Big Al was done decades ago.. al-ley-oop!! for us.

"Expert tells inquest into death of Carole Cross that boiling water would have tripled concentration of aluminium"

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/mar/05/camelford-water-poisoning-advice-inquest

Pharma For Prison

MMR RIP

Hi Fred & Conta, yes they’ve been raided, but it’s a simple criminal fraud allegation, so no great conspiracy here: http://www.unionesarda.it/articolo/cronaca/2018/02/22/sequestrati_pc_della_dottoressa_gatti_ieri_ha_testimoniato_nel_pr-68-700453.html Google English translation Dr. Gatti's PCs, witnessed in the process on the poisons of Quirra, were seized Thursday 22nd February Marie Antoinette Gatti in Lanusei Marie Antoinette Gatti testified to Lanusei in the process for poisons in the polygon of Quirra. Today, the Guardia di Finanza presented itself in his laboratory in Modena and seized all the computers. The Emilian scientist is suspected of fraud: the investigation was born from the complaint of a non-profit organization claiming possession of a microscope purchased through a subscription and then entrusted to Dr. Gatti. Dr. Gatti is called to testify again before the court in Lanusei hearing on February 28 next.
John you choose not to include the European Ombudsman’s findings on the Nordic Cochrane’s complaint re the EMA, it was I have now concluded my analysis in the latter case. My conclusion, based on the evidence obtained by my inquiry team in a detailed inquiry, is that there are no interests that should have been declared, and therefore there was no maladministration by EMA.
As with Exley’s aluminium study the nanoparticle study has no data using control material ie non-autistic brains in Exley’s case or in the nanoparticles blank sterile water, saline or perhaps other sterile injectables, such as antibiotics, insulin or whatever, anything you’d include in a reasonable study, but they choose not to.
Angus aluminium is circulating 24/7 in you, me and everyone else, it has no known role in the body’s metabolism but I suggest you wait for the results of the Cochrane review into the safety of aluminium adjuvants, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD012805/full before jumping to any unwarrented conclusions.

For Fred , I'd suggest NanoParticles could swing an election , how about them apples .
Do you know Burrito ?

http://time.com/5165670/vaccine-skepticism-northern-league-five-stars/

How Anti-Vaxxers Could Help Decide Italy's Election

Just over two years later that debate has gone from an online feud to a live political issue in the Italian general election due on March 4. As skepticism about vaccines has become widespread in Italy, so-called “anti-vaxxers” have become a voting bloc for the populist parties vying for votes. As a result, two of the leading populist parties — the far-right League (formerly the Northern League) and the anti-establishment Five Star Movement (5SM) — have pledged, if elected, to scrap a law passed in July that made ten vaccinations compulsory for children under the age of 16. If they do, health experts warn it could be a huge step backwards in the global fight for children’s health.

So we're rehashing the "nanocontamination" thing and adding the pharma shill gambit. And after a week or whatever no one knows why their office was raided? Are we even sure it WAS raided?

But Angus as Stefano Montanari explained in the video the other day it is whole different order of problem if the particles are injected because the body has no way of dealing with them and they just get lodged in tissue.

Bob; Right. The cost of doing business in this case has well crossed the line. No other business on the face of the earth could get away with what medicine gets away with. They seem to be able to influence, and control everything.

"French experts further concluded that their findings are due to the presence of these types of particles everywhere in the environment and should not be considered a health risk."

Big BUTTTT !!..

by DA Ramirez Jr - ‎2009 - ‎Cited by 54 - ‎Related articles
20 Feb 2009 - In the majority of patients, food particle inhalation induces respiratory symptoms that can be nasal (rhinorrhea, sneezing, nasal congestion), ocular (tearing, redness, irritation), or lower respiratory (cough ..... Allergic reactions associated with airborne fish particles in IgE-mediated fish hypersensitive patients.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2651849

Pharma For Prison

MMR RIP