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
Sayer Ji
April 17, 2017

Originally published on

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:

Vaccine Dangers Being Hidden From the Public

Dr. Suzanne Humphries
April 25, 2017

Dr. Suzanne Humphries explains how vaccines became the norm in modern medicine. She also explains why you rarely hear about any risks or dangers associated with them. Find out how those issues are being kept from the public.

Julie & The Boys: CDC, Merck, Vaccines

Source: |
Jon Rappoport
April 24, 2017

I write this story now to remind people there are several titanic unresolved issues surrounding research fraud at the CDC, involving the MMR vaccine.

We all know about CDC whistleblower William Thompson, a long-time researcher at the CDC. Thompson still works there.

On August 27, 2014, he released a statement through his lawyer, Rick Morgan, in which he admitted research fraud.

Thompson confessed he and his CDC co-authors cooked the data in a key 2004 study, thereby exonerating the MMR vaccine from any blame in causing autism.

Thompson has never been subpoenaed by Congress to confess what he knows about this case.

But what about Stephen Kraling and Joan Wlochowski?


They’re two former Merck virologists who filed a qui tam suit against Merck, the manufacturer of the very same MMR vaccine.

The suit claims Merck defrauded the US government by selling the vaccine, under a federal contract, when Merck knew the mumps component of the vaccine was far less effective than advertised.

Of course, Merck disputed this claim, but on September 5th, 2014, Judge Jones, of the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, gave the green light for the suit to move forward.

Kraling and Wlochowski assert several levels of Merck fraud:

To achieve a slam-dunk success, Merck tested the effectiveness of the MMR vaccine against the version of the virus in the vaccine, rather than against the natural mumps virus a person would catch in the real world.

Merck irrelevantly and deceptively added animal antibodies to the test results, thus giving the false appearance of strong human immune response to the vaccine.

On top of that, Merck faked the quantitative results of the tests to which the animal antibodies had been added.

Here is where these two Merck whistle blowers and Thompson, the CDC whistle blower, intersect:

In 2004, according to a report I have seen, Thompson wrote a letter to CDC Director, Julie Gerberding, warning her that he was about to present troubling and sensitive data about the MMR vaccine at an upcoming conference on vaccines and autism.

Thompson’s meaning was clear. He had found a connection between the MMR vaccine and autism.

Gerberding never answered his letter, and Thompson’s presentation at that conference was canceled.

Gerberding left the CDC in 2009.

She moved on to become…

The president of Merck Vaccines, the manufacturer of the MMR vaccine.

Major media consider this a non-story, on the level of a can of overflowing garbage on a quiet street corner.

Well, they have to consider it a non-story. If they reported it and pressed it and dug deep into it, they could fracture the pillars of the entire vaccine establishment.

In order to get at the whole truth (or refute any of the charges raised in this article), Congress needs to hold hearings, and competent committee members need to question, at length, William Thompson, the two Merck whistle blowers, and Julie Gerberding.

I say the chance of that happening is close to zero. I’d love to be proven wrong, but I see no sign Congress is willing to step up to the plate.

Too many drug-company lobbyists, too much campaign money from the drug companies, too much fear of going up against entrenched “scientists” who keep claiming all vaccines are safe and effective.

We’ve heard, from sources other than President Trump, that he is going to order a task force to investigate vaccine safety. We’ll see if it happens.

Earlier this year, I wrote about a group of CDC employees who are anonymously chomping at the bit to expose criminal behavior at their agency.

They call themselves the Spider Group—Scientists Preserving Integrity, Diligence and Ethics in Research. They have penned a letter to the CDC’s chief of staff, Carmen S. Villar:

Here is the explosive accusation they make:

“We are a group of scientists at CDC that are very concerned about the current state of ethics at our agency. It appears that our mission is being influenced and shaped by outside parties and rogue interests. It seems that our mission and Congressional intent for our agency is being circumvented by some of our leaders. What concerns us most, is that it is becoming the norm and not the rare exception.”

“Some senior management officials at CDC are clearly aware and even condone these behaviors. Others see it and turn the other way. Some staff are intimidated and pressed to do things they know are not right.”

“We have representatives from across the agency that witness this unacceptable behavior. It occurs at all levels and in all of our respective units. These questionable and unethical practices threaten to undermine our credibility and reputation as a trusted leader in public health.”

Since this initial explosion, I have heard nothing from the Spider Group. Perhaps they are waiting for a signal from President Trump that it is safe to proceed.

There is too much waiting. Whistle blower William Thompson is waiting for Congress to subpoena him. Congress is sitting on its hands, waiting. The two Merck whistle blowers are waiting for their law suit to move forward.

Children’s futures and lives are on the line.

Every day that passes brings new vaccine damage.

Read More At:

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.

William Shatner targeted by vaccine bullies in vicious campaign to silence tweets about autism

ScreenHunter_16 Apr. 24 07.43
Mike Adams
April 24, 2017

Vaccine industry zealots believe in destroying the freedom to think. Their actions — and especially the actions of sociopathic medical violence pushers like Dr. David Gorski — reflect the kind of destruction of knowledge we’ve all witnessed throughout history when evil regimes burned books in order to control the official narrative. (Dr. Gorski is a high-level editor at Wikipedia and writes all the entries involving vaccines, chemotherapy and cancer surgery, blocking all dissenting facts or information he doesn’t like.)

There is no question whatsoever that vaccines cause widespread harm and death — see this revelation about the UK government paying out tens of millions in damages after hundreds of children were brain damaged by the swine flu vaccine — yet this simple, irrefutable fact is not even allowed to be debated today due to the coordinated, pharma-funded effort to absolutely destroy any person who even asks a simple question about vaccine safety or vaccine ingredients.

As a simple demonstration, witness this article describing a vaccine science study that found a 212% increase in infant mortality among infants who received DTP vaccines vs. those who didn’t. As this article reveals, some vaccines actually harm or kill far more babies than they save. Yet this very idea is ridiculed as “anti-science” by religious science fundamentalists, even when the conclusion is precisely backed by peer-reviewed, published science.

Note: We’ve just launched a new website called Natural News Reference that lists the ingredients for over 60 popular vaccines. Go there now to search for vaccine insert sheet ingredients lists and see for yourself what vaccines are really made of.

The coordinated effort to smear William Shatner for daring to tweet the truth about vaccine zealot David Gorski

As a perfect example of the silencing of dissent (and the complete abandonment of scientific debate on the vaccine issue), consider the fact that legendary actor William Shatner recently tweeted a link to the website’s profile of rabid vaccine zealot Dr. David Gorski, one of the vaccine industry’s most malicious attack dogs who routinely slanders the Health Ranger and Natural News with wholly fabricated smears rooted in his own mental instability. (See Shatner’s link below.)

Dr. Gorski, a breast cancer surgeon who preys upon black women in the Detroit area and is a colleague of Dr. Farid Fata, a cancer fraudster who was arrested by the feds, indicted for massive medical fraud, and is now serving 20+ years in federal prison. They both worked in the same facility, and Dr. David Gorski has been reported to the FBI for possible conspiracy involvement in criminal schemes involving medical malpractice and the high-profit maiming of innocent women for profit.

When Shatner tweeted the URL to, which exposes the astonishing history of deceit, distortions and abandonment of medical ethics by Dr. Gorski, he was roundly blasted by the coordinated efforts of the vaccine establishment, which incessantly seeks to silence all dissent:

Vaccine zealot David Gorski then begged all his friends to attack William Shatner, claiming he should have quoted Wikipedia instead of Truthwiki, but he neglected to tell William Shatner that David Gorski is the author of the Wikipedia page on David Gorski. He’s a high-ranking Wikipedia editor and oversees the coordinated smearing of all those who question the safety of vaccine ingredients. Shatner isn’t even opposed to vaccines, but was immediately labeled an “anti-vaxxer” by the vaccine brigade, which seeks to silence all those who question vaccines or who even dare to publicize issues surrounding autism: (for the record, Shatner fully supports immunizations, yet even a “whiff” of supporting the autism community got him slandered by the vaccine zealots)

In response, David Gorski begged his friends to pen a defamatory article about William Shatner at SLATE, the rabid anti-science, Left-wing smear rag funded by George Soros, the liberty-hating globalist. SLATE also attacked the Health Ranger in another attempt to try to discredit real science that questions vaccine disinfo:

In response, William Shatner tweeted out several Natural News URLs documenting the real story on David Gorski, daring to stand up and question the intimidation tactics of Gorski and the vaccine zealots. Here’s one of Shatner’s live tweets:

Tweet William Shatner to thank him for questioning the vaccine bullies and their coordinated intimidation tactics

Now you’re getting a real sense of the level of intense bullying, censorship and intimidation wielded by SLATE, the vaccine zealots and incredibly dangerous, psychotic individuals like Dr. David Gorski (who controls much of the vaccine disinformation on on Wikipedia). Those people have more in common with radical Jahid than legitimate scientific debate.

Please send William Shatner a kind tweet at his twitter account to thank him for refusing to be bullied by the vaccine zealots:

His Twitter account is:

(Be aware that Shatner was not attempting to wade into the vaccine debate. He was merely attempting to originally tweet out support for autism awareness. What he discovered, however, was the cesspool of vaccine Jihad intimidation and bullying tactics.)

Bottom line: Vaccine skepticism is rational; vaccine zealots are dangerous villains

Above all, remember that vaccine skepticism is rooted in rational thinking and genuine science. Many vaccine ingredients — such as mercury, aluminum, MSG and formaldehyde — are undisputed as known neurotoxins. The CDC confirms that some vaccines include ingredients such as diseased African Green Monkey kidney cells, and aborted human fetal tissue is also commonly used in many vaccines, including the chickenpox vaccine.

Continue Reading At:

Big Pharma conspired to destroy supply of life-saving cancer drugs by putting profit before people

Image: Big Pharma conspired to destroy supply of life-saving cancer drugs by putting profit before people
Amy Goodrich
April 24, 2017

If you are familiar with the fraudulent practices of the pharmaceutical industry, then you know how much power some of these companies have. Cancer drugs are a multi-billion dollar business. In the past, we have seen Big Pharma use the power of the state to grant themselves monopolies on drugs to control the market. We have also seen outrageous price rises in many useful and necessary drugs. In light of this information, the following story should come as no great shock.

After getting its hands on leaked internal documents, including emails and presentations, The London Times recently revealed that one of the world’s leading drug companies created artificial shortages and threatened to destroy supplies of life-saving cancer drugs to drive up prices in Europe.

South African company Aspen Pharmacare, whose European headquarter is based in Dublin, wanted to impose a rise of up to 4,000 percent after purchasing the portfolio of cancer drugs from the British firm GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) for more than £270 million (or nearly $350 million) in 2009.

After they had bought the rights to five cancer medicines, they started to drive up the price. Since the patent had long expired on drugs that Aspen bought, and there was no competition from other manufacturers, Aspen had free reign. In England and Wales, they exploited a loophole that enables a company to impose rises if an existing brand name is dropped. In 2013, the company raised the cost of the leukemia drug busulfan from £5.20 ($6.66) to £65.22 ($83.59), while the price of the blood cancer medicine chlorambucil jumped from £8.36 ($10.72) per pack to £40.51 ($51.92).

Since 2012, Aspen Pharmacare actively tried to impose higher prices on its cancer drugs throughout Europe. The leaked cache documents cited by The Times showed that employees called for “celebrations” over price hikes of cancer drugs.

“We’ve signed new reimbursement and price agreement successfully: Price increases are basically on line with European target prices (Leukeran, a bit higher!)… Let’s celebrate!” an Aspen employee wrote in one of the emails.

Aggressive approach to negotiating with European authorities

In October 2013 Aspen threatened to stop supplying medicines if Italian authorities did not agree to price rises of up to 2,100 percent. Temporary drug shortages were orchestrated to increase pressure.

At one point, a pharmacist wrote to Aspen and its Italian distributor to complain that due to a deliberately small supply of cancer medicine he had to choose which of sick two children was to receive the single package of medicine he had left.

And Italy was not the only country suffering from the unscrupulous business practices of the firm. Several other countries including Belgium, Germany, and Greece reported significant shortages of cancer medicine at about the same time.

In 2014 several staff members at Aspen Pharmacare systematically plotted to destroy stocks of life-saving cancer drugs during a price dispute with the health service in Spain. At some point, they stopped the direct supply of five drugs, leaving patients reliant on foreign packs of expensive medicine.

When an employee at Aspen’s headquarters asked what he should do with existing Spanish packages of the medicine, a senior executive replied that they could not be sold due to a price dispute, adding that donating or destroying the entire stock were the only options.

In yet another email from the company, employees discussed whether they would make more money if they sold cancer drugs destined for Italy in Spain, even though that would mean putting Italy out of stock. (Related: Read more about the Big Pharma drug cartels at

These internal emails showed corruption on a whole new level. To increase the profits, Aspen was plotting to destroy supplies of medicines to create temporary shortages to increase pressure and eventually get what they wanted. Though the emails provide clear evidence of their inhumane practices of putting profits before people. Aspen did not address questions about the destruction of cancer drugs.

In the company’s defense, Dennis Dencher, chief executive of Aspen Pharma Europe, said the price rises were “at levels appropriate to promote long-term sustainable supply to patients” and claimed they had been increased from “a very low and unsustainable base.”

Read More At:


Shocking study finds that penicillin changes childrens’ brains, causing them to grow up angry and violent

Image: Shocking study finds that penicillin changes childrens’ brains, causing them to grow up angry and violent
Russel Davis
April 18, 2017

Antibiotic treatment during late pregnancy and early childhood spurred aggression and long-term behavioral changes in animal models, a recent study showed. A team of researchers at the McMaster University and St. Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton in Ontario, Canada examined the effects of low-dose penicillin treatment in pregnant mice and their offspring, and found that the antibiotic triggered neurochemical changes in the brain and spurred a gut bacteria imbalance in mice. These changes coincided with increased aggression and reduced anxiety in the animal models, researchers said. However, the study revealed that giving mice a lactobacillus strain of bacteria helped prevent the onset of these negative behaviors.

“In this paper, we report that low-dose penicillin taken late in pregnancy and in early life of mice offspring, changes behaviour [sic] and the balance of microbes in the gut. While these studies have been performed in mice, they point to popular increasing concerns about the long-term effects of antibiotics. Furthermore, our results suggest that a probiotic might be effective in preventing the detrimental effects of the penicillin,” said lead author Dr. John Bienenstock in an article in

The findings were published in the journal Nature Communications.

Antibiotics’ potential impact on children’s behavior

The lead author also noted that children were exposed to antibiotics during infancy, and stressed on the potential effects of early antibiotic treatments on the children’s future behavioral development. “There are almost no babies in North America that haven’t received a course of antibiotics in their first year of life. Antibiotics aren’t only prescribed, but they’re also found in meat and dairy products. If mothers are passing along the effects of these drugs to their as yet unborn children or children after birth, this raises further questions about the long-term effects of our society’s consumption of antibiotics,” Dr. Bienenstock said.

Another study has demonstrated a similar effect on animal models. Canadian researchers examined healthy mice and used antibiotics to alter their gut bacteria. According to the study, mice that received antibiotics displayed increased eagerness and less apprehension compared with those in the control group. The researchers also found that antibiotics-treated mice had higher levels of a brain protein associated with depression and anxiety compared with the controls. The findings were published in the journal Gastroenterology.

A meta-analysis published in 2014 also confirmed that using antibiotics to treat inflammation leads to a chemical imbalance in intestinal bacteria. These effects spur changes in the gut function and behavior of hosts, the review noted. The results appeared in the journal Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology.

Modern society and the vicious cycle of aggression

A vast number of studies show that certain behavioral changes such as early aggression in children could manifest well into adolescence and adulthood. An analysis by the Frances McCleland Institute in Tucson, Arizona revealed that boys were more likely than girls to engage in aggressive acts such as hitting and punching others. However, the review also showed that girls were more likely than boys to use social aggression. The study also revealed that both genders tend to use these two forms of aggression simultaneously.

Aggressive behavior in adolescence was also associated with more violent behaviors — such as sexual abuse, child abuse, domestic violence, and homicide — in adulthood, a meta-analysis revealed. A report by the U.S. Department of Justice showed that young adults ages 18 to 24 years had the highest rates of homicide. Data also showed that 7.7% of all American women suffered sexual violence, while 22% were subject to domestic abuse. The results were published in the Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing. (Related: Know more about the current state of violence in the U.S. at and

A number of research, collectively known as “Bobo doll” studies, by renowned psychologist Albert Bandura demonstrate a vicious cycle of aggression that can be transmitted between parents and their children. According to Bandura’s studies, parents who exhibit aggression were more likely to have children displaying similar behaviors.

Read More At:


Here We Go Again: FDA Commissioner In Pocket Of Big Pharma


Source: |
Jon Rappoport
April 17, 2017

The excellent medical reporter, Martha Rosenberg, has written a piece at Salon: “The FDA Now Officially Belongs to Big Pharma.” Here are a few highlights:

“It is hard to believe only four senators opposed the confirmation of [the new FDA Commissioner]…[he] received money from 23 drug companies including the giants like Johnson & Johnson, Lilly, Merck, Schering Plough and GSK…”

“[He] also lists financial links to Gambro, Regeneron, Gilead, AstraZeneca, Roche and other companies and equity positions in four medical companies. Gilead is the maker of the $1000-a-pill hepatitis C drug AlterNet recently wrote about. This is FDA commissioner material?”

Oh, wait. I’m sorry.

Gee whiz. How could I have made that mistake?

I must have been asleep. Wow. I apologize. Martha Rosenberg published that Salon article in February of 2016, and she was talking about Robert Califf, who had just been confirmed as the new FDA Commissioner.

Califf was nominated by Obama, not Trump. Oops.

Trump’s current nominee is Scott Gottlieb, who is apparently tasked with speeding up the FDA’s drug-approval process—a disaster in the making, given the fact that FDA-approved medical drugs already kill 106,000 Americans a year (a conservative estimate). Source: see Journal of the American Medical Association, July 26, 2000, Dr. Barbara Starfield, “Is US Health Really the Best in the World?”

Here are a few quotes about Trump FDA-nominee Gottlieb from The Hill:

“But Gottlieb also faced criticism from groups that are concerned his ties to the drug industry could hurt the agency’s commitment to safety and efficacy.”

“He has longtime ties to the drug and medical industry after leaving the FDA in 2007.”

“He is currently a member of the product investment board for drug giant GlaxoSmithKline, and a member of the board of directors for MedAvante, Gradalis, and Glytec, which does work in medical technology.”

“Public Citizen blasted Gottlieb for taking what they said was hundreds of thousands of dollars from multiple drug and device companies between 2013 and 2015, mostly for consulting and speaking fees.”

Gee, he sounds a lot like Obama’s FDA Commissioner, Califf.

The beat goes on.

You would think these FDA Commissioners are hand-picked by pharmaceutical companies. But that’s impossible. That would never happen.

Certainly not.

If it did, we would be living in a parallel universe where corporations and government are colluding and partnering and decimating people with their medicines…

Instead of living in this universe, where the State and business are entirely separated.

Where all is well.

Read More At:

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.