Shocker: Study Unwittingly Links Vaccines To Autism

TruthFact
Source: NoMoreFakeNews.com | JonRappoport.wordpress.com
By: Jon Rappoport
June 14, 2017

Start with this:

A new study links fever in pregnant women to an increased risk of autism in their babies.

MedicalNewsToday (6/13/17): “A study of a large group of children found a link between raised risk of autism spectrum disorder and their mothers reporting fever during pregnancy. The link was strongest with fevers reported during the second trimester.”

“The study – led by the Mailman School of Public Health at Columbia University in New York City, NY – also found that the risk of autism increased in line with the number of fevers reported after 12 weeks of gestation – rising to 300 percent higher risk [of autism] with reports of three or more fevers.”

Next, here is a one-word item from the World Health Organization web page, Vaccine Safety Basics. The item comes under the heading of “minor vaccine reactions,” and applies to every vaccine: the reaction is FEVER.

Pregnant woman gets vaccines. Vaccines cause fevers. Fevers are linked to autistic babies.

Here is a CDC list of vaccines given to pregnant women, under various conditions: HepA, HepB, Flu, Tdap (tetanus, diphtheria, pertussis), meningococcal, polio, Rabies. Fever, as a typical and minor adverse effect, would be expected and ignored for ANY AND ALL of these vaccines.

Accepting the finding of the new study, cited above—routine vaccination for pregnant women is linked to an increased risk of autism in their babies.

That’s it in a nutshell.

No doubt if you pointed out the inevitable conclusion to a doctor or a researcher, they would try to worm out of it. They would say, “Well, we’re not talking about fever resulting from vaccines. We’re talking about fever coming from an infection in the pregnant woman.” Really? Why don’t you think the vaccine is producing fever? It’s causing an infection, and the immune system is reacting. Fever is an entirely expected consequence.

Note: I’m not saying the creation of fever is the only reason vaccines cause autism and various types of neurological damage. I’m saying here is a new connection.

And mainstream medicine and the mainstream press will ignore it completely.

Read More At: JonRappoport.wordpress.com
_______________________________________________________________

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

Advertisements

US government has already paid out $159 million in damages to vaccine injured children so far in 2017

Image: US government has already paid out $159 million in damages to vaccine injured children so far in 2017
Source: NaturalNews.com
Amy Goodrich
May 26, 2017

America has been under the spell of a vaccine hysteria due to the recent measles outbreak among unvaccinated Somali-Americans in Minnesota. Once again, vaccine skepticism and anti-vaccine activists, such as the “discredited” Dr. Andrew Wakefield, have been blamed for the outbreak that affected 48 people.

Americans are constantly told that vaccines are the safest, most effective prevention measures, only causing mild side-effects in very rare occasions. If vaccines are so safe, why has the U.S. government already paid out nearly $159 million to vaccine-injured families in 2017 alone? Since 1989, a grand total of more than $3.6 billion has been awarded to individuals and their families for injuries and deaths attributed to vaccines, according to data published by the U.S. Health Resources & Services Administration (HRSA). (RELATED: Click here to view the latest report on vaccine injuries and payments made by the U.S. government for vaccine damages.)

Not many Americans, however, are aware of the existence of a vaccine fund, known as the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP), that pays out claims to people and families whose loved ones were injured by vaccines. This special fund was a direct result of a law passed in 1986 that gave pharmaceutical companies total legal immunity from being sued for injuries and deaths related to vaccines.

With no risk whatsoever for vaccine manufacturers, vaccine production has gone through the roof since the initial passing of the law and the creation of the vaccine injury court. Not entirely surprising, the U.S. government is one of the largest purchasers of these vaccines, spending more than $4 billion in taxpayer dollars each year, reported Vaccine Impact.

Has fear driven us completely insane?

In the past, some vaccine proponents have suggested parents who decide not to vaccinate their children with toxic substances are criminals and should be sued or even jailed to protect public health. However, what these people are suggesting is that we keep poisoning the brains of our children while Big Pharma is laughing all the way to the bank. And they know they can get away with it since the government has their back.

Out of fear, imprinted in our brains through our family doctor, schools, and public campaigns, many Americans keep injecting their children with autism-causing substances. These people want us to believe diseases such as the flu and the measles are relentless killers, stressing once more the importance of vaccines to protect our children’s health.

Amidst the heated debate over the question of whether parents should be forced to vaccinate their child, it is often forgotten that most of these diseases aren’t so deadly after all. Between 2004 and 2010, a total of five people died of measles, according to the Centers for Disease Control’s (CDC) own data.

Let’s get back to the recent Minnesota measles outbreak for just a second. There are about 5.3 million people living in Minnesota, and only 48 of them got sick. Nobody died. Think of it, is the prevention of 48 cases of people contracting a rather harmless disease in healthy people worth damaging the brains of thousands of children living there?

Even though the mainstream media and government keep spreading fear or lecturing people about how the link between brain damage, autism, and vaccines has been debunked, we should know better by now. Vaccines aren’t the world’s miracle invention. On the contrary. A massive cover-up of their health risks has been ongoing for years. As a country with one of the most aggressive vaccination schedules and skyrocketing numbers of autistic children, it is time we stop ignoring the cold, hard facts and put two and two together.

Read More At: NaturalNews.com

Sources:

NaturalNews.comPDF

NaturalNews.com

VaccineImpact.com

NaturalNews.com

CDC.gov

SuburbanStats.org

$142 million dollars has been paid out to families from the secret vaccine injury fund so far in 2017

Image: $142 million dollars has been paid out to families from the secret vaccine injury fund so far in 2017

Source: NaturalNews.com
D. Samuelson
May 24, 2017

Do you know the vaccine schedule for newborns and infants in the United States? In 2017, there are currently 27 doses of 11 different vaccinations that are currently injected, or orally dispensed, to children up to fifteen months of age. All of these are approved and recommended by the Center for Disease Control (CDC). These vaccines include Rotavirus (RV), Hepatitis B, Influenza, Measles, mumps, rubella (MMR), Tetanus, diphtheria & acellular pertussis (Tdap), just to name a few. The complete list can be found here. All of these vaccines that your pediatrician willingly supplies to your new baby allow foreign and toxic substances to flow into their bloodstream and brain causing unknown damage.

In 1950, as reported by VacTruth.com, a child would only receive “7 vaccines by the age of 6.” In 2013, by the time a child was six years old that number shot up to 36. That’s an increase of 414 percent! How much did the profits of pharmaceutical companies rise in the last 67 years? We can only imagine. But the parents of children injured by this ever multiplying number of required toxic vaccinations don’t always fare so well. WakingTimes.com reports that during the first half of the current fiscal year, $142 million was awarded to 337 vaccine injured families who had the tenacity, support and appropriate documentation to claim damages in the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VCIP). That seems like a paltry sum compared to the enormity of damage and pain that families have endured at the behest of pharmaceutical companies.

The VCIP was created in conjunction with the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 which “granted immunity to pharmaceutical companies and prevented parents from suing vaccine makers for vaccine injuries or death.” It was signed into law by President Reagan although, as reported by the New York Times, he expressed “serious reservations” about the vaccine compensation program. Conversely, Reagan readily endorsed a provision of the bill that would allow, for the first time, “pharmaceutical companies to export drugs to other countries that have approved their use, without waiting for the United States to approve the drugs’ sale here.” It was all about increasing the “competitiveness of the American pharmaceutical industry abroad.” Indeed. But wasn’t it First Lady Nancy Reagan who, almost that very same year, coined the phrase, “Just Say No?”

Over $3.6 billion has been awarded to injured parties since the compensation program began, and it’s not always due to injuries received by children. After 2005,  the influenza shots were being made more available and marketed primarily to adults. Since that time, so many adults have filed claims that it has changed “the proportion of children to adults receiving compensation.”

While there have been many payouts from the court, the majority of families affected by vaccines do not receive the justice they deserve. There are untold vaccine injured families that couldn’t get the support, the documentation, the right representation or the funds they needed to fully prepare their case in order to bring it in front of the court for consideration. One tragic example of this is the case of little Aysia Hope Clark. Aysia was the daughter of Louisiana residents Hope Doucet and Joseph Clark. She was born on May 11, 2015, and sadly, died on July 4, 2015.

Vactruth.com tells the tragic story. Aysia Hope Clark died shortly after receiving eight vaccinations in ten days. These were recommended by her pediatrician even though she had been born premature, was jaundiced and a heart murmur was suspected. The parents were denied the specific medical records necessary to appeal the case to the VCIP. Poor Aysia and her family will never see their day in court. The chart below reveals the ingredients in each of the eight vaccines little Aysia was given. These vaccines are nowhere to be found on the autopsy report. The official cause of death was determined to be “co-sleeping.”

Read More At: NaturalNews.com

Sources:

CDC.gov

VacTruth.com

WakingTimes.com

NyTimes.com

YouTube.com

VacTruth.com

Whopping Vaccine Injury Payouts for US Fiscal Year 2017 Released

vaccines
Source: WakingTimes.com
Brendan D. Murphy
May 9, 2017

Yet another shocking blow has been delivered to people who still ardently claim that vaccines are “safe and effective,” and that the only complications they can cause are “mild.” The US government department for Health Resources and Services Administration has recently released the running tally of the just-past-half-way-complete US Fiscal Year (FY) of 2017 for compensable vaccine injuries. It currently stands at over $142 million dollars. You read that right. That covers the 377 cases that were thus far successful in obtaining compensation in fiscal year 2017 through the heavily biased (to put it politely) system allegedly in place to redress damage done by vaccines in the USA.

At the rate things are going, we might expect the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program to pay out around $220 million or more by the close of FY 2017. To clarify, US Fiscal Year 2017 runs from October 1st, 2016 to September 30th, 2017 – there’s still over four months remaining to rack up more carnage.

Screenshot source: http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/data/monthlywebsitestats04_01_17.pdf

The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 was created to “reduce liability and respond to public health concerns.” It granted immunity to pharmaceutical companies and prevented parents from suing vaccine makers for vaccine injuries or death. What other industry has such exceptional standards applied to it? Why the special privilege a.k.a. license to injure and kill with impunity?

According to the CDC’s website, there are “limitations in our knowledge of the risks associated with vaccines” and vaccinations have “the following problems”:

  1. Limited understanding of biological processes that underlie adverse events
  2. Incomplete and inconsistent information from individual reports
  3. Poorly constructed research studies (not enough people enrolled for the period of time)
  4. Inadequate systems to track vaccine side effects
  5. Few experimental studies were published in the medical literature.”1 (emphasis added)

The above very revealing admissions from the US Centers for Disease Control (CDC) completely undercut the pathological overconfidence exhibited in the extreme portions of the community pushing for mandatory vaccination.

Similarly, the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program compensation numbers are, not only not reassuring, but, frankly astonishing, and should give not just all parents, but all people in general, serious pause. If vaccines are “safe and effective” as our medical practitioners and politicians constantly tell us via mainstream media outlets, then why are there already over 370 compensated cases in fiscal year 2017? Why is there a running payout total from 1988 up to now of “around $3.6 billion,” according to the US Health Resources and Services Administration?

Why, if vaccines are just so gosh darned safe, does the HRSA government website state (see image above) that, “Since influenza vaccines (vaccines administered to large numbers of adults each year) were added to the VICP in 2005, many adult petitions related to that vaccine have been filed, thus changing the proportion of children to adults receiving compensation”?2

It seems to make some sense that the true purpose of the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program is simply to pay lip service to justice and decency, while allowing pharmaceutical companies to receive a minor slap on the wrist (largely in the form of bad PR) before they go right on with business as usual – “pay to play” or something like that (but then I’m a cynic.). The economic losses are affordable and “worth it”; the human losses are an inconvenient public relations issue to be “managed.”

So Many Questions, So Few Answers

Why, if “many” fully grown adults are seeking injury compensation should we make the blanket assumption that these same vaccines will be “safe and effective” for babies and small children? The doses are not weight adjusted. No vaccines are weight adjusted to account for the much smaller and more fragile physiology of a baby. Why? Why does a baby receive the same amount of heavy metals, carcinogens, and the many other toxic ingredients (such as polysorbate-80) that a full grown 200 pound man receives? Where else in medicine is such a lack of dose control not only tolerated, by blindly promoted and held as sacred?

Why are we not seeing any double-blind randomized controlled trials with true placebo groups demonstrating clearly and honestly that flu (or other) vaccines are safe and not causing children any harm – as well as being “effective”? Until 2005, based on the HRSA document, the ONLY petitions filed for flu vaccine injuries were on behalf of injured children. Where are those safety studies again? Where are the weight adjusted doses again? Why isn’t anyone taking up RFK Jr’s $100,000 mercury challenge if mercury-containing vaccines are so demonstrably safe? Why, why, why, Mr Anderson?

A recent peer-reviewed study published in the Pace Environmental Law Review looked at cases of vaccine injury that have been monetarily compensated by the VICP.

The study investigated approximately 1300 cases of childhood brain injury as a result of vaccines in which the Special Masters ruled for the plaintiffs, looking for references to autism, symptoms of autism or disorders commonly associated with autism. It reports that twenty-one cases actually stated “autism or autism-like symptoms” in the court records.  The researchers then identified and contacted 150 more compensated families to find out whether the children had autism.  They were able to find an additional 62 cases (greater than 40% of their sample) for a total of 83 cases of autism.  In 39 cases (47%) there was confirmation of autism beyond parental report.3 (Emphasis added. Autism is a proven vaccine adverse event. It is also listed in vaccine inserts as one of many possible abreactions.)

Since 1988, when the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program began, 5,353 petitions were assessed as compensable out of the 18,072 filed since then. Nearly 1-in-3 is actually fairly impressive, given the incredible medical, social, and legal bias against recognizing vaccine harm when it occurs, as well as the determined efforts by pharmaceutical companies in court to distort reality and manufacture false doubt in defending their products and controlling perception.

This doesn’t look good at a time when proponents of removing freedom of health choice are campaigning for “no jab no fly” policies that would prevent much of Australia from functioning (particularly economically). This fear-mongering and vaccine hysteria is all the more absurd when one pauses to consider that in Australia, as in the US, the clear majority of adults are FAR from being “up to date” with their shots – and have been for decades. We simply don’t worry about it. And yet, the much-feared epidemics never seem to materialize. In fact, most outbreaks seem to follow in the wake of intensive vaccination campaigns – but that’s just a coincidence, right? Just as it’s a coincidence that within hours of getting your baby home from the doctor’s surgery they were seizing, turning blue, and in the nascent stages of encephalopathy…Right?

Because clearly, after $3.6 billion dollars worth of legal payouts in the US alone since 1988 – and with adverse events being under-reported (in the VAERS) to the extent of 90% or more, and with mature adults and children alike being injured by flu (and the other) vaccines to the extent of requiring compensation, clearly, vaccines are simply “safe and effective.”

Logically, if we mandated vaccination across the board, the only possible outcome is an explosion of vaccine injuries and people seeking compensation. It’s simple math. More vaccines means more vaccine injuries and deaths. Aside from the immeasurable human psychological cost and loss of quality of life, who is going to fund the payouts? Is Big Pharma stepping up to the plate and preparing to own the harm it is causing? Not likely, since pharmaceutical companies are legally immune (at least in America). Vaccine Injury Compensation Program funding comes from an excise tax charged on each vaccine:

Vaccine Injury claims are paid from the Vaccine Injury Compensation Trust Fund, managed by the U.S. Department of Treasury.

The [VICP] Trust Fund receives its money from a 75 cent excise tax on vaccines recommended by the [CDC] for routine administration to children. The excise tax is imposed on each dose, or preventable disease of a given vaccination. (central-pennsylvania.legalexaminer.com)

This reminds me of the carbon tax, which essentially allows “polluters” to simply pay a tax/”penalty” for their emissions and continue with business as usual. It isn’t a deterrent at all for vaccine manufacturers. They would factor it in to their costs of operating.

Disturbing Changes

In September 2014, the CDC notified federal vaccine advisory committees that soon they will no longer be accepting vaccine adverse event reports via phone, fax, or mail. Instead, officials have stated that they will only accept electronic reports of vaccine reactions, injuries, hospitalizations, and death. (vactruth.com)

According to VacTruth, “70 percent of VAERS reports are still filed the old-fashioned way, handwritten and submitted via mail or fax. A mere 30 percent of adverse event reports are submitted to VAERS online.”4 Therefore, the change to adverse event reporting seems designed to make it harder to keep accurate tabs on the true number of significant vaccine injuries by discouraging reporting them in general. Some parents dealing with a severe abreaction in a child may also be too overwhelmed and distressed to have the time or inner resources to file a report, a fact few people even consider. Other factors make obtaining compensation even harder:

…certain adverse reactions from vaccines have been removed from the injury tables, including encephalopathy (swelling of the brain) and seizure disorders resulting from specific vaccines, two very common adverse reactions…and autism as a primary injury. Injuries from anthrax and smallpox vaccines are not covered under the NVICP…Parents who file a report with VAERS must file a separate report if they wish to seek compensation for their child’s vaccine injury or death. Furthermore, if your child was hospitalized from a vaccine, but they did not require surgery, you would not be able to file a claim seeking compensation, unless you can prove with certain kinds of evidence that the effects of the injury have lasted longer than six months.5

You also need an attorney to file on your behalf. And did you know that injury claims may take from two to ten years to resolve through the VICP? Imagine being a bereaved parent and pondering that life-sucking prospect. The system is very clearly weighted against any kind of justice for vaccine-injured people. This is why I say that nearly 1-in-3 cases receiving compensation so far is actually quite an achievement – all things considered.

You may support blanket vaccination on the way IN to the doctor’s surgery, but you may not support it so much when your child is brain-dead (or just dead) 72 hours later. It happens. I personally know many vaccine-injured people – so many I’ve lost count. My partner is one (thank you very much, Gardasil). The media hides it. Politicians lie about it. Doctors parrot fallacious medical dogmas without thinking. Big Pharma continues doing what Big Pharma does best: poisoning us while we pay them for the privilege.

The x-factor is YOU, the wild card, the ghost in the machine, the one who can stop, think, and say “NO.” You have the power to recognise something that doesn’t make sense and to try a different way – and if you have children then, more to the point, you have the responsibility.

Next fiscal year, let’s aim for $0 in compensation payouts through 100% non-compliance – meaning no vaccine injuries and deaths at all – and a public that understands REAL disease risk and how to actually be resistant and robust rationally. Wouldn’t that be something?

Read More At: WakingTimes.com


Endnotes

  1. http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/Vaccine_Monitoring/history.html
  2. https://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/data/monthlywebsitestats04_01_17.pdf
  3. http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/83-cases-of-autism-associated-with-childhood-vaccine-injury-compensated-in-federal-vaccine-court-121570673.html
  4. http://vactruth.com/2015/02/19/vaccine-injury-compensation/?utm_source=The+Vaccine+Truth+Newsletter&utm_campaign=080e55aa44-02_19_2015_vaers&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_ce7860ee83-080e55aa44-408191918
  5. Ibid.
About the Author

Brendan D. Murphy – Co-founder of Global Freedom Movement and host of GFM RadioBrendan DMurphy is a leading Australian author, researcher, activist, and musician. His acclaimed non-fiction epic The Grand Illusion: A Synthesis of Science & Spirituality – Book 1 is out now! Come and get your mind blown at www.brendandmurphy.net

“What a wonderful job of collating and integrating you have done! Every person in the field of ‘paranormal’ psychology or related topics should have this book as a major reference.” – Dr. Buryl Payne

“A masterpiece…The Grand Illusion is mind-blowing.” – Sol Luckman, author of Potentiate Your DNA.

“You’ve written the best synthesis of modern science and esoteric science that I’ve seen in 40 years of study in that area. Brilliant!”  – Michael K. Wade

Please visit – www.globalfreedommovement.org

American Academy of Pediatrics declares “no science” needed to prove vaccines are safe, because they BELIEVE

Image: American Academy of Pediatrics declares “no science” needed to prove vaccines are safe, because they BELIEVE
Source: JeremyHammond.com
Jeremy Hammond
May 7, 2017

When asked whether it could provide studies to support specific claims it made about vaccine safety, the American Academy of Pediatrics ultimately declined.

On January 10, 2017, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) issued a press release to express its opposition to a federal commission that has been proposed by the Trump administration to examine vaccine safety and efficacy. The AAP argues that since we already know that vaccines are safe and effective, therefore there is no need for further examination into their safety and efficacy.

This argument, however, begs the question — it presumes in the premise the proposition to be proven (the petitio principii fallacy). And the press release itself illustrates why, apart from the question of whether there should be a federal commission, critical examination of public vaccine policy is very much warranted.

In its press release, among other things, the AAP stated that:

  • Vaccines prevent cancer.
  • Claims that vaccines are linked to autism “have been disproven by a robust body of medical literature”.
  • Claims that vaccines “are unsafe when administered according to the [CDC’s] recommended schedule” have likewise “been disproven by a robust body of medical literature”.

According to the AAP, its own claims are backed by solid science. Yet when asked whether it could provide citations from the medical literature to support its claims, the AAP first failed to do so, then essentially offered a “No comment” when pressed for a comment about its failure to do so.

With respect to the claim that vaccines prevent some forms of cancer, the AAP was asked:

  • Can you please direct me to any studies in the peer-reviewed medical literature showing any vaccine prevents cancer?

With respect to the other two, the AAP was asked the following questions:

  • Can you please direct me to the studies you are referring to in this body of literature that took into account the possibility of a genetically susceptible subpopulation?
  • Can you please point me to the studies in this body of literature that have compared health outcomes, including but not limited to developmental regression (i.e., autism), for children who’ve receive the CDC’s full schedule of vaccinations with children who’ve remained completely unvaccinated?

An initial email to the AAP containing these questions went unanswered.

The email was followed up with a phone call. Lisa Black, the AAP’s Media Relations Manager, assured that she would get back with answers to the questions. In a subsequent email, Ms. Black replied, “Please see information that AAP has posted for parents on this page”, which was followed by a link to a list of studies on the website HealthyChildren.org.

However, none of the listed studies on that page supports the AAP’s claim that “vaccines prevent … forms of cancer”.

None apparently considered the possibility of a susceptible subpopulation with a genetic susceptibility to adverse reactions to vaccines.

And none compared health outcomes of fully vaccinated children with completely unvaccinated children.

The list provided does contain numerous studies finding no association between vaccines and autism, but even the listed safety review by the Institute of Medicine (IOM) doesn’t go so far as to say that the hypothesis has been “disproven”.

On the contrary, the IOM acknowledges that it is biologically plausible that vaccines might cause autism in a genetically susceptible subpopulation, but characterizes this hypothesis is still “speculative” and “unsubstantiated”.

That is a world apart from saying it has been “disproven”.

One would think that the IOM’s conclusion, if its inquiry was a scientific one, would be that since this is such an important question and this specific hypothesis is plausible and not well studied, therefore there should be further study into this question of whether vaccines could trigger autism at least in some children with a genetic predisposition to vaccine injury.

But rather than calling for more research into this area, the IOM actually advocated that no further studies to test this hypothesis be done. Its stated reason for this was partly medical, but at least equally political — and certainly favorable to the profits of the pharmaceutical industry. The IOM’s reason was:

Using an unsubstantiated hypothesis to question the safety of vaccination and the ethical behavior of those governmental agencies and scientists who advocate for vaccination could lead to widespread rejection of vaccines and inevitable increases in incidences of serious infectious diseases like measles, whooping cough, and Hib bacterial meningitis.

In other words, since studying this hypothesis further would undermine public vaccine policy with its one-size-fits-all approach to disease prevention, therefore no further research to test the biologically plausible hypothesis should be done.

The AAP was sent a follow up email noting that none of the studies listed appeared to support the claims it made in the press release. The AAP was welcomed to correct the record, but did not dispute the observation that none of the studies listed showed that vaccines can prevent cancer, considered genetic susceptibility to vaccine injury, or compared health outcomes for vaccinated and unvaccinated children.

The additional follow up questions were also asked:

  • If the AAP cannot produce one or more studies that considered the possibility of a genetically susceptible subpopulation, how can it claim that any association between vaccines and autism has been “disproven”?
  • If the AAP cannot produce one or more studies that compared health outcomes between children vaccinated according to the CDC’s schedule and children who remained unvaccinated, how can it claim that any association between vaccines and autism has been “disproven”?

The AAP did not reply via email to the follow up questions.

In a second phone call requesting the AAP to produce such studies to support its claims, Ms. Black replied that she had provided everything the AAP was going to provide.

When confronted with the observation that none of the studies provided supported the AAP’s claim that vaccines can prevent cancer, she repeated that the AAP was not going to provide any additional information.

When asked whether the authors of the press release, AAP President Fernando Stein and Executive Vice President Karen Remley, would like to comment, Ms. Black abruptly ended the phone call by saying she was going to hang up and then doing so.

Questions Unanswered

The questions seem pertinent, particularly given the fact that the government has acknowledged that vaccines can cause brain damage resulting in developmental regression.

In 2008, then director of the CDC Julie Gerberding offered the following carefully worded acknowledgment:

Now, we all know that vaccines can occasionally cause fevers in kids. So if a child was immunized, got a fever, had other complications from the vaccines. And if you’re predisposed with a mitochondrial disorder, it can certainly set off some damage. Some of the symptoms can be symptoms that have characteristics of autism.

The context in which she was speaking was with respect to Hannah Poling, a child with a mitochondrial disorder who developed autism after receiving numerous vaccines on the same day and whose family was awarded compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP).

The VICP was established in the mid-1980s under a law that granted broad legal immunity to vaccine manufacturers. The government’s reason for doing so was that vaccine injury lawsuits were threatening to undermine public policy by putting vaccine manufacturers out of business.

The Supreme Court has upheld that legal immunity on the grounds that certain adverse reactions are “unavoidable” and “design defects” are “not a basis for liability.”

Around the same time as Gerberding’s admission, a former director of the National Institutes of Health, the late Bernadine Healy, criticized the refrain that any link between vaccines and autism has been debunked. She pointed out the kinds of studies that would be necessary in order to confidently draw that conclusion hadn’t yet been done.

Specifically, she noted the lack of studies taking into consideration a genetically susceptible subpopulation.

Ms. Healy also slammed the IOM for advocating that no further research be done and noted that as a potential cause of autism, “vaccines carry a ring of both historical and biological plausibility”.

Similarly, in contrast to the AAP’s claim that any association between vaccines and autism has been “disproven”, one of the CDC’s lead researchers on that very question, CDC Director of Immunization Safety Dr. Frank DeStefano, admitted in an interview in 2014 that “it’s a possibility” that vaccines could trigger autism in genetically susceptible individuals.

“It’s hard to predict who those children might be”, DeStefano observed, and trying to determine what underling conditions put children at risk of vaccine injury is “very difficult to do”.

Acknowledging the lack of studies in this area, he added that, “if we ever get to that point, then that kind of research might be fruitful.”

The AAP’s list of studies includes one or more for which DeStefano was an author.

The CDC also admits the need for further study in this area. Its website at the time of this writing acknowledges that “More research is needed to determine if there are rare cases where underlying mitochondrial disorders are triggered by anything related to vaccines.”

So how can the AAP claim that any association between vaccines and autism has been “disproven” when the studies that would be necessary to invalidate the hypothesis haven’t been done?

No comment.

That’s the AAP’s answer to the question, anyway.

The AAP’s attitude should perhaps come as no surprise, given its close relationship with the vaccine industry.

As CBS News reported in 2008, “The vaccine industry gives millions to the Academy of Pediatrics for conferences, grants, medical education classes and even helped build their headquarters.”

A Discussion to Be Had

The AAP argues in its press release against the formation of a federal commission, but its argument would apply to any public debate about the safety and efficacy of vaccines. By the AAP’s logic, like the IOM’s, also unnecessary are any discussion about it in the media and any further scientific inquiry.

But as Daniel Sarewitz observes, “as science approaches the cutting edge, it tends to raise as many questions as it resolves, so there is always room for debate about what the science is actually saying.”

Parents dubbed “anti-science” by the media are naturally curious why that label doesn’t seem to apply to those calling for no further inquiry into pertinent questions.

Parents aren’t just asking legitimate questions about vaccines. They’re doing what most doctors haven’t and spending a lot of time researching vaccines themselves. And they’re not just going to “anti-vaccine” websites to research it. They’re organizing, sharing information, and digging into the medical literature for themselves.

Parents can see the fundamental contradiction between public health officials and the media constantly insisting that vaccines are harmless even while the government grants legal immunity to the vaccine manufacturers on the grounds that vaccines are unavoidably unsafe and while the government manages a Vaccine Injury Compensation Program in order to shift the costs for damages and keep the vaccine manufacturers profitable — all to maintain public policy.

Parents understand how government and industry funding influences the direction and findings of scientific research, and how the medical establishment that has given us soaring costs and a population in which nearly 40 percent are chronically ill will tend to justify itself despite its abysmal performance and a long history of being wrong time and again, from tobacco science (older generations may remember how the industry used to get product endorsements from doctors) to the USDA recommended high-carb diet (which has contributed to the obesity epidemic and is more about satisfying food industry lobbyists than providing science-based advise) to the role of cholesterol in heart disease (scientific research no longer supports the hypothesis that dietary cholesterol contributes to blood cholesterol and heart disease risk).

Parents are aware of how government agencies like the FDA and the CDC serve the financial interests of the pharmaceutical industry. They see the corruption and the “revolving door” of Washington, such as how Julie Gerberding left her government job pushing vaccines as head of CDC to become president of the vaccine division for the pharmaceutical giant Merck.

They see how the AAP, too, has an incestuous relationship with “Big Pharma”. They understand how willful ignorance goes beyond the individual operating within the system and becomes institutionalized. And they watch as an organization that influences how their child’s pediatrician practices medicine accepts money from an industry they feel the AAP ought to be protecting them from.

They can witness how the AAP makes statements it claims are solidly backed by science, but which it is unwilling or unable to provide any studies to support. They understand that the truly “anti-science” position is the one that says no further scientific inquiry into an admittedly biologically plausible hypothesis is necessary.

Parents know there are many studies that have found no association between vaccines and autism. They don’t need the AAP to point this out to them. But they wonder why the AAP ignores all the studies that do support the hypothesis.

They wonder how the AAP can claim that the vaccine-autism hypothesis has been “disproven” when the most any of the studies it cites have concluded is that those particular studies, with their own particular focus, designed around their own particular assumptions, using a particular methodology, did not find an association between vaccines and autism.

And parents are asking questions like: What was the actual purpose of the study? What were the underlying assumptions made by the authors? What vaccines were being studied, and what outcomes? Who were the study groups? What were the criteria for their selection? What was the study’s methodology? What are its strengths and weaknesses? Do the conclusions drawn follow from the actual findings? How conclusive is it? What does the study actually prove, if anything?

Parents can see for themselves the huge disparity between what they are told science has to say about vaccines  — by public health officials, the medical establishment, and the mainstream media — and what science actually has to say about it.

The parents who are choosing not to vaccinate their children aren’t doing so because they are uneducated or unintelligent. On the contrary, studies show that they tend to be wealthier and more highly educated than the general population.

They aren’t choosing not to vaccinate because they are ignorant of the science. They are choosing not to vaccinate because they are digging into the medical literature (which can be searched via PubMed.gov) and awakening to the deceit they see coming out of the government and the mainstream media.

They see how mainstream journalists, rather than seriously investigating what the science actually says, rely on statements from agencies like the CDC and industry-funded organizations like the AAP to “inform” the public about the subject.

They see how the establishment is seeking to stifle debate not by respectfully addressing their legitimate questions, but by bullying them into silence and conformity, and they understand how such a phenomenon can arise because institutions with a life of their own feel threatened by the truth and act to preserve the status quo.

The AAP and other actors interested in preserving the public vaccine policy so far seem to have assumed that they can end the discussion by declaring authoritatively that there is no need for further discussion.

But if they ever hope to truly end the discussion, they are going to have to start taking parents’ concerns seriously and answering their legitimate questions with more than disingenuous public relations talking points that might as well have been written by the vaccine industry.

Read More At: NaturalNews.com

Why Isn’t There A Medical Snowden?

FakeNews

Source: NoMoreFakeNews.com | JonRappoport.wordpress.com
By: Jon Rappoport
May 5, 2017

The US press is aware that medically caused death is the third leading cause of death in America. But nothing happens in their elite corner of the “information age.”

For years, I’ve been pointing out that the medical apparatus is best-protected structure in the US and the world.

One piece of evidence for that statement: we haven’t had, symbolically speaking, a medical Edward Snowden. Indeed, if you go to WikiLeaks or some other source that routinely exposes leaks, you’ll be hard pressed to find anything substantial about the inner workings of what I call the medical cartel.

And when I say inner workings, I mean memos, emails, and other documents that irrevocably reveal:

* How medical studies are routinely twisted and cooked to achieve a predetermined outcome in contradiction to the facts;

* How virus-hunters casually claim to have discovered “the virus” that causes a disease, when they have not followed standard procedure, and are merely making insupportable and self-serving assumptions;

* How researchers ignore evidence that a “new disease” is indistinguishable from an old disease that has been on the scene for decades or even longer; there is money in new diseases;

* How medical drugs are having grave toxic effects on patients and delivering no visible results;

* How government health officials are conspiring with drug companies to bring medicines to market, despite the fact that there is every reason to assume the drugs are worthless and destructive;

* How public health agencies, researchers, and pharmaceutical companies cover up the widespread harm vaccines are causing;

* How fake epidemics are launched to convince the public that they must follow prescribed vaccination schedules.

These are just a few of the many issues we would expect an insider to expose in blowing the whistle. We would expect to see these issues (crimes) revealed in numerous and detailed and irrefutable paper trails.

What the CDC whistleblower, William Thompson, exposed in 2014 (see the film Vaxxed) mainly concerned one study that falsely exonerated one vaccine (the MMR) from a role in causing autism. That is just the tip of the iceberg.

Over the years, I’ve gone after the medical cartel from many angles. There is a surprising amount of open-source material. I have also interviewed medical “dissidents,” doctors who have left the fold and are ready to talk. And using straightforward logic, I’ve discovered deep flaws in spurious medical arguments, and those flaws have led to deeper flaws and lies.

I could easily do a week-long course for honest and independent medical reporters on what I’ve found and how I’ve found it. Connecting the dots often requires a prior knowledge of basic fallacies in the medical framework of “knowledge.”

I have never encountered a medical insider who had access to miles and miles of damning data and was prepared to release it to the world.

Understand: I’m NOT talking about practicing physicians who are willing to talk about medical lies. I’m talking about people who are buried deep in the heart of the pharmaceutical/government agency/research establishment, who are ready to step forward with documents that turn the establishment upside down, as a matter of duty to their various oaths.

This absence of deep insiders speaks to the wall that has been built around the medical cartel. We’re not just talking about insiders’ fear of going public. We’re talking about more. For example, the refusal of major media to cover deep revelations that threaten to torpedo the whole medical structure. A potential whistleblower pauses for thought in the face of that. He could risk everything, and then—silence from the press. No “Snowden coverage.” There would be unanimous press attacks on his person, accusations that the documents are forged or inconclusive, and he is mentally unbalanced. Accusations that he is preventing people from believing in a system that saves lives every day. And so on and so forth.

But that isn’t the end of it. The wall around the medical cartel is, in its origin, a Rockefeller wall. Modern medicine is a Rockefeller production, jump-started in the early 20th century with the famous Flexner Report. On the basis of the Report, medical systems devoted to discovering and treating disease were gradually transformed into a machine that routinely kills 225,000 Americans a year—and that is a conservative estimate.

Rockefeller influence is no small thing.

The march to include every human on the planet under the umbrella of modern diagnosis and treatment is relentless. It is part and parcel of an agenda to weaken, debilitate, confuse, control, and destroy populations. I do not make that statement lightly.

I have shown, in past investigations, that medical-cartel players are surely aware of the damaging effects of their drugs, and yet, for decades, they have stood by and done nothing. The profit motive is one thing; but this is, at the least, indifference to human suffering and death. You could call it reckless endangerment, negligent homicide, but these are euphemisms for assault with deadly weapons (the drugs) and murder.

You could say the reason medical insiders do not step forward and reveal key data is fear for their own lives; but this is true of whistleblowers in other professions who do step forward.

Suppose Edward Snowden, considering a plan to obtain and leak NSA data, felt strongly that the leaks would have no effect, that his revelations would be blacked out by the mainstream press, that no mainstream reporters would take his material and publish it?

Suppose there was no Glenn Greenwald to come to Snowden’s aid? Suppose the NSA had such a powerful propaganda arm that the public was utterly convinced the Agency was an angel with wings and was saving countless lives through its technology? Suppose, the public believed every act of NSA spying was comparable to doctors in an emergency room putting an accident victim back together after a car crash?

Snowden would have paused for thought. He would have wondered deeply about whether his leaks would have any effect at all.

Let me give you an example. For years, I have been writing articles about medically caused death in America. One of the key studies I’ve cited is decidedly mainstream. It was published on July 26, 2000, in the Journal of the American Medical Association. The author was Dr. Barbara Starfield, a revered and honored public health expert at the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health. Starfield concluded that the US medical system kills 225,000 Americans a year.

That would extrapolate to 2.25 MILLION deaths per decade.

Aside from a brief flurry of mainstream press articles that followed Dr. Starfield’s publication, in 2000, the press has been silent. My articles, which have been published at my site and other independent sites, have garnered no mainstream attention. Zero.

I’m not complaining. I’m merely pointing out the degree of mainstream censorship. The medical cartel has great influence.

A medical Edward Snowden, observing the media landscape, would have every reason to pause and consider his options. Why would he risk his reputation, his job, his paycheck, his future, his life, if the cartel he is exposing is so well protected that nothing would come of his bravery?

This is one reason why I write articles about the expanding power and influence of independent media. The day may come, and soon, when a medical Edward Snowden realizes he doesn’t have to find an editor at the New York Times who will look at his treasure trove of data and consider publishing it. Instead, he can pass along that data to any one of a hundred independent media operations and strike gold.

Or he can simply dump all the data on to a site he himself has created, comfortable in the knowledge that these same independent media sources will pick up the data, analyze it, and launch an unstoppable attack on the medical cartel.

Not one day’s coverage. A month, a year of coverage.

Operation Relentless Medical.

Then, the blind spot obscuring medical crimes will recede and vanish.

The public will no longer feel queasy about these revelations; the public will not feel they are witnessing a despicable attack on a wonderful messiah who has come to save the planet.

Eventually, the public will be able to make the distinction between emergency/crisis medicine, where competent and careful doctors (not sloppy and ignorant doctors) can save the lives of people who are lying on streets, after car wrecks, who need to be put back together—the public will be able to separate that from long-term fake medicine, where people are falsely diagnosed and drowned in toxic drugs which create a whole array of new symptoms which are then criminally diagnosed as new medical conditions, leading to the prescription of even more toxic drugs…all the way to the grave.

The public will understand how unnecessary and dangerous surgeries, and unnecessary and poisonous vaccines, are being foisted on them and those they love.

The public will understand. And will rise up.

This is not a pipe dream, if independent media continue to expand, and if they realize revelations of deep medical crimes are at least as important as exposures about the military industrial complex or the spying systems of national governments, or corporate pollution, or high-level money manipulation.

True medical insiders will step forward and reveal the secrets of the Temple.

I assure you, if we are alert, we are far more important and effective than “they” are.

A new day has dawned.

The sun is coming up.

Read More At: JonRappoport.wordpress.com
_______________________________________________________________

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

New CDC Research Debunks Agency’s Assertion That Mercury in Vaccines Is Safe

New CDC Research Debunks Agency's Assertion That Mercury in Vaccines Is Safe
Source: GreenMedInfo.com
Sayer Ji
April 17, 2017

Originally published on EcoWatch.com.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) once again advised pregnant women to curb consumption of fish in order to limit fetal exposures to neurotoxic mercury. This warning raises the baffling query: How can the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) justify its recommendations that pregnant women get flu shots which are laden with far more mercury than what’s found in a can of tuna?

The CDC has long answered that nettlesome question with the controversial claim that ethylmercury in vaccines is not toxic to humans. Now, two CDC scientists have published research decisively debunking that assertion. As it turns out, there is no “good mercury” and “bad mercury.” Both forms are equally poisonous to the brain.

The CDC studyAlkyl Mercury-Induced Toxicity: Multiple Mechanisms of Action, appeared last month in the journal, Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. The 45-page meta-review of relevant science examines the various ways that mercury harms the human body. Its authors, John F. Risher, PhD, and Pamela Tucker, MD, are researchers in the CDC’s Division of Toxicology and Human Health Sciences, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

“This scientific paper is the one of most important pieces of research to come out of the CDC in a decade,”

Paul Thomas, M.D., a Dartmouth-trained pediatrician who has been practicing medicine for 30 years, said.

“It confirms what so many already suspected: that public health officials have been making a terrible mistake in recommending that we expose babies and pregnant women to this neurotoxin. I regret to say that I gave these shots to children. The CDC led us all to believe that it was perfectly safe.”

Among the findings of the CDC’s new study:

  • Methylmercury, the highly-regulated neurotoxin found in fish, and ethylmercury (found in medical products, including influenza and tetanus vaccines, ear drops and nasal sprays) are similarly toxic to humans. Methylmercury and ethylmercury share common chemical properties, and both significantly disrupt central nervous system development and function.
  • Thimerosal is extremely toxic at very low exposures and is more damaging than methylmercury in some studies. For example, ethylmercury is even more destructive to the mitochondria in cells than methylmercury.
  • The ethylmercury in thimerosal does not leave the body quickly as the CDC once claimed, but is metabolized into highly neurotoxic forms.

Despite this stark rejection of a decade of CDC safety assurances, CDC’s public relations machine is still bucking the new scientific consensus; the article concludes with a telling disclaimer in tiny font:

“The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.”

CDC’s website continues to feature now discredited safety assurances.

“Baldly dismissing the danger to humans from ethylmercury, has long been a reckless gambit,” said J.B. Handley, a Portland, Oregon, businessman who believes that his son received debilitating injuries from a mercury vaccine.

“With this study, by its own scientists, the CDC has now edged into the realm of criminal endangerment.”

Handley, the founder of Generation Rescue, a vaccine safety advocacy group, condemns the CDC for misleading the medical establishment.

“The CDC knows that pediatricians and physicians rely on its public pronouncements when they make treatment decisions for their patients; how can we escape the conclusion that the agency is knowingly causing the poisoning of tens of millions of American children,” Handley stated.

For example, CDC’s webpage still parrots the now discredited industry canard that:

“Thimerosal contains ethylmercury, which is cleared from the human body more quickly than methylmercury, and is therefore less likely to cause any harm.”

However, the new study makes the opposite conclusion:

“Thimerosal is quickly metabolized in vivo (in a living organism) due to its reactions with protein and non-protein thiols … so the effects of thimerosal reported in numerous articles are very likely the result of exposure to the metabolite ethylmercury.”

Ignoring the agency’s own scientific evidence, the CDC’s webpage stubbornly insists that the “two types of mercury to which people may be exposed—methylmercury and ethylmercury—are very different.” The new CDC study directly contradicts this assertion, “There are many commonalities/similarities in the mechanisms of toxic action of methylmercury and ethylmercury …”

The study meticulously details identical toxicity pathways shared by both forms of mercury:

  • Both ethyl and methyl mercury cause DNA damage or impair DNA synthesis (Burke et al. 2006; Sharpe et al. 2012; Wu et al. 2008).
  • Both cause oxidative stress/creation of reactive oxygen species (Dreiem and Seegal 2007; Garg and Chang 2006; Myhre et al. 2003; Sharpe et al. 2012; Yin et al. 2007).
  • Both decrease glutathione activity, thus providing less protection from the oxidative stress caused by MeHg and EtHg (Carocci et al. 2014; Ndountse and Chan (2008); Choi et al. 1996; Franco et al. 2006; Mori et al. 2007; Muller et al. 2001; Ndountse and Chan 2008; Wu et al. 2008).
  • Both cause effects on cell division by damaging the spindle apparatus during mitosis (Burke et al. 2006; Castoldi et al. 2000; Gribble et al. 2005; Kim et al. 2007; Ou et al. 1999b; Machaty et al. 1999; Rodier et al. 1984).
  • Both MeHg and EtHg bind to the amino acid cysteine (Clarkson 1995; Wu et al. 2008).
  • Both MeHg and EtHg strongly inhibit the reacylation of arachidonic acid, thus inhibiting the reincorporation of this fatty acid into membrane phospholipids (Shanker et al. 2002; Verity et al. 1994; Zarini et al. 2006).
  • Both cause an increase in NOS, causing an overproduction of NO (Chen et al. 2003; Chuu et al. 2001; Shinyashiki et al. 1998).
  • Both disrupt glutamate homeostasis (Farina et al. 2003a, b; Manfroi et al. 2004; Mutkus et al. 2005; Yin et al. 2007).
  • Both alter intracellular calcium homeostasis (Elferink 1999; Hare et al. 1993;Kang et al. 2006; Limke et al. 2004b; Machaty et al. 1999; Marty and Atchison1997; Minnema et al. 1987; Peng et al. 2002; Sayers et al. 1993; Sirois and Atchison, 2000; Szalai et al. 1999; Tornquist et al. 1999; Zarini et al. 2006).
  • Both cause effects on receptor binding/neurotransmitter release involving one or more transmitters (Basu et al. 2008; Coccini et al. 2000; Cooper et al. 2003; Fonfria et al. 2001; Ida-Eto et al. 2011; Ndountse and Chan 2008; Yuan and Atchison 2003).

“This study is a nuclear bomb detonating over the CDC,” Boyd Haley, chairman emeritus of the University of Kentucky Chemistry Department, said. “It should be getting international, front page headlines.”

As one of the world’s leading authorities on mercury toxicity, Haley observed, “It’s a momentous rejection of a widely held medical orthodoxy dictating policy changes even more significant than the medical establishment’s reversals on thalidomide, calomel tooth powder, x-rays during pregnancy, or lead exposure to children. In each of these cases, thousands of children were injured or killed before an entrenched medical establishment was finally willing to abandon treatments that were unquestionably causing great harm.”

Ethylmercury vs. Methylmercury in Mass Poisonings

The revolutionary conclusions of the new CDC study actually reflect decades of work by mainstream independent scientists outside the agency. A rich scientific literature that emerged from accidental poisoning events has consistently documented—despite CDC’s official claims—that ethylmercury and methylmercury are equally toxic. In addition to the well-known Minamata and Iraq methylmercury-poisoning, many other large-scale food poisonings have occurred involving ethylmercury fungicides in Iraq in 1956 and 1960, in Pakistan in 1961, and in Russia in the 1960s as well. These episodes resulted in maladies ranging from basic tissue injury to heart and brain injury and even death.

Derban reported in 1974 on 144 cases of mercury poisoning from the use of ethylmercury fungicide on a southern Ghana state farm. Multiple other studies based on these poisoning events showed, as stated in a 1977 study by David Fagan, that the long-term neurological consequences produced by the “ingestion of either methyl or ethyl mercury-based fungicides are indistinguishable.”

1979 case report concerned a fifteen-year-old boy who had eaten the meat of a pig that had fed on ethylmercury fungicide−treated seed. Documented effects on the boy included debilitating brain damage and loss of coordination, with high toxicity for the brain as well as the spinal motor neurons, peripheral nerves, skeletal muscles, and heart muscle. The boy died about one month after becoming ill.

Ethylmercury’s use as pesticide was eventually banned in many countries, including the United States and those in the European Union, and for good reason: A 1977 study gauged ethylmercury chloride’s relative toxicity as a pesticide as the fifth most toxic of thirty substances tested, with a score of 12.7. That grade score almost matched that of DDT, at 14.2, an infamous pesticide banned in 1972.

In 1977 Fagan reported on 13 children suffering from exomphalos (a rare abdominal wall defect that allows the intestines to protrude from the abdomen) treated with gauze soaked applications of thimerosal to prevent infection. Of thirteen patients treated with thimerosal, 9 died. The authors tested mercury levels in the tissue of 8 of the children who died. They reported that “blood and tissue levels of mercury well above the threshold at which damage occurs in all other age groups, it is extremely unlikely that these infants escape neurological damage, which may be subtle.” One infant exposed to thimerosal and survived was later reported as being “restless, easily distracted, and not interested in schoolwork.” The authors recommended that “organic mercurial antiseptics should be heavily restricted or withdrawn from hospital use, as the fact that mercury readily penetrates intact membranes and is highly toxic seems to have been forgotten.”

Why Does the US EPA only Provide Guidelines for Exposure to Methylmercury and not Ethylmercury?

In 1995, based on research from outbreaks of poisonings and other research from the Faroe Islands and the Seychelles, the EPA established a safe “reference dose” for methyl mercury(RfD). An RfD is defined as “an estimate of a daily exposure to the human population (including sensitive subgroups) that is likely to be without an appreciable risk of adverse effects when experienced during a lifetime,” according to the EPA.

The EPA adopted for methylmercury an RfD of 0.1 microgram of mercury per kilogram of the individual’s body weight per day. Other health agencies set their own recommended limits for methylmercury exposure, including the FDA in 1979, the World Health Organization in 1989 and the US Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) in 1999. The highest of these limits was the WHO’s, at 0.47 microgram per kilogram of body weight per day.

In 1999 the US Congress directed the EPA to contract with the nonprofit, independent National Research Council (NRC) to prepare recommendations on an updated and appropriate RfD. The EPA commissioned the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and the NRC to carry out a study on toxicological effects of methylmercury compounds. The goal was to review the process used by the EPA to establish national safety standards. The committee evaluated the literature, which demonstrated methylmercury compounds’ high toxicity to brain tissue, even at minute levels. The NAS ultimately agreed with the EPA‘s originally conceived RfD, which remains in place today. An RfD has never been established for ethylmercury.

The CDC has crossed ethical and perhaps even legal boundaries by purposefully blocking efforts by the National Institute of Environmental Health Science’s (NIEHS) National Toxicology Program (NTP) to test ethylmercury for toxicity – a process that would have lead to maximum exposure guidelines. In 2000, the FDA nominated thimerosal to the NTP for toxicity testing. However, CDC officials derailed the review telling the NTP committee that “There is a great concern within CDC about continued attacks from anti-vaccine groups questioning the integrity of CDC activities and recommendations regarding the use of thimerosal-containing vaccine.” In response to CDC pressure, the NTP put thimerosal on permanent deferred status. Thimerosal has, therefore, never been tested for safety or toxicity.

Ethyl Mercury Exposure Levels Based on Methyl Mercury Guidelines

A single Thimerosal-preserved flu vaccine contains 25 micrograms of ethylmercury. If the EPA RfD for ingested methylmercury is applied to this injected ethylmercury figure, an individual would have to weigh more than 250 kilograms (551 pounds) for the 25 microgram exposure to be considered safe. Back in the 1990s, a two-month-old child could have received 62.5 micrograms from three vaccines in a single doctor’s visit. Assuming the child weighed about 5 kilograms (11 pounds), he or she would have received 125 times the EPA RfD for methylmercury.

At least one study has suggested that the methylmercury RfD should be set lower for infants and also for fetuses. In 1995, Steven Gilbert and Kimberly Grant-Webster wrote:“Available information on the developmental neurotoxic effects of MeHg [methylmercury], particularly the neurobehavioral effects, indicates that the fetus and infant are more sensitive to adverse effects of MeHg. It is therefore recommended that pregnant women and women of childbearing age be strongly advised to limit their exposure to potential sources of MeHg. Based on results from human and animal studies on the developmental neurotoxic effects of methylmercury, the accepted reference dose should be lowered to 0.025 to 0.06 MeHg [microgram]/kg/day.”

What might this mean for a fetus today? We’ll take the low end of that estimate and apply it to an average 1.15-kilogram (2.54-pound) fetus at the start of the third trimester. A fetus exposed to 25 micrograms of mercury via a Thimerosal-preserved flu shot administered to its pregnant mother could be subject to 870 times the proposed lower reference dose.

Mainstream Science Suggests Ethylmercury is More Toxic than Methylmercury

New and old research support the caveat that “safe” levels of ethylmercury exposure might indeed be dramatically lower than the EPA’s RfD. A 2012 Italian study, for instance, showed that ethylmercury-containing Thimerosal diminished the viability of human cells in the lab at a concentration one-fiftieth that of methylmercury. By this measure, ethylmercury is 50 times as toxic as methylmercury to humans.

Japanese research on rats in 1968 showed that ethylmercury compounds, such as ethylmercuric chloride from which Thimerosal is made, clear the body more slowly than other mercury compounds including mercuric chloride and phenylmercuric chloride.

A book chapter in 1972 by Staffan Skerfving, an emeritus professor at Lund University in Sweden, reviewed literature on methylmercury versus ethylmercury, noting several instances where compounds of the latter appeared more toxic than the former in animal studies.

For example, ethylmercury chloride killed off half of a test population of mice—a classic “LD50” (lethal dose) study—within a week at a concentration of 12 milligrams of mercury per kilogram of body weight; methylmercury chloride’s LD50, meanwhile, lethal to half the mice was 14 milligrams. This study suggested that ethylmercury was twice as toxic.

Further examples abound. Pig studies by Tryphonas and Nielsen in 1973 showed that ethylmercury “proved much more toxic” than methylmercury. Meanwhile, another 1973 study that emerged from a 1971 international conference found the toxicity of ethylmercury compounds comparable to or even greater than that of methylmercury, as well as more persistent in the brain.

An advisory committee at the conference reported that the International Committee on Maximum Allowable Concentration for Mercury and Its Compounds grouped ethylmercury with methylmercury, and observed that accounts of human intoxication with ethylmercury have usually described neurological and other symptoms similar to those of methylmercury. The report noted that in studies of patients transfused with a commercial product of human plasma containing 0.01 percent Thimerosal, as well as in studies of mice injected with an ethylmercury solution, the increased level of inorganic mercury added to the mercury already existing in the body resulted in a “longer biological half-life of total mercury than that reported for methylmercury injection.”

Why do the CDC and WHO Report that Ethylmercury Exposure is Safe?

The WHO’s conclusion that ethylmercury is safer because of its “short” half-life may be based on observations that ethylmercury disappears from blood samples quicker than methylmercury. However, this tendency may be evidence not of ethylmercury’s comparative safety, but of its greater danger if, as science has suggested, ethylmercury is not leaving the body but simply migrating more rapidly to the organs, including the brain. Indeed, studies have shown that an ethylmercury compound’s short residence in the blood stems from its ability to more easily pass into the organs, where it can remain for long periods and possibly cause injury.

For example, Blair in 1975 dosed squirrel monkeys with intranasal saline or Thimerosal daily for six months, finding that, compared to the saline group, mercury concentrations in the Thimerosal group were significantly raised in the brain, liver, muscle, and kidney, though not in the blood. Although there were no signs of toxicity in the animals, Blair concluded that the “accumulation of mercury from chronic use of thiomersal-preserved medicines is viewed as a potential health hazard for man.”

Beyond a possibly greater capacity to have inorganic mercury accumulate in organs, Thimerosal also passes more easily from a mother’s bloodstream through the placenta into a developing baby than does methylmercury. That was the evaluation made in a 1983 review study by A. Leonard. In addition, a 1995 study demonstrated that both ethylmercury and methylmercury cause mutagenic changes at similar concentrations in bacterial cells.

The Twisted Saga of Pichichero

With these and other studies as background, an important study in humans took place in the early 2000s. The study, by Michael Pichichero of the University of Rochester Medical Center and published in The Lancet in 2002, lent some apparent scientific credence to the idea that ethylmercury is safer than methylmercury. Pichichero, who helped develop the HiB vaccine and previously received grants and honoraria as a consultant for other vaccine makers, did not declare these conflicts of interest in a statement in his paper, as required by The Lancet’s peer review rules. The Pichichero study assessed mercury levels in the blood, urine, and feces of forty infants ages six months or younger three to twenty-eight days after they had received Thimerosal-preserved vaccines (DTaP, HepB, and in some cases Hib). For comparison, twenty-one similar infants who received Thimerosal-free vaccines were also evaluated. Although infants who received Thimerosal-preserved vaccines had higher levels of mercury in their blood, urine, and feces than did the infants who received Thimerosal-free vaccines, the authors concluded that the levels of mercury detected were not greater than what is considered safe. Most of the mercury from the injected Thimerosal seemed to have left the children’s bloodstreams more rapidly than methylmercury found in the blood of those eating fish in previous studies; the researchers estimated a half-life of seven days for ethylmercury in the blood. Pichichero concluded that ethylmercury, therefore, did not remain in children’s bodies long enough to possibly cause damage.

Pichichero’s study immediately came under attack by internationally respected scientists in a 2003 letter to The Lancet by Neal Halsey, of the Institute for Vaccine Safety at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, and Lynn Goldman, also of the Bloomberg School of Public Health. Halsey and Goldman pointed out that Pichichero and colleagues “did not measure the peak blood concentrations that occurred within hours after the injections.” The concentration listed for one child in the study of 20.55 nanomoles per liter was obtained five days post-vaccination. Assuming Pichichero’s own estimate of an ethylmercury half-life in the blood of seven days, the peak blood concentration for this child was 29.4 nanomoles per liter—exceeding the conventional safety threshold of 29.0 nanomoles per liter, and contradicting the study’s claim that “no children had a concentration of blood mercury exceeding 29 nmol/L.” The child in question had received 37.5 micrograms of ethylmercury rather than the possible maximum exposure of 62.5 micrograms. In the latter scenario, the child’s peak blood mercury concentration would have hit 48.3 nanomoles per liter.

Another child in the study registered a 7 nanomole per liter blood concentration 21 days post-vaccination; extrapolating backwards, this child’s peak mercury level might have reached 42 nanomoles per liter. Halsey and Goldman’s letter further pointed out that Pichichero seemed to have cherry-picked the children in the study—some already with no margin of safety for further mercury exposure—seemed to have come from a population with low background environmental and maternal exposure to methylmercury.

Soon after publication of Pichichero’s study, alarming new evidence emerged that ethylmercury lingers in the body. In an unpublished letter submitted to Pediatrics, Dr. Boyd Haley, then-chairman of the chemistry department at the University of Kentuck, and Mark Blaxill challenged Pichichero’s hypothesis that ethylmercury is quickly excreted. Pichichero and colleagues had measured the excretion levels of mercury in the stools of 22 healthy infants exposed to Thimerosal-containing vaccines. Pichichero’s estimated range for the infants aged two and six months was 23 to 141 nanograms per gram of stool (dry weight). Assuming the excretion rate reported by Pichichero, Blaxill and Haley demonstrated that it could take children with low excretion rates of mercury in their stool almost four years to eliminate a 187.5 microgram mercury burden from their bodies.

In 2006, Luis Maya and Flora Luna further debunked Pichichero’s conclusions. The authors pointed out that while Pichichero’s team had found ethylmercury to be excreted in appreciable quantities in the feces, the researchers did not study other body parts beyond the blood, such as the central nervous system. In agreement with Halsey and Goldman, Maya and Luna criticized Pichichero for neglecting to measure the peak serum levels of ethylmercury after the first hours of inoculation, though other investigations had documented substantially elevated blood concentrations in the first 48 to 72 hours after administration in pediatric vaccines. Maya and Luna also pointed out that the study was small and measured variables of pharmacokinetics (the actions of a drug within the body over time), so it was not designed to measure the biological effect of Thimerosal as a preservative.

Pichichero Redux: Yes, Ethylmercury Rapidly Leaves the Blood, but Not the Body. It Lodges in the Brain!

By then, other research had clarified that, while ethylmercury disperses quickly from the bloodstream, this is not evidence of safety. For example, a 2004 study by G. Jean Harry of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences noted that mice injected with Thimerosal accumulated mercury in both the brain and kidneys. “By seven days” post-treatment, the study authors wrote, “mercury levels decreased in the blood but were unchanged in the brain” compared to levels measured just 24 hours after treatment, indicating slow clearance.

The landmark study in this regard was conducted by the University of Washington’s Thomas Burbacher and published in 2005. The researchers compared mercury levels in the blood and brains of infant macaques injected with Thimerosal-containing vaccines with monkeys who ingested equal amounts of methylmercury hydroxide via a feeding tube. The former group of primates were exposed to 20 micrograms of ethylmercury per kilogram of body weight on the day they were born and when they were seven, 14, and 21 days old, which was estimated to be within the range of doses that children at different developmental stages were receiving in the United States. The dosing methods were selected to mimic the routes of exposure in humans who eat mercury-containing foods and receive mercury-containing vaccines.

Subsequent tests showed a faster disappearance of mercury from the bloodstream of Thimerosal-injected monkeys than from the methylmercury group. Total mercury amounts in the brain were also threefold less for the Thimerosal-treated monkeys. However, the Thimerosal-injected monkeys had a higher ratio of brain-to-blood levels of mercury than the methylmercury group. In general, the primates injected with Thimerosal in the Burbacher study retained twice the level of inorganic mercury—a breakdown product of Thimerosal that has been suggested to be responsible for the brain damage associated with methylmercury—in their brains as the methylmercury-exposed primates. While all seventeen monkeys given Thimerosal had “readily” detectable levels of inorganic mercury in their brains, only nine of the seventeen exposed to methylmercury had detectable levels. Burbacher cited previous research ranging the half-life of inorganic mercury in various brain regions of primates from 227 to 540 days. In either case, that is a long time period for the toxic element to remain, especially if at higher levels from ethylmercury deposition versus methylmercury.

Burbacher and his colleagues wrote in summary that “[methylmercury] is not a suitable reference for risk assessment from exposure to thimerosal-derived [mercury]” and that: Data from the present study support the prediction that, although little accumulation of [mercury] in the blood occurs over time with repeated vaccinations, accumulation of [mercury] in the brain of infants will occur. Thus, conclusion [sic] regarding the safety of thimerosal drawn from blood [mercury] clearance data in human infants receiving vaccines may not be valid, given the significantly slower half-life of [mercury] in the brain as observed in the infant macaques.

A more recent 2012 study by Croatian researchers took a similar approach as Burbacher’s study, but in suckling rats. That study also discredits CDC’s claims of ethylmercury’s comparative safety. Maja Blanusa and colleagues gave rat pups either Thimerosal or inorganic mercury three times in their first 11 days of life, mimicking human infant vaccination schedules. The scientists then assessed the total retention of mercury and excretion over six days. The Thimerosal-exposed rats showed higher mercury retention rates in their brains. Furthermore, these Thimerosal-exposed rats exhibited similar fecal excretion and much lower urinary excretion compared to the inorganic mercury-exposed rats. That second group also demonstrated higher retention rates of mercury in organs other than the brain.

Two additional studies in the last few years by researchers in Brazil and Germany show, again, that methylmercury in particular should not be considered summarily more dangerous than ethylmercury. The studies found that cells similarly take up both forms of mercury. The former, by Luciana Zimmermann and colleagues, showed in 2013 that the methyl- and ethylmercury entered cultured rat cells in roughly equal measure and display similar toxicities. The 2014 German study led by Christoph Wehe used novel laboratory techniques in concluding that methylmercury and ethylmercury in the form of Thimerosal accumulated in equal measure in a type of cultured human neural cell.

Overwhelmingly, the literature presents clear evidence that ethylmercury is invasive and persistent in the brain. Emerging evidence suggests that ethylmercury is more toxic than methylmercury, in direct contrast with the CDC’s historic position. It’s time for CDC’s public relations department to catch up with mainstream science. Since the World Health Organization (WHO relies mainly on CDC’s vaccine safety science, the CDC’s unscientific pronouncements endanger, not just U.S. children, but hundreds of millions of children around the world. Knowing what we now know, the U.S. Federal agencies and the WHO should follow the precautionary principle and phase out the use of thimerosal in all medical products, including vaccines.

Read More At: GreenMedInfo.com