the holistic radical

September 29, 2008

Jon Barron Gives the Definitive Slam on High Fructose Corn Syrup

Folks, this stuff is not food and has caused the spike in obesity in recent decades. HFCS is not good for human consumption in any amount! The truth will be told–

This is definitely the best article I’ve seen about why HFCS is bad for you as a human being. Kudos to Jon Barron. This is a must-read.

Interesting that even tonight’s “King of the Hill” had a main character getting type 2 diabetes, which at least 40-50% of Americans have–a conservative estimate–whether they know it or not. Around 50% of the US population is obese, and diabetes is a surefire consequence of obesity, beginning with chronic high blood sugar caused by bad diet and inactivity. Diabetes is best reversed through an attentive diet and exercise.

Let’s get HFCS out of our food supply now! Put pressure on the FDA!

Stop eating fake food, people!

The cycle is like this: government subsidies to fake food makers–> people get deadly non-food (filled with HFCS, aspartame/equal, MSG, sucralose/ Splenda, and other toxins)–> Big Pharma jumps in with lots of medications for you to be dependent on forever!

All of which could be prevented by eating natural foods that do not have any ingredients you can’t pronounce or don’t know the origin of!

Also, if something has more than 5 ingredients, it better have a reason to have more than 5 ingredients. Read labels!

A preview:

” Despite claims to the contrary, there is a wide body of research that validates the concept of sugar “addiction.” To be clear, we’re not talking about a physical addiction comparable to a drug here, but the simple fact that the more sugar you eat the more you want to eat. Also, studies show that the high levels of isolated fructose (as found in HFCS) cause a reduction in circulating insulin and leptin, which effectively turns off the body’s appetite control mechanisms, thus causing you to eat more.
Bottom line: the words moderation and HFCS don’t actually go together.”

———

http://www.jonbarron.org/diabetes-program/2008-09-29.php

High Fructose Corn Syrup, Oh Boy!

Date: 9/29/2008
Posted By: Jon Barron

This month, the Corn Refiners Association (CRA) launched the first of a series of television ads that are planned to run for the next 18 months as part of a campaign to “make-over” the image of high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS). The core message of the ads is that high-fructose corn syrup is made from corn, has no artificial ingredients, has the same calories as sugar, is okay to eat in moderation — and that it’s endorsed by the AMA and the FDA. The ads are priceless in their misrepresentation of facts and in their total lack of respect for the intelligence of the viewing public — although experience says they are, nevertheless, likely to win over large numbers of people. Before we go any further, you probably need to see one of these ads.

Isn’t that delightful? Absolutely! But let’s take a look at what HFCS actually is and at the key points in the ad one-by-one to see how they stack up on the “truth meter.” Then we can examine the so called “endorsements” from the AMA and the FDA. And finally, we’ll take a look at the reality behind high fructose corn syrup.

Definition of high fructose corn syrup

HFCS doesn’t actually exist anywhere in nature. It is a manufactured product created by using enzymes (two natural, one synthetic) to increase the fructose content of corn syrup to about 90%. This super high fructose syrup is then blended “down” with a 100% glucose corn syrup to create various mixes. HFCS 55, for example, which is 55% fructose and 45% glucose is the mix used most commonly in beverages. HFCS 42 is the blend used more commonly in baked goods.

As a point of comparison, table sugar (sucrose) is a disaccharide comprised of a molecule of fructose and glucose bound together. It is very easily digested in the stomach into its component sugars, and in that respect is not unlike an HFCS 50 mix. However, it should be noted that table sugar, like HFCS, is not a naturally occurring substance itself and must be “refined” (although not chemically altered) through manufacturing processes before it sits on your table. And keep in mind, it’s no badge of honor for the HFCS industry to claim that there’s no difference between HFCS and sucrose since heavy consumption of sucrose has been linked to everything from obesity to diabetes.

High fructose corn syrup is made from corn

cornYes, it’s absolutely true that high fructose corn syrup is made from corn, but it doesn’t mean anything. Biodiesel is made from corn too, and you wouldn’t want to see that used as a food additive. Or take castor oil. It’s used as a food grade additive, in flavorings, and in chocolate as a mold inhibitor. And the FDA has categorized castor oil as GRAS (generally regarded as safe) for use in laxatives. Unfortunately, castor beans also happensto be the source of one of the most deadly poisons known to man, ricin — made famous as a tool of assassination used by spies. The bottom line is that just because you start with a natural, safe substance doesn’t automatically make derivatives of that substance safe. So much for the first argument.

High fructose corn syrup has no artificial ingredients in it

According to the high fructose corn syrup industry itself, most claims that HFCS is not a natural product arise as a result of the fact that corn starch is treated with three different types of enzymes in order to produce HFCS. Two of the three enzymes used in HFCS production are naturally occurring enzymes; one (glucose-isomerase) is synthetic — the synthetic enzyme being the cause of concern. The industry’s counter argument is that the synthetic enzyme is never actually added to the HFCS, rather the sugar mixture is simply passed over it and it interacts with glucose to produce fructose.

In point of fact, the statement and argument are both disingenuous. Most claims concerning the artificiality of HFCS have nothing to do with the enzymes used in processing, but rather relate to the fact that chemical bonds are broken and rearranged in the manufacturing process. (Note: this does not happen in the process of refining table sugar.)

High fructose corn syrup has the same calories as table sugar

That it does. And once again, comparing HFCS to table sugar in this regard is not necessarily something you want to brag about. At first glance, it doesn’t look that bad. Both sugar and HFCS contain about 15 calories per teaspoon. The problem is how quickly that builds up. Soft drinks and fruit punches (think back to the ad we looked at earlier) contain about 1 teaspoon of sweetener per ounce — so you’re looking at about 150 calories per 12 ounce can of soda and about 180 calories per 12 ounce glass of fruit punch (as seen in the ad). Have 3-6 servings a day, as many people are wont to do, and you’re looking at 500-1,000 empty calories per day. That could actually mean as much as 2 lbs of extra body-weight gained each and every week.

High fructose corn syrup is okay to eat in moderation

Ahhh! That’s the issue isn’t it? The simple fact is that it’s almost impossible to consume HFCS in moderation. If you think about it, even a single serving of fruit punch, which contains 43 g of sugar, is already well beyond moderate. Have two to three servings a day and you’re into sugar la la land. And did you get alook at the serving size mommy is hefting about in the ad? That’s a one gallon jug. Yes, there’s nothing like a gallon jug to say “moderation.”

Then, of course, there are the cravings.

Despite claims to the contrary, there is a wide body of research that validates the concept of sugar “addiction.” To be clear, we’re not talking about a physical addiction comparable to a drug here, but the simple fact that the more sugar you eat the more you want to eat. Also, studies show that the high levels of isolated fructose (as found in HFCS) cause a reduction in circulating insulin and leptin, which effectively turns off the body’s appetite control mechanisms, thus causing you to eat more.
Bottom line: the words moderation and HFCS don’t actually go together.

High fructose corn syrup is endorsed by the American Medical Associationamerican medical association

Despite CRA’s use of the AMA quote in their ads, the AMA’s position is significantly more nuanced than implied by the isolated quote. In fact, the CRA used only the first half of the first sentence taken from the June 17th AMA press release:

“After studying current research, the American Medical Association (AMA) today concluded that high fructose syrup does not appear to contribute more to obesity than other caloric sweeteners.”

In fact, the last half of the sentence adds an immediate qualifier:

“But [the AMA] called for further independent research to be done on the health effects of high fructose syrup and other sweeteners.”

They then went on to say:

“We do recommend consumers limit the amount of all added caloric sweeteners to no more than 32 grams of sugar daily.”

And as we already know, a single 12 oz serving of fruit punch as featured in the CRA ad contains 48 g, 1/3 more than the AMA’s maximum allowance — for an entire day — in a single serving.

Finally, the AMA press release concludes with a statement that hardly qualifies as a ringing endorsement for HFCS. In effect, they say they just don’t know.

“Currently, there are few available studies on the health effects of high fructose syrup and most are focused on the short-term effects.”

High fructose corn syrup is endorsed by the FDA

The simple truth of the matter is that the FDA does not actually “endorse” HFCS. All they did was come out with a statement/letter from Geraldine June, Supervisor of the FDA’s Product Evaluation and Labeling Team at FDA’s Office of Nutrition, Labeling, and Dietary Supplements written to the Corn Refiners Association that said HFCS could be labeled a “natural” ingredient.

“[the FDA] would not object to the use of the term ‘natural’ on a product containing the HFCS produced by the manufacturing process…”

But even that statement is far more nuanced than it might appear. First of all, as made clear in the letter, it’s actually a reversal of a previous position taken by Supervisor June just two months earlier based on a clarification of the process used by one manufacturer only — it’s not a blanket statement:

“The use of synthetic fixing agents in the enzyme preparation, which is then used to produce HFCS, would not be consistent with our (…) policy regarding the use of the term ‘natural’. Consequently, we would object to the use of the term ‘natural’ on a product containing HFCS.”

But more importantly, it makes clear that the FDA’s definition of “natural” probably is not the same as yours. You might think that “natural” has something to do with “as it exists in nature.” Not so for the FDA. Their definition is restricted to the fact that nothing artificial or synthetic “has been added.” It absolutely avoids the issue of whether something that might have started out from a natural source might be altered or made “unnatural” in its processing. Or to look at it another way, according to the FDA, Frankenstein’s monster would be considered a “natural” creation because nothing artificial or synthetic has been added — just all “natural” dead body parts assembled and electrified to make the monster. “It’s alive! It’s alive!”

That definition might work for the FDA, but I doubt if it works for most of you.

The bottom line on high fructose corn syrup

Manufactures love high fructose corn syrup because it’s cheaper than table sugar and easier to transport and work with (it’s a liquid). Unfortunately, the human body is not designed to handle high levels of isolated fructose.

Since the dawn of man, humans have consumed fructose (mostly in fresh fruit where the fructose is actually bound to the fruit fiber, thus slowing its absorption in the body), at about 16–20 grams per day. The heavy use of HFCS, though, has resulted in significant increases in consumption of fructose isolate, leading to typical daily consumption reaching an average of 85–100 grams of fructose per day — again, not bound to fiber. And remember, the AMA recommendation is 32 g a day — maximum. Yet in 1980 the average person ate 39 pounds of fructose and 84 pounds of sucrose. And by 1994, those numbers had climbed to 66 pounds of sucrose and 83 pounds of fructose. Today, it’s almost impossible to find a commercial food that doesn’t have added sugar — predominantly HFCS with its high content isolated fructose.

The problem is that fructose is absorbed differently than other sugars — and fructose isolate as found in HFCS even more so. It causes major health problems. For example:

  • The exposure of the liver to such large quantities of fructose leads to rapid stimulation of the breakdown of fats and the concomitant rapid accumulation of triglycerides, which in turn contributes to reduced insulin sensitivity, insulin resistance, and glucose intolerance.
  • Unlike glucose, fructose doesn’t stimulate insulin production, which means it isn’t utilized for energy, but rather is stored in the liver as triglycerides.
  • Again, unlike glucose, HFCS doesn’t increase leptin production or suppress production of ghrelin. (These are hormones that play a primary role in appetite control.) The net effect is that HFCS encourages you to eat more…the more of it you eat. In effect, HFCS is addictive and encourages weight gain and obesity.
  • And if that were not enough, it appears that HFCS distorts the body’s magnesium balance, thereby accelerating bone loss.

Finally, it’s true that medical authorities and publicity seeking politicians took on trans fats, but that was a relatively easy target. Let’s see if they have the cojones to take on high fructose corn syrup, which has replaced trans fats in my book as the number one dietary killer. So far, at least, it appears they do not.

Advertisements

April 9, 2008

Shocker: Doctors Think Nationalized Health Care Is a Good Idea

For one, it lets them do their job without being concerned about being paid (“reimbursed”) by a heartless corporation only concerned with profit. But hey, maybe someday we’ll join other industrialized nations who believe in treating their citizens like human beings.

Why do you think Big Media isn’t reporting this?

———

Doctors Support Universal Health Care: Survey
By Maggie Fox
Reuters

Monday 31 March 2008

Washington – More than half of U.S. doctors now favor switching to a national health care plan and fewer than a third oppose the idea, according to a survey published on Monday.

The survey suggests that opinions have changed substantially since the last survey in 2002 and as the country debates serious changes to the health care system.

Of more than 2,000 doctors surveyed, 59 percent said they support legislation to establish a national health insurance program, while 32 percent said they opposed it, researchers reported in the journal Annals of Internal Medicine.

The 2002 survey found that 49 percent of physicians supported national health insurance and 40 percent opposed it.

“Many claim to speak for physicians and represent their views. We asked doctors directly and found that, contrary to conventional wisdom, most doctors support national health insurance,” said Dr. Aaron Carroll of the Indiana University School of Medicine, who led the study.

“As doctors, we find that our patients suffer because of increasing deductibles, co-payments, and restrictions on patient care,” said Dr. Ronald Ackermann, who worked on the study with Carroll. “More and more, physicians are turning to national health insurance as a solution to this problem.”

Patchwork

The United States has no single organized health care system. Instead it relies on a patchwork of insurance provided by the federal and state governments to the elderly, poor, disabled and to some children, along with private insurance and employer-sponsored plans.

Many other countries have national plans, including Britain, France and Canada, and several studies have shown the United States spends more per capita on health care, without achieving better results for patients.

An estimated 47 million people have no insurance coverage at all, meaning they must pay out of their pockets for health care or skip it.

Contenders in the election for president in November all have proposed various changes, but none of the major party candidates has called for a fully national health plan.

Insurance companies, retailers and other employers have joined forces with unions and other interest groups to propose their own plans.

“Across the board, more physicians feel that our fragmented and for-profit insurance system is obstructing good patient care, and a majority now support national insurance as the remedy,” Ackermann said in a statement.

The Indiana survey found that 83 percent of psychiatrists, 69 percent of emergency medicine specialists, 65 percent of pediatricians, 64 percent of internists, 60 percent of family physicians and 55 percent of general surgeons favor a national health insurance plan.

The researchers said they believe the survey was representative of the 800,000 U.S. medical doctors.


Reporting by Maggie Fox; editing by Will Dunham and Xavier Briand.

http://www.truthout.org/issues_06/040108HA.shtml

April 2, 2008

Big Pharma Kills–But Not before Taking Your Money

There are so many better natural alternatives out there, for just about every medical problem. Treating symptoms is not true health or wellness. Big Pharma keeps people in poverty, causing further illness, thereby increasing their profits. This isn’t an accusation–this is logic, folks. Get informed.

———

The 5 Kinds of Prescription Drugs That Zap the Most Nutrients from Your Body and What to Do

by BodyEcology.com 

The side effects of prescription drugs are more insidious than those listed on the side of the box. In fact, common drugs like statins, acid reflux drugs and antidepressants rob your body of the very nutrients you need to have healthy blood cholesterol, easy digestion, and a positive outlook.

Prescription drugs may be the blessing and the curse of our times.

In some situations they can be necessary for restoring health. Unfortunately, in many others, long-term use of prescription drugs — and their side effects — cause more harm than good.

But whether you like it or not, you and the people you love are likely to take prescription drugs at some point in your life.

According to the Center for Disease Control, 45% of Americans used a prescription drug in the past month. And over the course of a year, over 2 billion prescriptions are written!1

Still, many people don’t know about the real damage that some drugs can do to your overall health, even while they seem to be helping a specific symptom.

One of the most important keys to remember is that drugs make your blood more acidic and when you are on them you must eat a more alkaline diet.

If you must take prescription drugs, we’ve outlined some common drugs that zap nutrients from your body and the recommend foods and supplements that can counteract the negative side effects.

Drugs: The 5 Worst Offenders

1. Statins

  • The Drugs: Cholesterol drugs, also known as statins, including brands like Lipitor, Provacol and Zocor
  • The Damage: Statins deplete your body of coenzyme Q10, an essential enzyme that protects your body from heart disease and cancer2,3 and is considered an effective treatment for heart attacks and heart failure. Drug manufacturers know that statins dramatically reduce your body’s level of this heart-healthy enzyme but have managed to keep it quiet.
  • The Defense: If you take statins, consider taking a hefty coenzyme Q10 supplement. You can get CoQ10 by eating organ meats as well.
  • To further reduce your risk for artherosclerosis and heart disease, up your exercise to increase your good cholesterol (HDL) levels. For a dietary approach, read Why the Body Ecology Diet Is Ideal to Lower Cholesterol LDL Levels and Raise HDL Levels.

2. Diabetes Drugs

  • The Drugs: Diabetes drugs like Diabinese, Tolinase, and Metformin
  • The Damage: Diabetes drugs deplete magnesium and vitamin C, two substances essential for metabolic health.4

The Defense: Avoid Sugar – use Lakanto instead. The Body Ecology System of Health and Healing provides you with a high plant fiber, gluten-free, sugar-free diet that is excellent for anyone with diabetes now or for anyone who wants to prevent it. Research shows that even if you have a genetic tendency toward this disease the right foods can “silence” the gene that causes diabetes.

Fermented foods and probiotic liquids are enzyme-rich, microflora rich, nutrient-dense and are ideal for anyone sensitive to sugar because they negate many of the negative side effects of sugar.
3. Heartburn and Acid Reflux Drugs

The Drugs: Heartburn and acid reflux drugs, including brands like Nexium, Prevacid, and Prilosec

The Damage: Proton-pump inhibitors that are used to treat acid reflux, heart burn and GERD rob your body of calcium and vitamin B 12.

Researchers at the University of Pennsylvania found that “people over age 50 who take the drugs for more than one year have a 44% increased risk of breaking a hip.” Higher doses taken for longer periods of time significantly increase the risk.

If you are deficient in vitamin B 12, you could experience symptoms ranging from hair loss, anemia, fatigue, mental confusion to signs of nerve damage such as tingling or numbness. 6
The Defense: Find a colon therapist (see I-ACT.org) and have a series of colon therapy sessions. Follow the Proper Food Combining Rules so that foods are easier to digest. Eat cultured veggies and probiotic liquids.
If you feel you must take an acid reflux or heartburn drugs, increase your intake of magnesium and get outside for some sunshine (a natural source of vitamin D).

Magnesium and vitamin D from the sun both help you build strong bones.

Also have your doctor test your B 12 levels and consider supplementation and some dietary changes. Fortunately, the Body Ecology diet is full of foods rich in B vitamins! Excellent sources of B 12 are fermented foods and drinks and grain-like seeds.

If you have acid reflux or heartburn on a regular basis, read GERD in Children and Adults Part One: The Symptoms and the TRUE Causes to find out more about your condition and the natural steps to treat it.

4. Antidepressants

  • The Drugs: Antidepressants, including brands like Prozac and Zoloft
  • The Damage: Even researchers use B12 to increase the effectiveness of anti-depressants and recognize that most depressed people are mildly to severely deficient in B vitamins.
  • The Defense: Serotonin, the feel good, antidepression brain chemical is actually made down in our gut. So a healthy inner ecosystem is going to help many of us feel much happier. The word “kefir” means “feel good” in Turkish. The Turks have consumed this delicious milk drink for thousands of years and it really does make you feel good. You can make kefir at home in your own kitchen and even use raw or pasteurized milk. It’s fun and easy to make.
  • Taking a B vitamin supplement enhances the effects of antidepressants and can correct deficiencies that may have triggered your depression in the first place. Donna Gates recommends Max Stress B Nano-Plex by Premier Research. This liquid B vitamin is derived from natural sources,Guess where? Friendly microflora! It tastes great sprinkled into one of our probiotic liquids.

    You probably know this already but one of the most efficient ways to get B 12 is to consume fermented foods and drinks. The friendly microorganisms in fermented foods and drinks, like Innergy-Biotic, actually manufacture B vitamins right down inside your intestines where they are immediately absorbed.

5. Arthritis Drugs

  • The Drugs: Arthritis drugs, like prednisone, and hydrocortisone are often prescribed for inflammatory conditions.
  • The Damage: Corticosteroids decrease the absorption of calcium and cause your body to excrete it. They also deplete magnesium, which is vital to absorbing calcium and building bone density.

    Corticosteroids are also linked to decreased levels of trace minerals like copper, selenium and zinc.8

  • The Defense: Once again a sugar-free, cleansing, nutrient-dense diet coupled with colon therapy should be the first steps to take when arthritic symptoms develop. You can also counteract some of the effects of arthritis drugs with a healthy calcium and magnesium supplement and by eating an alkalizing diet. Eating vegetables that come from the ocean will help you obtain these minerals. Also consider taking Body Ecology’s Ocean Plant Extract, which packs the vital nutrients of sea vegetables into an easy supplement.
Is your over-the-counter or prescription drug depleting your body of vital nutrients and trace minerals? Then make sure you replenish those vitamins and minerals with the sea vegetable laminaria Japonica, one of the world’s perfect foods. Body Ecology’s Ocean Plant Extract is a potent and concentrated source of this amazing sea vegetable. Try Ocean Plant Extract to enhance your nutrition today.

A Word About Antibiotics and Antifungals

For more on how antibiotics and antifungals deplete your health and what to do about it, read: If You’ve Ever Taken Antibiotic or Antifungal Drugs, Here’s Why You (Desperately) NEED Probiotics.
Drugs and Your Diet

Here at Body Ecology, we treat food as medicine and urge you to see how you can heal your body with nutrition, possibly rendering drugs unnecessary. In fact, if you create a hardy inner ecosystem inside your body, you will be establishing the foundation for a strong immune system and a cleaner, less toxic body. Even aging (which is called a disease by some) is slowed down tremendously when you eat the nutrient-dense foods in our amazing system of healing.

Side effects of prescription drugs are a real danger, so if you are taking prescription (and even over-the-counter) drugs, you need to pay extra attention to your diet and colon cleansing. Make sure that you are informed about which nutrients are being depleted so that you can help nourish your body to health.
Sources:

Therapeutic Drug Use, CDC.gov. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/drugs.htm

2 Wagner, Daniel, “Common Drugs Deplete Nutrients,” Alive.com.http://www.alive.com/3761a1a2.php?subject_bread_cramb=181
3 Gupta, Chris, “Statin Drugs & Coenzyme Q10 Depletion,” NewMediaExplorer.org.
http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/chris/2003/12/13/statin_drugs_coenzyme_q10_depletion.htm

4 Gupta, Chris, “Statin Drugs & Coenzyme Q10 Depletion,” NewMediaExplorer.org.
http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/chris/2003/12/13/statin_drugs_coenzyme_q10_depletion.htm

5DeNoon, Daniel, “Acid Reflux Drugs May Up Fractures,” WebMD.com, 26 Dec 2006.
http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=78729

6Graedon, Joe and Teresa, “Drugs may cause B-12 deficiency,” LATimes.com, 13 Mar 2006. http://www.latimes.com/features/health/la-he-pharmacy13mar13,1,50828.column?coll=la-headlines-health&ctrack=1&cset=true

7Guthrie, Catherine, “Vitamin B for the Blues,” NaturalSolutionsMag.com.
http://www.naturalsolutionsmag.com/index.cfm/fuseaction/center.article/articleID/8539/subTopicID/119/VitaminBfortheBlues

8Melitis, Chris, “Nutrition Depletion and ,” VRP.com.
http://www.vrp.com/articles.aspx?ProdID=art2079&zTYPE=2

http://bodyecology.com//08/03/27/5_kinds_of_prescription_drugs_that_zap_nutrients.php

March 27, 2008

Good article on what’s wrong with health these days

Filed under: alternative health news, big agriculture, big medicine, big pharma — Tags: , , — sesame seed @ 9:54 pm

This is a good primer for people who want to know why there’s so much illness these days, and what they can do in their lives to stop it. Then  go inform others.

The Four Horsemen of the Health Apocalypse

by Tony Isaacs (see all articles by this author)

(NaturalNews) A dark plague has crept across the land, operating largely in shadow for generations and set upon us by an evil master whose footsteps have fouled the earth for as long as man has walked upon it. Led by four evil horsemen who have been corrupted and enslaved by the master, the plague has cast its shadowy tentacles from sea to sea through towns and cities large and small, sparing no one. Almost no location has proven remote enough to escape its reach and it has visited death, illness and suffering on young and old alike.

The plague is Bad Health. Its master is Greed. And the Four Horsemen who have been corrupted and perverted into servants of greed who spread the plague are our Food, our Medicine, our Industry and our Government. The effects of this evil plague can be measured in terms of the dollars and the lives it cruelly affects – billions of dollars annually in ill gained profit at the expense of deaths that run into the hundreds of thousand and suffering that affects millions.

Throughout history, men have existed whose greed and lust for wealth and power has driven them to put their own selfish interests above those of humanity itself. Such greed has been behind most of the evils in the history of mankind and caused untold human suffering. Today the very health of modern man itself is under attack by the greedy elite who willingly trade profits for the ability of their fellow men and women to enjoy good health and live long enjoyable lives.

Through a process that began in the late 1800’s, those who place personal gain and wealth above health and humanity have corrupted the four most important cornerstones that should be our shining benefactors and guarantors of providing mankind with good, nutritious food to drink, air to breath and water to drink: our food supply, our medicines, our industry, and our government. Today, instead of marshalling their efforts to benefit humanity, these cornerstones we depend on have been corrupted to benefit an elite few, turning them instead into just the opposite of what they should be – darkly corrupted purveyors of illness which rob us of our health and our wealth, take years off our life spans, and force us into a lifetime of managed illness and poor nutrition. If allowed to continue, the downward spiral in health may ultimately threaten the ability of mankind to even continue as a species.

Here then are the four fallen cornerstones of health and a brief overview of how greed has turned them from providers and protectors of our health into vassals that provide profits at the expense of health and humanity:

Food

Our soils have been depleted, our food crops have been genetically engineered to produce higher yields and more bulk with less nutrition and to withstand more pesticides, herbicides and artificial fertilizers that ensure higher profits at the cost of multitudes of health problems for those who consume them. Furthermore, the food on our grocer’s shelves has had the nutrition processed out, with harmful additives processed in to enhance shelf life, color, taste and texture, with the same result. The advent of large scale industrial farms favored with government subsidies has changed the emphasis from good nutrition coming from a local human face to good production and poor, contaminated nutrition from faceless industries. Thanks to over-farming and the advent of chemical fertilizers, our soils are rapidly being stripped of valuable minerals, including trace minerals. Only the three primary minerals plants need to grow are being replaced – from artificial chemical fertilizers, but not the 60 or more they need to have optimum nutrition.

Medicine

For 6000 years, mankind used nature as the primary means of preventing and controlling illness. In the early 1900’s, there were more natural health and homeopathic practitioners, and as many alternate medical schools as there were “germ theory” doctors and universities. But the natural and homeopathic practitioners and schools were persecuted and prosecuted into virtual extinction after the rich and powerful Rockefellers and Carnegies teamed up with the American Medical Society to make germ theory medicine the ONLY acceptable form of medicine and increase profits by weeding out competition by means fair or foul. Such actions continue to this very day, but nowhere in history was the abuse of power and persecution more criminally blatant than during the reign of terror and personal enrichment of Morris Fishbein, who persecuted such leading alternative giants as Royal Raymond Rife and Harry Hoxsey.

More information on the misdeeds of Morris Fishbein can be found in this informative and factual article: (http://www.rense.com/general19/enemy.htm) .

About the same time the AMA was conspiring to eliminate competition, the world pharmaceutical giants, then located in Germany, were conspiring to replace all natural remedies and healing plants with drugs made in their labs. In the early 1900’s, these companies formed the I. G. Farben cartel, with the express purpose of seizing control of the world’s medical drug trade, and their plans have been successful beyond even their own wildest dreams of greed. For generations now, we have been inundated with a never ending avalanche of propaganda telling us to “ask our doctors” about the benefits of drugs while warning us away from natural alternatives that are safer, more effective and far less expensive.

For generations, our doctors have been taught at medical schools whose largest source of funding by far is the world pharmaceutical empire. They have been taught precious little about the role diet, nutrition, exercise, lifestyle and natural plants have to play in prevention and healing. Instead, they have been taught that the way to treat illness and disease is to prescribe medications – medications that just happen to be made by the same people who fund their education. As a result, safe, effective and less expensive natural healing methods, with hundreds and even thousands of years of proven success, has been chastised and made illegal and has been replaced by patentable and hugely profitable synthetics and isolates. An even darker result is the millions of lives and billions of dollars that could be saved if alternative and natural treatments were allowed for cancer, heart disease, liver disease, diabetes and a host of other conditions that mainstream “approved” medicine has been unable or unwilling to cure.

From the very first, these lab created drugs have had significant and often life-threatening side effects, and, when effective at all, have mostly managed symptoms instead of effected cures. Often, their prolonged use leads to new illnesses and more medications in a never ending cycle so that by the time a man reaches 65 years of age in the United States, he takes an average of 15 prescribed and over the counter medications daily – when it all began with one or two conditions that could have been treated naturally. When your only marketplace is the human body, it is a wonderful plan to protect and increase profits, but a horrible one for humanity.

Industry

Since the beginning of the industrial age and the coal burning plants, every year an increasing amount of literally thousands of metric tons of chemical pollutants, including carcinogens and thousands of other highly toxic chemicals and compounds such as mercury, lead, PCP, arsenic, etc., are spewed into our environment, polluting the air we breathe, the water we drink and the food we eat. While the National Institute of Health has recognized 133 chemical compounds which are, or may be, carcinogens, well over ten thousand industrial compounds have not been tested for safety either singly or in combination, and the number of new compounds introduced to the environment grows by leaps and bounds each year.

Not only have the vast majority of our industries resisted having their growing list of thousands of chemical compounds properly tested for safety, they have resisted controls on the use and emissions of the ones known to be harmful. Shamefully, it has been revealed that the medical industry that benefits financially from increased illness has often supported industry efforts to control their chemical contaminants that make us ill (see Devra Davis important new book, The Secret History of the War on Cancer). Virtually all of our industries, including the food and medical industries, have for the sake of profits corrupted the agencies entrusted with their oversight into agencies that serve their profits first and the citizens they should serve second. No one outside of industry should begrudge them making a reasonable profit; however, no one inside industry can reasonably argue that they should not make their profits while operating morally and being good neighbors who strive to protect the health and welfare of the consumers.

Government

The government should be the greatest protector of the health and well being of its citizens, but the influence and money of the greedy have corrupted it to a government of the corporation which gives mostly lip service to actually serving its citizens first and foremost. The United States of America was founded as a constitutional republic to protect and insure the unalienable rights of every citizen to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. All levels of government, with the federal level having the least powers of all in most areas, were supposed to derive their powers from the consent of the governed. Thanks to the relentless pursuit of wealth and power, and the use of that wealth and power to buy votes and influence, our government has become a top down corruption that our founding fathers would surely rise up against in renewed revolt.

No greater example of this corruption of masters and priorities can be found than the FDA (United States Food and Drug Administration). Although the public widely believes that the FDA is out to protect them, what it actually does is run a protection racket for mainstream medicine, especially the world pharmaceutical empire. Who the FDA really serves and protects becomes crystal clear when you examine their actions. On the one hand, they twist the rules and impose their own definitions of what constitutes a drug to keep safe and natural competition off the market by actions such as persecuting and threatening cherry growers, and the makers and sellers of products like bitter melon, Stevia and colloidal silver, none of whom have ever caused a single death and each of which has hundreds of Pub Med and other studies vouching for their effectiveness. On the other hand, they foully delay action, hide studies and outright lie about the safety of products like Vioxx, Bextra, Alleve, Aspartame, Avandia, Fosamax, Gardasil, and a host of others which have been blamed with hundreds of thousands of deaths and illnesses in order for their big pharma and big chemical industry masters to reap billions in profits while the public suffers.

In the words of the last FDA commissioner to stand up for the safety of the citizens and resist the lobbying and pressure of Big Pharma:

“The FDA ‘protects’ the big drug companies and are subsequently rewarded, and using the government’s police powers they attack those who threaten the big drug companies. People think that the FDA is protecting them.

It isn’t.

What the FDA is doing and what the public thinks it is doing are as different as night and day.”

Dr. Herbert Ley

And thus concludes this introduction to a new series of articles by the author, ones which may someday comprise a new book. In future installments we will take an in depth look at each of the “Four Horsemen” and those who are responsible for robbing our health for the sake of their greed, the increasing rates of cancer and heart disease, the reasons for autism and other conditions which have exploded among our children, and we will examine why we spend more money by far on healthcare in the United States than anywhere else in the world, yet have seen our life expectancy drop from 14th to 42nd in the world in just two decades.

We will also examine what we as individuals and as a nation can do to take back control of our health, our bodies and the agencies that are supposed to serve us.

Until next time, live long, live healthy, live happy!

About the author

Tony Isaacs, is a natural health advocate and researcher and the author of books and articles about natural health including “Cancer’s Natural Enemy” and “Collected Remedies“as well as song lyrics and humorous anecdotal stories. Mr. Isaacs also has The Best Years in Life website for baby boomers and others wishing to avoid prescription drugs and mainstream managed illness and live longer, healthier and happier lives naturally. He is currently residing in the scenic Texas hill country near Utopia, Texas where he serves as a consultant to the Utopia Silver colloidal silver and supplement company and where he is working on a major book project due for publication later this year. Mr. Isaacs also hosts the CureZone “Ask Tony Isaacs” forum as well as the Yahoo Health Group “Oleander Souphttp://www.naturalnews.com/z022828.html

March 26, 2008

Soy: Not a Health Food

 there’s no getting around it: you need to incorporate more whole, organic, unprocessed foods. the fewer hands it touches, the better.

——–

Soy Industry Promotes Health Myths to Sell More Soy Products, Says Author

Tuesday, March 25, 2008 by: David Gutierrez | Key concepts: cancer, soy industry and breast cancer Want stories like this e-mailed to you? Click here for free email alerts

(NaturalNews) Author Kaayla T. Daniel is challenging what she calls the myth that soy prevents breast cancer. “The truth is that soy protein contains dangerous levels of plant estrogens. Although not identical to human estrogens, these have been proven to increase breast cell proliferation, a widely accepted marker of breast cancer risk.” said Daniel, author of “The Whole Soy Story: The Dark Side of America’s Favorite Health Food.”

“The soy industry consistently plays down the evidence that soy can promote breast cancer,” Daniel said. “It is even using Breast Cancer Awareness Month as an excuse to push its products on unsuspecting women.”

Daniel disputes the idea that soy is responsible for lower breast cancer rates among those who consume traditional Asian diets. She cites a recent study in the journal “Cancer Causes and Control,” which found that Asians who ate more soy did not have lower cancer rates than Asians who ate less.

“The soy industry … heavily promotes the myth that Asians have lower rates of breast cancer because of soy consumption,” Daniel said. “In fact, Asians eat soy in very small quantities, as a condiment in the diet and not as a staple food. What’s more, they eat old-fashioned, whole soybean products such as miso, tempeh, natto and tofu, not the new heavily processed products marketed by the soy industry such as soy milk, veggie burgers and ‘energy bars.'”

Government officials in Israel and France have concluded that high soy consumption may indeed pose a breast cancer risk. Israeli Health Ministry guidelines recommend that women “exercise caution” in soy consumption, and the French Food Agency has decided to require soy products to contain warning labels.

“The risks are well established,” Daniel said. “Soy is clearly not the answer for breast cancer prevention. The evidence is mounting that soy may even be part of the problem.”

http://www.naturalnews.com/022882.html

March 19, 2008

Outrage of the Day: Protest the MOTHERS Act

If you need an explanation of why antidepressants aren’t good for fetuses (let alone adults and teens), I don’t know what to say. Read the article, sign the petition, contact your representatives. Psychotropic drugs–> mind control. Herbs, diet, and exercise–> things Big Pharma can’t profit from. We must be the change! Social change can come from good health and good nutrition. Don’t make yourself a hostage to Big Pharma!

NaturalNews.com printable article

Originally published March 6 2008

MOTHERS Act Seeks to Drug Expectant Mothers with Antidepressants to “Treat” Postpartum Depression

by Mike Adams

(NaturalNews) A new law being considered in the U.S. Congress would attempt to prevent postpartum depression in new moms by drugging them with SSRI antidepressant drugs while they’re still pregnant. This legislation is being aggressively pushed by pro-pharma front groups in an effort to expand the customer base for SSRI drugs by targeting pregnant women as new “customers” for the chemicals. It’s an example of the latest insanity from Big Pharma, whose drugs are already killing over 100,000 Americans each year while inciting violence and suicides in teens. Every single shooting massacre we’ve seen in the last ten years has been carried out by a person taking SSRI antidepressant drugs. The mainstream media pays no attention to this link, and the FDA ignores the reports in order to keep these drugs on the market.

SSRI drugs have never been approved for use on newborns, yet this new MOTHERS Act will effectively drug unborn babies and newborns with drugs like Prozac. This will certainly have an impact on their developing brains, and the bulk of the research available today shows that the impact will be negative. Will these children be more prone to violent thoughts and behavior? Will they contemplate suicide at younger ages? And what will be the impact of the drugs on the mother?

For one mother who was drugged with antidepressants — Amy Philo — the drugs caused her to experience thoughts of violence against her own newborn babies. After taking antidepressants prescribed by her doctor, she had visions of killing them (and herself). Upon returning to her doctor, Amy was told to increase the dosage! Eventually, Amy realized the drugs were wrecking her own brain chemistry, and she stopped taking the pills entirely, causing the thoughts of violence and suicide to subside.

Now, Amy is leading a campaign to stop the MOTHERS Act. She’s posted a heart-wrenching 5-minute video on YouTube that tells her story (with pictures of her babies, too!):
http://youtube.com/watch?v=LQW23XCmOCw

A local news station also covered her story, and that report can be viewed here:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=W4B8I_8wz6I

An article explaining more about the effort to stop the MOTHERS Act is found here:
http://birthfriend.wordpress.com/2008/0…

As you’ll learn from these videos and articles, the real purpose of the MOTHERS Act is to drug the mothers. Thus, it should really be called the Drug the MOTHERS Act! It’s being pushed by drug companies, of course, and backed by psychiatrists and corrupt government officials who have close ties to the pharmaceutical industry. The whole point of this act is not to protect mothers from depression, but to recruit mothers as patients and, by doing so, also expose newborns to psychiatric drugs that will destroy their normal brain function and turn them into lifelong customers requiring ongoing chemical treatment.

We must stop the MOTHERS Act. It is a dangerous law created for marketing purposes, not medical purposes. Treating pregnant women with antidepressant drugs (and thereby exposing their unborn babies to those drugs) is one of the most outrageous pro-pharma ideas to come along in many years. It’s not enough to drug the teenagers and children with these dangerous pharmaceuticals, now Big Pharma wants to start drugging children before they’re even born!

If this law is passed and implemented, I fear for the future of our babies. Imbalanced by these dangerous pharmaceuticals, mothers are likely to commit acts of extreme violence against their children. Then they will be thrown into the prison system, of course, where they will be drugged with yet more psychiatric drugs (generating yet more profits for Big Pharma). Their children, meanwhile, will be taken away by Child Protective Services and treated with psychiatric drugs under the care of a “psychiatric doctors” who, of course, will poison that child’s brain with a never-ending regimen of Big Pharma’s chemicals. Do you see the scam here? By “screening” pregnant women for depression, they can create TWO new patients for psychiatric drugs, even though a family is destroyed in the process.

This is precisely the aim of Big Pharma: Sell more drugs, create more markets, and earn more profits regardless of the cost in human suffering. Big Pharma has zero concern for families and zero compassion for human beings. It only seeks to poison the minds of the people through television advertising and psychiatric drugs, all while maximizing its own profits.

What you can do to stop the MOTHERS Act

We must work together to stop this dangerous act that would recruit mothers to be treated with dangerous psychiatric drugs (while exposing their unborn babies to those same drugs).

Sign the petition:
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/stop-t…

Also, see Unite For Life at:
http://uniteforlife.org/MOTHERSact.htm#…

By the way, this is not an article about pro-life vs. pro-choice on the issue of unborn babies, and I use the term “unborn babies” in a purely humanitarian sense, because a child that’s in the womb and about to be born is clearly an “unborn baby” whose health must be protected. I am opposed to the drugging of mothers during any trimester. Pharmaceuticals simply do not belong in expectant mothers. Those pharmaceuticals pass straight through to the blood of the fetus. Regardless of whether you’re pro-life or pro-choice on the issue of abortion, I hope you agree that pregnant women should not be drugged with antidepressants!

Press release from UNITE / CHAADA

UNITE / CHAADA / ICFDA / COPES Foundation Objection to the Proposed MOTHERS Act – Bill before Senate Puts Young Children and Mothers in Serious Danger

To the HELP Committee of the United States Senate:

For years, the March of Dimes has warned not to use meds while pregnant. Why now encourage mothers to take drugs?

Please register this extreme objection to the proposed MOTHERS Act (S. 1375) which is now before you in committee. It is my earnest hope that you will immediately defeat this bill in committee. The bill has been brought to you under the guise of ensuring safety or support for new mothers; however, nothing could be further from the truth.

The bill was originally proposed in response to the death by suicide of Melanie Stokes, a pharmaceutical rep. who took her own life by leaping from a balcony several stories off of the ground. Contrary to popular understanding it was not post-partum depression that killed Melanie, but the numerous antidepressant drugs she was taking, which the FDA confirmed double the suicide risk.

Nobody is suggesting that new moms do not ever experience mood swings, depression, or even psychotic episodes. The more important issue is what the effect of this bill will be and why nobody is addressing potential methods of prevention. Everyone knows how many young moms experience gestational diabetes, but who is addressing the even higher rate of gestational hypoglycemia, which often initially manifests as depression? This is a physical condition that is treated with diet and is exacerbated by antidepressants (which list hypoglycemia as a side effect).

To simply screen women for post-partum mood disorders and ensure that they get “treatment,” we would be setting families up for the expectation of tragedy and increasing the chances of that actually happening when we refer them to medical “professionals” who are oblivious to the negative mind-altering effects of psychiatric drugs. A popular opinion among medical caregivers these days is that “post-partum mood disorders” must be a sign of an underlying biochemical imbalance and would be corrected with drugs.

Current drugs used on post-partum women include SSRIs, atypical antidepressants, and even antipsychotic drugs. These pose a significant risk to the immediate safety and health of women as well as their children and families. SSRIs carry a black box warning for suicide and the most popular one, Effexor (the same medication Andrea Yates was taking when she drowned her 5 children), has the words “homicidal ideation” listed as a side effect. Nearly every recent case of infanticide which has made news can be clearly linked back to a psychiatric drug. These drugs endanger babies and mothers.

Additionally, the drugs can be extremely addictive and also pose a risk to nurslings or babies exposed in subsequent pregnancies. Some babies have died from SIDS linked to exposure from pregnancy or nursing; others have experienced coma, seizures, GI bleeding, heart defects, lung problems, and many babies died before reaching full term or soon after birth.

The bill does not address the fact that studies show that biological agents (antidepressants for example) cited in the bill and already prescribed to pregnant women can cause congenital heart birth defects where children have had to undergo open-heart surgeries to correct this. Also, some babies are being born with organs outside their bodies, requiring immediate surgery.

In closing I want to re-emphasize the total lack of any real answer to post-partum depression posed by this bill. If we can prevent post-partum depression or support moms through it, or offer proven SAFE and EFFECTIVE natural alternatives to dangerous drugs, then we should. However we should never, ever become party to a pharmaceutical campaign to push drugs on the public. We will set ourselves up for disaster if we allow an invasion into the privacy of every family in the country and suggest to our most vulnerable citizens that they might be mentally ill.

We must do everything in our power to protect innocent children, and giving their mothers addictive drugs which pose a significant risk of causing suicide and violence does not protect anyone. It does cause the child to become addicted while still in the womb and sets up drug dependence which can be lifelong.

We still have no idea what effect most drugs have on developing brains. It might take decades for the impact on the developing brain to become apparent.

For information on the research pertaining to the risks of antidepressants and other treatments for new moms and their babies, details about the Melanie Stokes case (or you can read the letter by Dr. Ann Blake Tracy at http://uniteforlife.org/MOTHERSact.htm#…), as well as information on prevention strategies and safe, effective treatments for post-partum mood disorders, please contact us.

Sincerely,

Amy Philo
Founder, www.uniteforlife.org
Co-Founder, www.chaada.org

Camille Milke
Founder, www.copesfoundation.com
New Mexico State Director of the ICFDA http://www.drugawareness.org/home.html
Mother of a victim of psychiatric drug-induced suicide and grandmother to a now motherless child

Dr. Ann Blake Tracy
Executive Director of the ICFDA
http://www.drugawareness.org/home.html
Author of Prozac: Pancaea or Pandora? Our Serotonin Nightmare

February 24, 2008

Dr. Blaylock Blows the Lid off Vaccine Cover-Ups–Vaccine Truth Now!

From Dr. Mercola’s archives, reprinted here in one handy (long) page.  URL follows report.

Mercury is a neurotoxin. Get it and preservatives and aluminum out of vaccines NOW.

———

The Truth Behind the Vaccine Coverup

 

[ Page 1, Page 2, Page 3, Page 4, Page 5, Page 6, Page 7, Page 8, Page 9, Page 10 ] References

Next >>

Dr. Mercola’s Comment:

I find it almost incomprehensible that thimerosal, the well-documented, toxic mercury-containing preservative, is still in many vaccines, years after federal agencies have mandated that it be removed from vaccines. Most people, physicians included, don’t understand that thimerosal is still used in most vaccines and is likely one of the major contributing factors to vaccine toxicity.

Mercury is a potent neurotoxin. Injecting it into a child, whose nervous system is rapidly developing, could have terrible consequences. So, before you decide to vaccinate your children, do them a favor and look into the many risks and side effects associated with common childhood vaccines. Doing so could mean the difference between life and death.

When my colleague and regular columnist, Dr. Russell Blaylock, forwarded me his latest manuscript, I was shocked and dismayed to read his review of a secret 2000 meeting between CDC officials and scientists about the use of thimerosal. I believe you will be too which is why I posted his entire manuscript and it will be posted over the upcoming issues. So please be sure and read the entire fascinating story.


By Russell L. Blaylock, M.D.

I was asked to write a paper on some of the newer mechanisms of vaccine damage to the nervous system, but, in the interim, I came across an incredible document that should blow the lid off the coverup being engineered by the pharmaceutical companies in conjunction with powerful governmental agencies.

It all started when a friend of mine sent me a copy of a letter from Congressman David Weldon (R-Fla.), M.D. to the director of the CDC, Dr Julie L. Gerberding, in which he alludes to a study by a Dr. Thomas Verstraeten, then representing the CDC, on the connection between infant exposure to thimerosal-containing vaccines and neurodevelopmental injury.

In this shocking letter, Weldon refers to Dr. Verstraeten’s study which looked at the data from the Vaccine Safety Datalink and found a significant correlation between thimerosal exposure via vaccines and several neurodevelopmental disorders including tics, speech and language delays and possibly to ADD.

Weldon questioned the CDC director as to why, following this meeting, Dr. Verstraeten published his results, almost four years later, in the journal Pediatrics to show just the opposite. That is, there was no correlation to any neurodevelopmental problems related to thimerosal exposure in infants. In his letter, Weldon refers to a report of the minutes of this meeting held in Georgia, which exposes some incredible statements by the “experts” making up this study group.

The group’s purpose was to evaluate and discuss Dr. Verstraeten’s results and data and make recommendation that would eventually lead to possible alterations in the existing vaccine policy.

Pulling Teeth

I contacted Weldon’s legislative assistant and he kindly sent me a complete copy of this report. Now, as usual in these cases, the government did not give up this report willingly. It required a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit to pry it loose. Having read the report twice and carefully analyzing it, I can see why they did not want any outsiders to look at it. It is a bombshell, as you shall see.

In this analysis, I will not only describe and discuss this report, but also will frequently quote their words directly and supply the exact page number so others can see for themselves.

The official title of the meeting was the “Scientific Review of Vaccine Safety Datalink Information.” This conference, held on June 7-8, 2000 at the Simpsonwood Retreat Center, Norcross, Ga., assembled 51 scientists and physicians of which five represented vaccine manufacturers (Smith Kline Beecham, Merck, Wyeth, North American Vaccine and Aventis Pasteur).

During this conference, these scientists focused on the study of the Datalink material, whose main author was Dr. Thomas Verstraesten who identified himself as working at the National Immunization Program of the CDC.

(It was discovered by Congressman Weldon that Dr. Verstraeten left the CDC shortly after this conference to work for GlaxoSmithKline in Belgium which manufacturers vaccines, a recurring pattern that has been given the name a “revolving door.” It is also interesting to note that GlaxoSmithKline was involved in several lawsuits over complications secondary to their vaccines.)

To start off the meeting Dr. Roger Bernier, Associate Director for Science in the National Immunization Program (CDC), related some pertinent history. He stated that congressional action in 1977 required that the FDA review mercury being used in drugs and biologics (vaccines). In meeting this order, the FDA called for information from the manufacturers of vaccines and drugs. He notes that a group of European regulators and manufacturers met on April 1999 and noted the situation but made no recommendations of changes.

In other words, it was all for show.

The Lid Blown Off

At this point, Dr. Bernier made an incredible statement (page 12). He said, “In the United States, there was a growing recognition that cumulative exposure may exceed some of the guidelines.” By guidelines, he is referring to those for mercury exposure safety levels set by several regulatory agencies. The three guidelines were set by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), FDA and EPA. The most consistently violated safety guideline was that set by EPA. He further explains that he is referring to children being exposed to thimerosal in vaccines.

Based on this realization that they were violating safety guidelines he says, this then “resulted in a joint statement of the Public Health Service (PHS) and the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) in July of last year (1999), which stated that as a long term goal, it was desirable to remove mercury from vaccines because it was a potentially preventable source of exposure.” (Page 12)

As an aside, one has to wonder, where was the Public Health Service and American Academy of Pediatrics during all the years of mercury use in vaccines and why didn’t they know that:

  • They were exceeding regulatory safety levels.

  • Why weren’t they aware of the extensive literature showing deleterious effects on the developing nervous system of babies?

As we shall see even these “experts” seem to be cloudy on the mercury literature.

An Earlier Meeting

Dr. Bernier notes that in August 1999, a public workshop was held in Bethesda, Md., at the Lister Auditorium by the National Vaccine Advisory Group and the Interagency Working Group on Vaccines to consider thimerosal risk in vaccine use. And based on what was discussed in that conference, thimerosal was removed from the hepatitis B vaccine (HepB).

It is interesting to note that the media took very little interest in what was learned at that meeting and it may have been a secret meeting as well. As we shall see, there is a reason why they struggle to keep the contents of all these meetings secret from the public.

Bernier then notes, on page 13, that in October 1999, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) “looked this situation over again and did not express a preference for any of the vaccines that were thimerosal free.” In this discussion, he further notes the ACIP concluded that the thimerosal-containing vaccines could be used but the “long-term goal is to try to remove thimerosal as soon as possible.”

Now, we need to stop and think about what has transpired here. We have an important group here — the ACIP — that essentially plays a role in vaccine policy that affects tens of millions of children every year. And, we have evidence from the thimerosal meeting in 1999 that the potential for serious injury to the infant’s brain is so serious that a recommendation for removal becomes policy.

In addition, they are all fully aware that tiny babies are receiving mercury doses that exceed even EPA safety limits, yet all they can say is that we must “try to remove thimerosal as soon as possible?” Do they not worry about the tens of millions of babies that will continue receiving thimerosal-containing vaccines until they can get around to stopping the use of thimerosal?

The Obvious Solution

It should also be noted that it is a misnomer to say “removal of thimerosal” since they are not removing anything. They just plan to stop adding it to future vaccines once they use up existing stocks, which entails millions of doses. And, incredibly, the government allows them to do it.

Even more incredibly, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Academy of Family Practice similarly endorse this insane policy. In fact, they specifically state that children should continue to receive the thimerosal-containing vaccines until new thimerosal-free vaccines can be manufactured at the will of the manufacturers. Are they afraid that there will be a sudden diphtheria epidemic in America or tetanus epidemic?

The most obvious solution was to use only single-dose vials, which requires no preservative. So why don’t they use them?

Oh, they exclaim, it would add to the cost of the vaccine. Of course, we are only talking about a few dollars per vaccine at most, certainly worth the health of your child’s brain and future. They could use some of the hundreds of millions of dollars they waste on vaccine promotion every year to cover these costs for the poor. Then, that would cut into some “fat cat’s” budget and we can’t have that.

It was disclosed that thimerosal was in all influenza vaccines, DPT (and most DtaP) vaccines and all HepB vaccines.

As they begin to concentrate on the problem at hand we first begin to learn that the greatest problem with the meeting is that, they know virtually nothing about what they are doing. On page 15, for example, they admit that there is very little pharmacokinetic data on ethylmercury, the form of mercury in thimerosal. In fact, they say there is no data on excretion and the data on toxicity is sparse. Yet it is recognized to cause hypersensitivity, neurological problems and even death, and it is known to easily pass the blood-brain and placental barriers.

No Research?

Therefore, what they are admitting is that we have a form of mercury that has been used in vaccines since the 1930s and no one has bothered to study its effects on biological systems, especially the brain of infants. Their defense throughout this conference is “We just don’t know the effects of ethylmercury.” As a solution, they resort to studies on methylmercury, because there are thousands of studies on this form of mercury. The major source of this form is seafood consumption.

It takes them a while to get the two forms of mercury straight, since for several pages of the report they say methylmercury is in thimerosal rather than ethylmercury. They can be forgiven for this. On page 16, Dr. Johnson, an immunologist and pediatrician at the University of Colorado School of Medicine and the National Jewish Center for Immunology and Respiratory Medicine, notes that he would like to see the incorporation of wide margins of safety, that is 3 to 10-fold margins of safety to “account for data uncertainties.”

What he means: There are so many things we do not know about this toxin that we had better use very wide margins of safety. For most substances, the FDA uses a 100-fold margin of safety.

The reason for this, which they do not mention, is that in a society of hundreds of millions of people, there are groups of people who are much more sensitive to the toxin than others. For instance:

  1. The elderly

  2. Chronically ill

  3. Nutritionally deficient

  4. Small babies

  5. Premature babies

  6. People on certain medications

  7. Inborn defects in detoxification

In fact, in this study they excluded premature babies and low birth weight babies from the main study, some of which had the highest mercury levels, because they would be hard to study and because they had the most developmental problems related to the mercury.

Who Are You?

On page 16, Dr. Johnson makes an incredible statement, one that defines the problem we have in this country with the promoters of these vaccines. “As an aside, we found a cultural difference between vaccinologist and environmental health people in that many of us in the vaccine arena have never thought about uncertainty factors before. We tend to be relatively concrete in our thinking.”

Then he says, “One of the big cultural events in that meeting — was when Dr. Clarkson repetitively pointed out to us that we just didn’t get it about uncertainty, and he was actually quite right.”

This is an incredible admission. First, what is a vaccinologist? Do you go to school to learn to be one? How many years of residency training are required to be a vaccinologist? Are there board exams?

It’s a stupid term used to describe people who are obsessed with vaccines, not that they actually study the effects of the vaccines, as we shall see throughout this meeting.

Most important is the admission by Dr. Johnson that he and his fellow “vaccinologists” are so blinded by their obsession with forcing vaccines on society that they never even considered that there might be factors involved that could greatly affect human health, the so-called “uncertainties.”

Further, he and his fellow “vaccinologists” like to think in concrete terms. That is, they are very narrow in their thinking and wear blinders that prevent them from seeing the numerous problems occurring with large numbers of vaccination in infants and children. Their goal in life is to vaccinate as many people as possible with an ever-growing number of vaccines.

On page 17, his “concrete thinking” once again takes over. He refers to the Bethesda meeting on thimerosal safety issues and says, “There was no evidence of a problem, only a theoretical concern that young infants’ developing brains were being exposed to an organomercurial.” Of course, as I shall point out later, it is a lot more than a “theoretical concern.”

He then continues by saying, “We agree that while there was no evidence of a problem the increasing number of vaccine injections given to infants was increasing the theoretical mercury exposure risk.”

The Ultimate Irony

It’s hard to conceive of a true scientist not seeing the incredible irony of these statements.

Medical literature is abound with studies on the deleterious effects of mercury on numerous enzymes, mitochondrial energy production, synaptic function, dendritic retraction, neurotubule dissolution and excitotoxicity. Yet, he sees only a “theoretical risk” associated with an ever increasing addition of thimerosal-containing vaccines.

It is also important to note that these geniuses never even saw a problem in the first place. It was pressure from outside scientists, parents of affected children and groups representing them that pointed out the problem. They were, in essence, reacting to pressure from outside the “vaccinologist club” and not discovering internally that a problem “might” exist.

In fact, if these outside groups had not become involved, these “vaccinologists” would have continued to add more and more mercury-containing vaccines to the list of required vaccines. Only when the problem became so obvious — that is of epidemic proportion (close to that now) and the legal profession became involved — would they have even noticed there was a problem. This is a recurring theme in the government’s regulatory agencies, as witnessed with fluoride, aspartame, MSG, dioxin and pesticides issues.

It is also interesting that Dr. Johnson did admit that the greatest risk was among low birth weight infants and premature infants. Now why would that be if there existed such a large margin of safety with mercury used in vaccines? Could just a few pounds of body weight make such a dramatic difference?

In fact, it does but it also means that normal birth weight children, especially those near the low range of normal birth weight, are also in greater danger. It also would mean that children receiving doses of mercury higher than the 72 ug in this study would be at high risk as well because their dose, based on body weight, would be comparable to that of the low birth weight child receiving the lower dose.

This was never even considered by these “vaccinologist experts” who decide policy for your children.

Now this next statement should shock everyone, but especially the poor who in any way think that these “vaccinologists” experts have their best interest in mind. Dr. Johnson says on page 17, “We agree that it would be desirable to remove mercury from U.S. licensed vaccines, but we did not agree that this was a universal recommendation that we would make because of the issue concerning preservatives for delivering vaccines to other countries, particularly developing countries, in the absence of hard data that implied that there was, in fact, a problem.”

So, here you have it. The data is convincing enough that the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Academy of Family Practice, as well as the regulatory agencies and the CDC along with these organization all recommend its removal as quickly as possible because of concerns of adverse effects of mercury on brain development, but not for the children in the developing countries

The Real Purpose of Child Health Programs

I thought the whole idea of child health programs in the United States directed toward the developing world was to give poor children a better chance in an increasingly competitive world. The policy being advocated would increase the neurodevelopmental problems seen in poor children (also in this country) of developing countries, impairing their ability to learn and develop competitive minds.

Remember, there was a representative of the World Health Organization (WHO), Dr. John Clements, serving on this panel of “experts.” He never challenged this statement made by Dr. Johnson.

It also needs to be appreciated that children in developing countries are at a much greater risk of complications from vaccinations and from mercury toxicity than children in developed countries. This is because of poor nutrition, concomitant parasitic and bacterial infections and a high incidence of low birth weight in these children.

We are now witnessing a disaster in African countries caused by the use of older live virus polio vaccines that has now produced an epidemic of vaccine-related polio. That is, polio caused by the vaccine itself. In fact, in some African countries, polio was not seen until the vaccine was introduced.

How does the WHO and the “vaccinologist experts” from this country now justify a continued polio vaccination program with this dangerous vaccine? Now that they have created the epidemic of polio, they cannot stop the program.

In a recent article, it was pointed out that this is the most deranged reasoning, since more vaccines will mean more vaccine-related cases of polio. But then, “vaccinologists” have difficulty with these “uncertainties.” (Jacob JT. A developing country perspective on vaccine-associated paralytic poliomyelitis. Bulletin WHO 2004; 82: 53-58. See commentary by D.M. Salisbury at the end of the article.)

Then he again emphasizes the philosophy that the health of children is secondary to “the program” when he says, “We saw some compelling data that delaying the birth dose of HepB vaccine would lead to significant disease burden as a consequence of missed opportunity to immunize.” This implies our children would be endangered from the risk of hepatitis B should the vaccine program stop vaccinating newborns with the HepB vaccine.

In fact, this statement is not based on any risk to U.S. children at all and he makes that plain when he states, “that the potential impact on countries that have 10 percent to 15 percent newborn hepatitis B exposure risk was very distressing to consider.” (page 18)

Scare Tactics

In other words, the risk is not to normal U.S. children but to children in developing countries. In fact, hepatitis B is not a risk until the teenage years and after in this country. The only at-risk group among children is with children born to drug using parents, mothers infected with hepatitis B or HIV infected parents. The reason for vaccinating the newborns is to capture them before they can escape the “vaccinologist’s” vaccine program.

This is a tactic often used to scare mothers into having their children vaccinated. For example, they say that if children are not vaccinated against measles millions of children could die during a measles epidemic.

They know this is nonsense. What they are using is examples taken from developing countries with poor nutrition and immune function in which such epidemic death can occur. In the United States, we would not see this because of better nutrition, health facilities and sanitation. In fact, most deaths seen when measles outbreaks occur in the United States happen in these situations:

  • Vaccination was contraindicated.

  • The vaccine did not work.

  • With children who have chronic, immune-suppressing diseases.

In fact, in most studies, these children catching the measles or other childhood diseases have been either fully immunized or partially immunized. The big secret among “vaccinologists” is that anywhere from 20 to 50 percent of children are not resistant to the diseases for which they have been immunized.

Also on page 18, Dr. Johnson tells the committee that it was Dr. Walt Orenstein who “asked the most provocative question which introduced a great deal of discussion. That was, should we try to seek neurodevelopmental outcomes for children exposed to varying doses of mercury by utilizing the Vaccine Safety Datalink data from one or more sites.” (page 18).

I take from this no one had ever even thought of looking at the data that had just been sitting there all these years unreviewed. Children could have been dropping like flies or suffering from terrible neurodevelopmental defects caused by the vaccine program and no one in the government would have known. In fact, that is exactly what the data suggested was happening, at least in regard to neurodevelopmental delays.

We should also appreciate the government sponsored two conferences on the possible role of metals, aluminum and mercury being used in vaccines without any change in vaccine policy occurring after the meetings. These meetings were held a year before this meeting and before any examination of the data which was being held tightly by the CDC, which was denied to other independent, highly qualified researchers. (I will talk more about what was discussed in the aluminum conference later.)

The Aluminum Deception

It is very important and is only briefly referred to in this conference for a very good reason. If the public knew what was discussed at the aluminum meeting, no one would ever get a vaccination using the presently manufactured types of vaccines again.

Despite what was discussed in the aluminum meeting and the scientific literature on the neurotoxicity of aluminum, Dr. Johnson makes the following remark: “Aluminum salts have a very wide margin of safety. Aluminum and mercury are often simultaneously administered to infants, both at the same site and at different sites.” Also on page 20, he states, “However, we also learned that there is absolutely no data, including animal data, about the potential for synergy, additively or antagonism, all of which can occur in binary metal mixtures … ”

It is important here to appreciate a frequently used deception by those who are trying to defend an indefensible practice. They use the very same language just quoted. That is, that there is no data to show, etc. They intend it to convey the idea that the issue has been looked at and studied thoroughly and no toxicity was found. In truth, it means that no one has looked at this possibility and there have been no studies that would give us an answer one way or the other.

In fact, we know that aluminum is a significant neurotoxin and that it shares many common mechanisms with mercury as a neurotoxin. For example:

  • They are both toxic to neuronal neurotubules.

  • Interfere with antioxidant enzymes.

  • Poison DNA repair enzymes.

  • Interfere with mitochondrial energy production.

  • Block the glutamate reuptake proteins (GLT-1 and GLAST).

  • Bind to DNA.

  • Interfere with neuronal membrane function.

Toxins that share toxic mechanisms are almost always additive and frequently synergistic in their toxicity. So, Dr. Johnson’s statement is sheer nonsense.

A significant number of studies have shown that both of these metals play a significant role in all of the neurodegenerative disorders. It is also important to remember, both of these metals accumulate in the brain and spinal cord. This makes them accumulative toxins and therefore much more dangerous than rapidly excreted toxins.

To jump ahead, on page 23 Dr, Tom Sinks, Associate Director for Science at the National Center for Environmental Health at the CDC and the Acting Division Director for Division of Birth Defects, Developmental Disabilities and Health, asks, “I wonder is there a particular health outcome that is related to aluminum salts that may have anything that we are looking at today?”

See No Evil, Speak No Evil

Dr. Martin Meyers, Acting Director of the National Vaccine Program Office, answers, ” No, I don’t believe there are any particular health concerns that was raised.” This is after an aluminum conference held the previous year that did indeed find significant health concerns and an extensive scientific literature showing aluminum to be of great concern.

On page 24, Dr. William Weil, a pediatrician representing the Committee on Environmental Health of the American Academy of Pediatrics, brings some sense to the discussion by reminding them that, “There are just a host of neurodevelopmental data that would suggest that we’ve got a serious problem. The earlier we go, the more serious the problem.” Here he means the further back you go during the child’s brain development, the more likely the damage to the infant.

I must give him credit. At least, he briefly recognized that a significant amount of brain development does take place later. He also reminds his colleagues that aluminum produced severe dementia and death in dialysis cases. He concludes by saying, ” To think there isn’t some possible problem here is unreal.” (page 25).

Not to let it end there, Dr. Meyers adds, ” We held the aluminum meeting in conjunction with the metal ions in biology and medicine meeting. We were quick to point out that in the absence of data we didn’t know about additive or inhibitory activities.”

Once again, we see the “no data” ploy. There is abundant data on the deleterious effects of aluminum on the brain, a significant portion of which came out in that very meeting.

Dr. Johnson also quotes Dr. Thomas Clarkson, who identifies himself as associated with the mercury program at the University of Rochester, as saying that delaying the HepB vaccine for 6 months or so would not affect the mercury burden. (page 20) He makes the correct conclusion when he says, ” I would have thought that the difference was in the timing. That is you are protecting the first six months of the developing central nervous system.”

Hallelujah, for a brief moment I thought that they had stumbled on one of the most basic concepts in neurotoxicology. Then, Dr. Meyers dashed my hopes by saying that single, separated doses would not affect blood levels at all.

Shedding Some Light

At this juncture, we need a little enlightenment.

It is important to appreciate that mercury is a fat soluble metal. That is, it is stored in the body’s fat. The brain contains 60 percent fat and therefore is a common site for mercury storage. Now, they establish in this discussion that about half of methylmercury is excreted over several months when ingested. A recent study found that ethylmercury has a half-life of seven days.

Even so, a significant proportion of the mercury will enter the brain (it has been shown to easily pass through the blood-brain barrier) where it is stored in the phospholipids (fats). With each new dose — remember these children are receiving as many as 22 doses of these vaccines — another increment is added to the brain storage depot. This is why we call mercury an accumulative poison.

They never once, not once, mention this vital fact throughout the entire conference. Not once. Moreover, they do so for a good reason. It gives the unwary, those not trained in neuroscience, assurance that all that matters here is blood levels.

In fact, on page 163, Dr. Robert Brent, a developmental biologist and pediatrician at the Thomas Jefferson University and Dupont Hospital for Children, says that we don’t have data showing accumulation and “that with the multiple exposures you get an increasing level, and we don’t know whether that is true or not.” He redeems himself somewhat by pointing out that some of the damage is irreversible and with each dose more irreversible damage occurs and, in that way, it is accumulative.

On page 21, Dr. Thomas Clarkson makes the incredible statement implying that he knows of no studies that show exposure to mercury after birth or at six months would have deleterious effects. Dr. Isabelle Rapin, a neurologist for children at Albert Einstein College of Medicine, follows up by saying that “I am not an expert on mercury in infancy” but she knows it can affect the nerves (peripheral nervous system).

So, here is one of our experts admitting that she knows little about the effects of mercury on the infant. My question: Why is she here?

Dr. Rapin is a neurologist for children at Albert Einstein College of Medicine who stated that she has a keen interest in developmental disorders, in particular those involving language and autism, yet she knows little about the effects on mercury on the infant brain.

Very Little Knowledge

This conference is concerned with the effects of mercury in the form of thimerosal on infant brain development, yet throughout this conference, our experts, especially the “vaccinologists” seem to know little about mercury except that limited literature shows no toxic effects except at very high levels.

None of the well-known experts were invited, such as Dr. Ascher from Bowman Grey School of Medicine or Dr. Haley Boyd, who has done extensive work on the toxic effects of low concentrations on the CNS. They were not invited because they would be harmful to the true objective of this meeting, and that was to exonerate mercury in vaccines.

Several times throughout this conference, Dr. Brent reminded everyone that the most sensitive period for the developing brain is during the early stages of pregnancy. In fact, he pinpoints the 8-18th weeks as the period of neuromaturation.

In fact, the most rapid period of brain maturation, synaptic development and brain pathway development is during the last three months of pregnancy continuing until two years after birth. This is often referred to as the “brain growth spurt.” This is also not mentioned once in this conference, again because if mothers knew that their child’s brain was busy developing for up to two years after birth, they would be less likely to accept this safety of mercury nonsense these “vaccinologists” proclaim.

The brain develops over 100 trillion synaptic connections and tens of trillions of dendritic connections during this highly sensitive period. Both dendrites and synapses are very sensitive, even to very low doses of mercury and other toxins. It has also been shown that subtoxic doses of mercury can block the glutamate transport proteins that play such a vital role in protecting the brain against excitotoxicity.

Compelling studies indicate that damage to this protective system plays a major role in most of the neurodegenerative diseases and abnormal brain development as well.

Recent studies have shown that glutamate accumulates in the brains of autistic children, yet these experts seem to be unconcerned about a substance (mercury) that is very powerful in triggering brain excitotoxicity.

It is also interesting to see how many times Dr. Brent emphasizes that we do not know the threshold for mercury toxicity for the developing brain. Again, that is not true: We do know, and the Journal of Neurotoxicology states, that anything above 10ug is neurotoxic. The WHO, in fact, states that there is no safe level of mercury.

Concrete Thinking

On page 164, Dr. Robert Davis, associate professor of pediatrics and epidemiology at the University of Washington, makes a very important observation. He points out, in a population like the United States, you have individuals with varying levels of mercury from other causes (diet, living near coal burning facilities, etc.). By vaccinating everyone, you raise those with the highest levels even higher and bring those with median levels into a category of higher levels.

The “vaccinologists” with their problem of “concrete thinking” cannot seem to appreciate the fact that not everyone is the same. That is, they fail to see these “uncertainties.”

To further emphasize this point lets take a farming family who lives within three miles of a coal-burning electrical plant. Since they also live near the ocean, they eat seafood daily. The fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides used on their crops contain appreciable levels of mercury.

The coal-burning electrical plant emits high levels of mercury in the air the family breathes daily and the seafood they consume has levels of mercury higher than EPA safety standards.

This means any babies born to these people will have very high mercury levels.

Once born, they are given numerous vaccines containing even more mercury, thereby adding significantly to their already high mercury burden. Are these “vaccinologists” trying to convince us these children don’t matter and they are to be sacrificed at the altar of the “vaccine policy?”

Recent studies by neurotoxicologists have observed that as our ability to detect subtle toxic effects improves, especially on behavior and other neurological functions, we lower the level of acceptable exposure. In fact, Dr, Sinks brings up that exact point, using lead as an example. He notes that, as our neurobehavioral testing improved, we lowered the acceptable dose considerably and continues to do so.

Dr. Johnson had the audacity to add, “The smarter we get, the lower the threshold.” Yet, neither he, nor the other participants seem to be getting any smarter concerning this issue.

Dr. Robert Chen, chief of Vaccine Safety and Development at the National Immunization Program at the CDC, then reveals why they refuse to act on this issue. “The issue is that it is impossible, unethical to leave kids unimmunized, so you will never, ever resolve that issue. So then we have to refer back from that.” (page 169) In essence, immunization of the kids takes precedence over safety concerns with the vaccines themselves.

Genetic Susceptibility

If the problem of vaccine toxicity cannot be solved, he seems to be saying, then we must accept that some kids will be harmed by the vaccines.

Dr. Brent makes the statement that he knows of no known genetic susceptibility data on mercury and, therefore, assumes there is a fixed threshold of toxicity. That is, that everyone is susceptible to the same dose of mercury and there are no genetically hypersensitive groups of people.

In fact, a recent study found just such a genetic susceptibility in mice. In this study, they found mice susceptible to autoimmunity developed neurotoxic effects to their hippocampus, including excitotoxicity, not seen in other strains of mice. They even hypothesize that the same may be true in humans, since familial autoimmunity increases the likelihood of autism in offspring. (Hornig M, Chian D, Lipkin WI. Neurotoxic effects of postnatal thimerosal are mouse strain dependent. Mol Psychiatry 2004; (in press).

For the next quotation, you need a little discussion to be able to appreciate the meaning. They are discussing the fact that, in Dr. Verstraeten’s study, frightening correlations were found between the higher doses of thimerosal and problems with neurodevelopment, including ADD and autism.

The problem with the study was that there were so few children who had received no thimerosal-containing vaccines, a true control group could not be used. Instead, they had to use children getting 12.5ug of mercury as the control and some even wanted to use the control dose as 37.5ug. So the controls had mercury levels that could indeed cause neurodevelopmental problems.

Even with this basic flaw, a strong positive correlation was found between the dose of mercury given and these neurodevelopmental problems.

It was proposed that they compare a group of children receiving non-thimerosal vaccines to those who had. In fact, we later learn they had a large group of children who could have been used as a thimerosal-free control. It seems that for two years before this conference, the Bethesda Naval Hospital had been using only thimerosal-free vaccines to immunize the children. They knew this and I would assume someone would have told Dr. Verstraeten of this important fact before he did his study.

So, now to the quote. Dr. Braun responds to the idea of starting a new study using such thimerosal-free controls by saying, “Sure we will have the answer in five years. The question is what can we do now with the data we have?” (page 170)

The Big Coverup

Well, we have the answer to that: They simply covered this study up, declared that thimerosal is of no concern and continued the unaltered policy. That is, they can suggest the pharmaceutical manufacturers of vaccines remove the thimerosal but not making it mandatory or examining the vaccine to make sure they have removed it.

Let’s take a small peak at just how much we can trust the pharmaceutical manufacturers to do the right thing. Several reports of major violations of vaccine manufacturing policy that have been cited by the regulatory agencies have surfaced. This includes obtaining plasma donations without taking adequate histories on donors as to disease exposures and previous health problems, poor record keeping on these donors, improper procedures and improper handing of specimens.

That these are not minor violations is emphasized by the discovery that a woman with variant mad cow disease was allowed to give plasma to be used in vaccines in England. In fact, it was learned only after the contaminated plasma was pooled and used to make millions of doses of vaccines that her disease was discovered. British health officials told the millions of vaccinated not to worry, since they have no idea if it will really spread the disease.

Contamination of vaccines is a major concern in this country as well, as these regulatory violations make plain. It is also important to note that no fines were given, just warnings.

Conclusions By The Study Group

At the end of the conference, a poll was taken asking two questions. One was do you think that there is sufficient data to make a causal connection between the use of thimerosal-containing vaccines and neurodevelopmental delays? Second, do you think further study is called for based on this study?

First, let’s see some of the comments on the question of doing further studies. Dr. Paul Stehr-Green, associate professor of epidemiology at the University of Washington School of Public Health and Community Medicine, who voted yes, gave as his reason, “The implications are so profound these should be examined further.” (page 180) Meanwhile, Dr. Brent interjects his concern that the lawyers will get hold of this information and begin filing lawsuits. He says, “They want business and this could potentially be a lot of business.” (Page 191)

Dr. Loren Koller, pathologist and immunotoxicologist at the College of Veterinary Medicine, Oregon State University, is to be congratulated in that he recognized that more is involved in the vaccine effects than just ethylmercury. (page 192).

He mentions aluminum and even the viral agents being used as other possibilities. This is especially important in the face of Dr. RK Gherardi’s identification of macrophagic myofascitis, a condition causing profound weakness and multiple neurological syndromes, one of which closely resembled multiple sclerosis. Both human studies and animal studies have shown a strong causal relationship to the aluminum hydroxide or aluminum phosphate used as a vaccine adjuvants.

More than 200 cases have been identified in European countries and the United States and macrophagic myofascitis has been described as an “emerging condition.”

Here are some of the neurological problems seen with the use of aluminum hydroxide and aluminum phosphate in vaccines. In two children (ages 3 and 5), doctors at the All Children’s Hospital in St. Petersburg, Fla., described chronic intestinal pseudo-obstruction, urinary retention and other findings indicative of a generalized loss of autonomic nervous system function (diffuse dysautonomia).

The 3-year-old had developmental delay and hypotonia (loss of muscle tone). A biopsy of the children’s vaccine injection site disclosed elevated aluminum levels.

In a study of some 92 patients suffering from this emerging syndrome, eight developed a full-blown demyelinating CNS disorder (multiple sclerosis). (Authier FJ, Cherin P, et al. Central nervous system disease in patients with macrophagic myofasciitis. Brain 2001; 124: 974-983.) This included sensory and motor symptoms, visual loss, bladder dysfunction, cerebellar signs (loss of balance and coordination),cognitive (thinking) and behavioral disorders.

Dr. Gherardi, the French physician who first described the condition in 1998, has collected more than 200 proven cases. One-third of these develop an autoimmune disease, such as multiple sclerosis. Of critical importance is his finding that, even in the absence of obvious autoimmune disease, there is evidence of chronic immune stimulation caused by the injected aluminum, known to be a very powerful immune adjuvant.

The reason this is so important is that there is overwhelming evidence that chronic immune activation in the brain (activation of microglial cells in the brain) is a major cause of damage in numerous degenerative brain disorders, from multiple sclerosis to the classic neurodegenerative diseases (Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s and ALS).

In fact, I have presented evidence that chronic immune activation of CNS microglia is a major cause of autism, attention deficit disorder and Gulf War Syndrome.

Dr. Gherardi emphasizes that once the aluminum is injected into the muscle, the immune activation persists for years. In addition, we must consider the effect of the aluminum that travels to the brain itself. Numerous studies have shown harmful effects when aluminum accumulates in the brain.

A growing amount of evidence points to high brain aluminum levels as a major contributor to Alzheimer’s disease and possibly Parkinson’s disease and ALS (Lou Gehrig’s disease). This may also explain the tenfold increase in Alzheimer’s disease in those receiving the flu vaccine five years in a row (Dr. Hugh Fudenberg, in press, Journal of Clinical Investigation).

It is also interesting to note that a recent study found that aluminum phosphate produced three times the blood level of aluminum, as did aluminum hydroxide. (Flarend RE, hem SL, et al. In vivo absorption of aluminum-containing vaccine adjuvants using 26 Al. Vaccine 1997; 15: 1314-1318.)

Of course, in this conference, our illustrious experts tell us that there is “No data showing an additive or synergistic effect between mercury and aluminum.”

Dr. Rapin expressed her concern over public opinion when this information eventually gets out. She says (page 197), they are going to be captured by the public and we had better make sure that “a) We council them carefully and b) that we pursue this because of the very important public health and public implications of the data.” “The stakes are very high … ,” Dr. Johnson adds.

From this how can one conclude anything other than the fact that at least these scientists were extremely concerned by what was discovered by this study examining the vaccine safety datalink material? They were obviously terrified the information would leak out to the public. Stamped in bold letters at the top of each page of the study were the words “DO NOT COPY OR RELEASE” and “CONFIDENTIAL.”

This is not the wording one would expect on a clinical study of vaccine safety. Instead, you would expect it on top-secret NSA or CIA files. Why was this information being secreted?

Vaccine Confidential

The answer is obvious: It might endanger the vaccine program and indict the federal regulatory agencies for ignoring this danger for so many years. Our society is littered with millions of children who have been harmed in one degree or another by this vaccine policy. In addition, let us not forget the millions of parents who have had to watch helplessly as their children have been destroyed by this devastating vaccine program.

Dr. Bernier, on page 198, says, “The negative findings need to be pinned down and published.” Why was he so insistent that the “negative findings” be published? Because he said, “Other less responsible parties will treat this as a signal.” By that he means, a signal of a problem with thimerosal-containing vaccines.

From this, I assume he wants a paper that says only that nothing was found by the study. As we shall see, he gets his wish.

In addition, on page 198, Dr. Rapin notes that a study in California found a 300 percent increase in autism following the introduction of certain vaccines. She quickly attributes this to better physician recognition. Two things are critical to note at this point.

  1. Dr. Rapin makes this assertion or better physician recognition without any data at all, just her wishful thinking. If someone pointing out the dangers of vaccines were to do that, she would scream “junk science.”
  2. Dr. Weil, on page 207, attacks this reasoning when he says, “The number of dose-related relationships are linear and statistically significant. You can play with this all you want. They are linear. They are statistically significant.” In other words, how can you argue with results that show a strong dose/response relationship between the dose of mercury and neurodevelopmental outcomes? The higher the mercury levels in the children, the greater the number of neurological problems.

He continues by saying that the increase in neurobehavioral problems is probably real. He tells them that he works in a school system with special education programs and “I have to say the number of kids getting help in special education is growing nationally and state by state at a rate not seen before. So there is some kind of increase. We can argue about what it is due to.” (page 207)

The “Eureka” Moment

Dr. Johnson seems to be impressed by the findings as well. He says on page 199, “This association leads me to favor a recommendation that infants up to two-years-old not be immunized with thimerosal containing vaccines if suitable alternative preparations are available.”

Incredibly, he quickly adds, “I do not believe the diagnosis justified compensation in the Vaccine Compensation Program at this point.” It is interesting to note that one of our experts in attendance is Dr. Vito Caserta, the Chief Officer for the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.

At this point, Dr. Johnson tells the group about his concerns for his own grandchild. On page 200, he says, “Forgive this personal comment, but I got called out at 8:00 for an emergency call and my daughter-in-law delivered a son by c-section. Our first male in the line of the next generation and I do not want that grandson to get a Thimerosal containing vaccine until we know better what is going on. It will probably take a long time. In the meantime, and I know there are probably implications for this internationally, but in the meanwhile I think I want that grandson to only be given Thimerosal-free vaccines.”

So, we have a scientist sitting on this panel who will eventually make policy concerning all of the children in this country, as well as other countries, who is terrified about his new grandson getting a thimerosal-containing vaccine, but is not concerned enough about your children to speak out and try to stop this insanity. He allows a cover up to take place after this meeting adjourns and remains silent.

It is also interesting to note, although he feels the answers will be a long time coming, in the meantime, his grandson will be protected.

Nevertheless, the American Academy of Pediatrics, American Academy of Family Practice, AMA, CDC and every other organization will endorse these vaccines and proclaim them to be safe as spring water, but Dr. Johnson and some of the others will keep their silence.

A False Alarm

It is only during the last day of the conference that we learn that most of the objections concerning the positive relationship between thimerosal-containing vaccines and ADD and ADHA were bogus. For example, Dr. Rapin, on page 200, notes that all children in the study were below age 6 and ADD and ADHD are very difficult to diagnose in pre-schoolers. She also notes that some children were followed for only a short period.

In fact, the average age for diagnosis of ADHD was 4 years and 1 month, Dr. Stein adds, and a very difficult diagnosis to make because guidelines published by the American Academy of Pediatrics limit diagnoses to 6 to 12-year-olds.

Of course, Dr. Stein was implying that too many were diagnosed as ADHD. Yet, a recent study found that the famous Denmark study that led to the announcement by the Institute of Medicine that there was no relationship between autism and the MMR vaccine, used the same tactic. They cut off the age of follow-up at age 6. It is known that many cases appear after this age group, especially with ADD and ADHD. In fact, most learning problems appear as the child is called on to handle more involved intellectual material.

Therefore, the chances are they failed to diagnose a number of cases by stopping the study too early.

Several of the participants tried to imply autism was a genetic disorder and therefore could have nothing to do with vaccines. Dr. Weil put that to rest with this comment, “We don’t see that kind of genetic change in 30 years.” In other words, how can we suddenly see a 300 percent increase in a genetically related disorder over such a short period?

It is also known that there are two forms of autism, one that is apparent at birth and one that develops later in childhood. The former has not changed in incidence since statistics have been kept. The other is epidemic.

The Fish Connection

One interesting exchange ends up being their justification for the view that vaccines containing thimerosal pose no danger to children. It involves two studies in children born to mothers who consumed large amounts of mercury-contaminated fish. One study reported in the journal Neurotoxicology, examined children living in the Republic of Seychelles. In this study, they examined the effect of prenatal exposure to mercury through the mother’s consumption of fish high in methylmercury,

A battery of developmental milestone tests were done and no adverse effects were reported in the study reported by Dr. Clarkson and co-workers, the very same person in this conference. He never mentions, however, that a follow-up study of these same children did find a positive correlation between methylmercury exposure and poor performance on a memory test.

In a subsequent study of children living on the Faroe Islands exposed to methylmercury, researchers did find impairments of neurodevelopment. This experiment was done by Japanese scientists.

Throughout the remainder of this discussion, Dr. Clarkson and others refer to these two studies. When they are reminded that the Faroe study did find neurological injury to the children, they counter by saying that this was prenatal exposure to mercury and not after birth as would be seen with vaccination. The idea being that, prenatally, the brain is undergoing neural formation and development, making it more vulnerable. As I have mentioned, this rapid brain growth and development continues for two years after birth. Even at age 6, the brain is only 80 percent formed.

Limited To The Basics

Dr. Clarkson keeps referring to the Seychelles study, which demonstrated that children reached normal neurodevelopmental milestones as shown by a number of tests. Dr Weil points out, on page 216, that this tells us little about these children’s future brain function.

He says, “I have taken a lot of histories of kids who are in trouble in school. The history is that developmental milestones were normal or advanced and they can’t read at second grade, they can’t write at third grade, they can’t do math in the fourth grade and it has no relationship as far as I can tell to the history we get of the developmental milestones. So I think this is a very crude measure of neurodevelopment.”

Simply, both of these studies tell us nothing about the actual development of these children’s brain function except that they reached the most basic of milestones.

Put another way, your child may be able to stack blocks, recognize shapes and have basic language skills but, later in life, they could be significantly impaired when it came to higher math, more advanced language skills (comprehension) and the ability to compete in a very competitive intellectual environment, like college or advanced schooling. Their future would be limited to the more mundane and intellectually limited jobs.

Post-natal brain development — from birth to age 6 or 7 — involves the fine tuning of synaptic connections, dendritic development and pathway refinement, all of which prepare the brain for more complex thinking. These brain elements are very sensitive to toxins and excessive immune stimulation during this period.

This is never mentioned in this conference.

In addition, it must be remembered that the children in these two studies were exposed only to methylmercury and not the combined neurotoxic effect of mercury, aluminum and excessive and chronic activation of the brain’s immune system (microgia).

This is what makes it so incredible, that several of these “vaccinologists” and so-called experts would express doubt about the “biological plausibility” of thimerosal or any vaccine component causing neurodevelopmental problems. The medical literature is exploding with such studies. The biological plausibility is very powerful.

The Devastating Effects of Mercury

For example, mercury, even in low concentrations, is known to impair energy production by mitochondrial enzymes. The brain has one of the highest metabolic rates of any organ and impairment of its energy supply, especially during development, can have devastating consequences. In addition, mercury, even in lower concentrations, is known to damage DNA and impair DNA repair enzymes, which again, plays a vital role in brain development.

Mercury is known to impair neurotubule stability, even in very low concentrations. Neurotubules are absolutely essential to normal brain cell function. Mercury activates microglial cells, which increases excitotoxicity and brain free radical production as well as lipid peroxidation, central mechanisms in brain injury.

In addition, even in doses below that which can cause obvious cell injury, mercury impairs the glutamate transport system, which in turn triggers excitotoxicity, a central mechanism in autism and other neurological disorders. Ironically, aluminum also paralyzes this system.

On page 228, we see another admission that the government has had no interest in demonstrating the safety of thimerosal-containing vaccines despite more than 2,000 articles showing harmful effects of mercury. Here we see a reference to the fact that the FDA “has a wonderful facility in Arkansas with hundreds of thousands of animals” available for any study needed to supply these answers on safety.

The big question to be asked: Why has the government ignored the need for research to answer these questions concerning thimerosal safety? You will recall, in the beginning, the participants of this conference complained that there were just so few studies or no studies concerning this “problem.”

Junk Scientists

Again, on page 229, Dr. Brent rails about the lawsuit problem. He tells the others he has been involved in three lawsuits related to vaccine injuries leading to birth defects and concluded, “If you want to see junk science, look at those cases … .” He then complains about the type of scientists testifying in these cases. He adds, “But the fact is those scientists are out there in the United States.” In essence, he labels anyone who opposes the “official policy” on vaccines as a junk scientist.

We have seen previously in the discussion just who the “junk scientists” really are.

Knowing what they have found can cause them a great deal of problems he adds, “The medical/legal findings in this study, causal or not, are horrendous … . If an allegation was made that a child’s neurobehavioral findings were caused by thimerosal-containing vaccines, you could readily find a junk scientist who will support the claim with ‘a reasonable degree of certainty’.”

On page 229, Dr. Brent then admits they are in a bad position because they have no data for their defense. Now, who really are the junk scientists?

  • Are “real scientists” ones who have no data, just wishful thinking and a “feeling” that everything will be all right?
  • Are “real scientists” the ones who omit recognized experts on the problem in question during a conference because it might endanger the “program”?
  • Or are they the ones who make statements that they don’t want their grandsons to get thimerosal-containing vaccines until the problem is worked out, but then tell millions of parents that the vaccines are perfectly safe for their children and grandchildren?

Dr. Meyers, on page 231, put it this way: “My own concern, and a couple of you said it, there is an association between vaccines and outcomes that worries both parents and pediatricians.” He cites other possible connections to vaccine-related neurobehavioral and neurodevelopmental problems including the number of vaccines being given, the types of antigens being used and other vaccine additives.

Dr. Caserta tells the group he attended the aluminum conference the previous years and learned that often metals could act differently in biological systems than as an ion. This is interesting in the face of the finding that fluoride when combined to aluminum forms a compound that can destroy numerous hippocampal neurons at a concentration of 0.5 ppm in drinking water. It seems that aluminum readily combines with fluoride to form this toxic compound.

With more than 60 percent of communities having fluoridated, drinking water, this becomes a major concern.

It has also been learned that fluroaluminum compounds mimic the phosphate compound and can activate G-proteins. G-proteins play a major role in numerous biological systems, including endocrine, neurotransmitters and as cellular second messengers. Some of the glutamate receptors are operated by a G-protein mechanism.

Can You Keep a Secret?

Over the next 10-15 pages, they discuss how to control this information so that it will not get out and, if it does, how to control the damage. On page 248, Dr. Clements has this to say:

“But there is now the point at which the research results have to be handled, and even if this committee decides that there is no association and that information gets out, the work has been done and through the freedom of information that will be taken by others and will be used in other ways beyond the control of this group. And I am very concerned about that as I suspect that it is already too late to do anything regardless of any professional body and what they say.”

In other words, he wants this information kept not only from the public but also from other scientists and pediatricians until they can be properly counseled. In the next statement, Dr. Clements spills the beans as to why he is determined that no outsider get hold of this damaging information.

“My mandate as I sit here in this group is to make sure at the end of the day that 100,000,000 are immunized with DTP, Hepatitis B and if possible Hib, this year, next year and for many years to come, and that will have to be with thimerosal-containing vaccines unless a miracle occurs and an alternative is found quickly and is tried and found to be safe.”

This is one of the most shocking statements I have ever heard. In essence, he is saying, “I don’t care if the vaccines are found to be harmful and destroying the development of children’s brains, these vaccines will be given now and forever.” His only concern by his own admission is to protect the vaccine program even if it is not safe. Dr. Brent refers to this as an “eloquent statement.”

On page 253, we again see these scientists have a double standard when it comes to their children and grandchildren. Dr. Rapin raises the point about a loss of an IQ point caused by thimerosal exposure. She asks, “Can we measure the IQ that accurately, that this one little point is relevant?” Then she answers her own question by saying, “Even in my grandchildren, one IQ point I am going to fight about.” Yet, they are saying in unison, in essence — “To Hell With Your Children!” — to the rest of America.

It is also interesting they bring up the history of lead as a neurobehavioral toxin. Dr. Weil noted that neurotoxicologists and regulatory agencies have lowered the acceptable level from 10 to 5 ug. In fact, some feel that even lower levels are neurotoxic to the developing brain. Before toxicologists began to look at lead as a brain toxin in children, most “experts” assumed it was not toxic, even at very high levels. Again, it shows that “experts” can be wrong and it is the public who pays the price.

Highly Protected Information

Dr. Chen, on page 256, expresses his concern about this information reaching the public. He remarks, “We have been privileged so far that given the sensitivity of information, we have been able to manage to keep it out of, lets say, less responsible hands … “. Dr. Bernier agrees and notes, “This information has been held fairly tightly.” Later, he calls it “embargoed information” and “very highly protected information.”

That they knew the implications of what they had discovered was illustrated by Dr. Chen’s statement on page 258. He says, “I think overall there was this aura that we were engaged in something as important as anything else we have ever done. So I think that this was another element to this that made this a special meeting.”

You may remember, Dr. Weil emphasized the data analysis left no doubt that there was a strong correlation between neurodevelopmental problems and exposure to thimerosal-containing vaccines. So if they understood the importance of this finding and this was the most important thing they have ever dealt with, why was this being kept from the public?

In fact, it gets even worse.

Just so you will not doubt my statement that this audience of experts was not objective, I give you the words of Dr. Walter Orenstein, director of the National Immunization Program at the CDC, on page 259. He tells the group, “I have seen him [Verstraeten] in audience after audience deal with exceedingly skeptical individuals … .”

Does that sound like objective scientists who wanted to look at the data with a clear mind or were they scientists who were convinced before the meeting was held that there was no danger to children from thimerosal or any other vaccine component?

In one of his closing remarks, Dr. Bernier (page 257) says, “The other thing I was struck by was the science,” meaning the science expressed by the attendees of the meeting. Then Dr, Orenstein adds, “I would also like to thank Roger Bernier who pulled off this meeting in rather short notice.” Here is a meeting that has been called one of the most important they have ever dealt with and we learn that it was pulled off on short notice. In addition, we were told that the results of this meeting would lead to an eventual vaccine policy.

He then has the nerve to add, “In a sense this meeting addresses some of the concerns we had last summer when we were trying to make policy in the absence of a careful scientific review. I think this time we have gotten it straight.”

Well, I hate to be the one to break the news, but they didn’t get it straight.

There was little or no science in this meeting. Rather it was composed of a lot of haggling and nitpicking over epidemiological methodology and statistical minutia in an effort to discredit the data without success. In fact, the so-called mercury experts admitted they had to do some quick homework to refresh their memories and learn something about the subject.

Conclusions

This top secret meeting was held to discuss a study done by Dr. Thomas Verstraeten and his co-workers using Vaccine Safety Datalink data as a project collaboration between the CDC’s National Immunization Program (NIP) and four HMOs. The study examined the records of 110,000 children. Within the limits of the data, they did a very thorough study and found the following:

  • Exposure to thimerosal-containing vaccines at one month was associated significantly with the misery and unhappiness disorder that was dose-related. That is, the higher the child’s exposure to thimerosal the higher the incidence of the disorder. This disorder is characterized by a baby that cries uncontrollably and is fretful more so than is seen in normal babies.
  • Found a nearly significant increased risk of ADD with 12.5ug exposure at one month.
  • With exposure at 3 months, they found an increasing risk of neurodevelopmental disorder with increasing exposure to thimerosal. This was statistically significant. This included speech disorders.

It is important to remember that the control group was not children without thimerosal exposure, but rather those at 12.5ug exposure. This means that there is a significant likelihood that even more neurodevelopmental problems would have been seen had they used a real control population. No one disagreed that these findings were significant and troubling.

Yet when the final study was published in the journal Pediatrics, Dr. Verstraeten and co-workers reported no consistent associations were found between thimerosal-containing vaccine exposure and neurodevelopmental problems. In addition, he listed himself as an employee of the CDC, not disclosing the fact that at the time the article was accepted, he worked for GlaxoSmithKline, a vaccine manufacturing company.

So how did they do this bit of prestidigitation? They simply added another HMO to the data, the Harvard Pilgrimage. Rep. Weldon noted in his letter to the CDC director that this HMO had been in receivership by the state of Massachusetts because its records were in shambles. Yet, this study was able to make the embarrassing data from his previous study disappear.

Attempts by Weldon to force the CDC to release the data to an independent researcher, Dr. Mark Geier, a researcher with impeccable credentials and widely published in peer-reviewed journals, have failed repeatedly.

It is obvious that a massive cover-up is in progress, as we have seen with so many other scandals:

  • Fluoride

  • Food-based excitotoxins

  • Pesticides

  • Aluminum

I would caution those critical of the present vaccine policy not to put all their eggs in one basket, that is, with thimerosal as being the main culprit. There is no question that it plays a major role, but there are other factors that are also critical, including aluminum, fluoroaluminum complexes and chronic immune activation of brain microglia.

In fact, excessive, chronic microglial activation can explain many of the effects of excessive vaccine exposure as I point out in two recently published articles. One property of both aluminum and mercury is microglial activation. With chronic microglial activation, large concentrations of excitotoxins are released as well as neurotoxic cytokines. These have been shown to destroy synaptic connections, dendrites and cause abnormal pathway development in the developing brain as well as adult brain.

In essence, too many vaccines are being given to children during the brain’s most rapid growth period. Known toxic metals are beings used in the vaccines that interfere with brain metabolism, antioxidant enzymes, damage DNA and DNA repair enzymes and trigger excitotoxicity.

Removing the mercury will help but will not solve the problem because overactivation of the brain’s immune system will cause varying degrees of neurological damage to the highly-vulnerable developing brain.

References for “The Truth Behind the Vaccine Coverup

  1. Lorscheider,FL; Vimy,MJ; Pendergrass,JC; Haley,BE. Mercury vapor exposure inhibits tubulin binding to GTP in rat brain: A molecular lesion also present in human Alzheimer brain From: FASEB J. 9(4): A-3845. FASEB Annual Meeting, Atlanta, Georgia, 10 March 1995.
  2. Grandjean P, Budtz-Jorgensen E, White RF, Jorgensen PJ, Weihe P, Debes F, Keiding N Methylmercury exposure biomarkers as indicators of neurotoxicity in children aged 7 years. From: Am J Epidemiol 1999 Aug 1;150(3):301-5
  3. Albers JW, Kallenbach LR, Fine LJ, Langolf GD, Wolfe RA, Donofrio PD, Alessi AG, Stolp-Smith KA, Bromberg MB Neurological abnormalities associated with remote occupational elemental mercury exposure. Ann Neurol 1988 Nov;24(5):651-9
  4. Aschner M, Lorscheider FL, Cowan KS, Conklin DR, Vimy MJ, Lash LH Metallothionein induction in fetal rat brain and neonatal primary astrocyte cultures by in utero exposure to elemental mercury vapor (Hg0). From: Brain Res 1997 Dec 5;778(1):222-32
  5. Soederstroem S, Fredriksson A, Dencker L & Ebendal T The effect of mercury vapour on cholinergic neurons in the fetal brain: studies on the expression of nerve growth factor and its low- and high-affinity receptors. Developmental Brain Research 85(1):96-108 (1995)
  6. Drasch G, Schupp I, Hofl H, Reinke R & Roider G. Mercury burden of human fetal and infant tissues. Eur J Pediatr 153:607-610 (1994)
  7. Szucs A, Angiello C, Salanki J, Carpenter DO Effects of inorganic mercury and methylmercury on the ionic currents of cultured rat hippocampal neurons. Cell Mol Neurobiol 1997 Jun;17(3):273-88
  8. Low-Level Exposure to Methylmercury Modifies Muscarinic Cholinergic Receptor Binding Characteristics in Rat Brain and Lymphocytes: Physiologic Implications and New Opportunities in Biologic Monitoring Teresa Coccini,1 Giovanna Randine,2 Stefano M. Candura,1,3 Rossella E. Nappi,2,3 Leon D. Prockop,4 and Luigi Manzo
  9. Sorg O, Schilter B, Honegger P, Monnet-Tschudi F Increased vulnerability of neurones and glial cells to low concentrations of methylmercury in a prooxidant situation. Acta Neuropathol (Berl) 1998 Dec;96(6):621-7
  10. Liang YX, Sun RK, Sun Y, Chen ZQ, Li LH Psychological effects of low exposure to mercury vapor: application of a computer-administered neurobehavioral evaluation system. Environ Res 1993 Feb;60(2):320-7 Sundberg J, Jonsson S, Karlsson MO, Oskarsson A Lactational exposure and neonatal kinetics of methylmercury and inorganic mercury in mice. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 1999 Jan 15;154(2):160-9
  11. Inouye M., Murao K., Kajiwara Y., Behavorial and neuropathological effects of prenatal methyl Mercury exposure in mice.. Neurobehav.Toxicol Teratol. ,1985:7;227-232
  12. Koos et al., Mercury toxicity in pregnant women, fetus and newborn infant. Am J Obstet And Gynecol., 1976:126;390-409
  13. Khera et al., Teratogenic and genetic effects of Mercury toxicity. The biochemistry of Mercury in the environment. Nriagu, J.O.Ed Amsterdam Elsevier, 503-18,1979
  14. Drasch G, Schupp I, Hofl H, Reinke R, Roider G Mercury burden of human fetal and infant tissues. Eur J Pediatr 1994 Aug;153(8):607-10
  15. Yoshida M, Yamamura Y, Satoh H Distribution of mercury in guinea pig offspring after in utero exposure to mercury vapor during late gestation Arch Toxicol 1986 Apr;58(4):225-8 .
  16. Yuan,Y; Atchison,WD. Comparative effects of inorganic divalent mercury, methylmercury and phenylmercury on membrance excitability and synaptic transmission of CA1 neurons in hippocampal slices of the rat Neurotoxicology. 14(2):403-411, 1994.
  17. Desi I, Nagymajtenyi L, Schulz H Effect of subchronic mercury exposure on electrocorticogram of rats. Neurotoxicology 1996 Fall-Winter;17(3-4):719-23
  18. Bucio L, Garcia C, Souza V, Hernandez E, Gonzalez C, Betancourt M, Gutierrez-Ruiz MC Uptake, cellular distribution and DNA damage produced by mercuric chloride. Mutat Res 1999 Jan 25;423(1-2):65-72
  19. Hua MS, Huang CC, Yang YJ Chronic elemental mercury intoxication: neuropsychological follow-up case study. Brain Inj 1996 May;10(5):377-84
  20. Grandjean P, Weihe P, White RF, Debes F Cognitive performance of children prenatally exposed to “safe” levels of methylmercury. Environ Res 1998 May;77(2):165-72
  21. Hock C, Drasch G, Golombowski S, Muller-Spahn F, Willershausen-Zonnchen B, Schwarz P, Hock U, Growdon JH, Nitsch RM Increased blood mercury levels in patients with Alzheimer’s disease. J Neural Transm 1998;105(1):59-68
  22. Oskarsson A, Palminger Hallen I & Sundberg J. Exposure to toxic elements via breast milk. Analyst 120(3):765-770 (1995)
  23. Hock C, Drasch G, Golombowski S, Muller-Spahn F, Willershausen-Zonnchen B, Schwarz P, Hock U, Growdon JH, Nitsch RM Increased blood mercury levels in patients with Alzheimer’s disease. J Neural Transm 1998;105(1):59-68
  24. Wenstrup D, Ehmann WD, Markesbery WR Trace element imbalances in isolated subcellular fractions of Alzheimer’s disease brains. Brain Res 1990 Nov 12;533(1):125-31
  25. Basun H, Forssell LG, Wetterberg L, Winblad B Metals and trace elements in plasma and cerebrospinal fluid in normal aging and Alzheimer’s disease. J Neural Transm Park Dis Dement Sect 1991;3(4):231-58
  26. Hock C, Drasch G, Golombowski S, Muller-Spahn F, Willershausen-Zonnchen B, Schwarz P, Hock U, Growdon JH, Nitsch RM Increased blood mercury levels in patients with Alzheimer’s disease. J Neural Transm 1998;105(1):59-68
  27. Pendergrass JC, Haley BE, Vimy MJ, Winfield SA, Lorscheider FL Mercury vapor inhalation inhibits binding of GTP to tubulin in rat brain: similarity to a molecular lesion in Alzheimer diseased brain. Neurotoxicology 1997;18(2):315-24
  28. Opitz H, Schweinsberg F, Grossmann T, Wendt-Gallitelli MF, Meyermann R Demonstration of mercury in the human brain and other organs 17 years after metallic mercury exposure. Clin Neuropathol 1996 May-Jun;15(3):139-44
  29. Sanfeliu C, Sebastia J, Cristofol R, Rodriguez-Farre E. Neurotoxicity of organomercurial compounds. Neurotox Res. 2003;5(4):283-305.
  30. el-Fawal HA, Gong Z, Little AR, Evans HL Exposure to methylmercury results in serum autoantibodies to neurotypic and gliotypic proteins.Neurotoxicology 1996 Summer;17(2):531-9
  31. Faustman EM, Ponce RA, Ou YC, Mendoza MA, Lewandowski T, Kavanagh T. Investigations of methylmercury-induced alterations in neurogenesis. Environ Health Perspect. 2002 Oct;110 Suppl 5:859-64.
  32. Reading R. Thimerosal and the occurrence of autism: negative ecological evidence from Danish population-based data. Child Care Health Dev. 2004 Jan;30(1):90-1.
  33. Qvarnstrom J, Lambertsson L, Havarinasab S, Hultman P, Frech W. Determination of methylmercury, ethylmercury, and inorganic mercury in mouse tissues, following administration of thimerosal, by species-specific isotope dilution GC-inductively coupled plasma-MS. Anal Chem. 2003 Aug 15;75(16):4120-4.
  34. Shanker G, Syversen T, Aschner M. Astrocyte-mediated methylmercury neurotoxicity. Biol Trace Elem Res. 2003 Oct;95(1):1-10.
  35. Zheng W, Aschner M, Ghersi-Egea JF. Brain barrier systems: a new frontier in metal neurotoxicological research. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol. 2003 Oct 1;192(1):1-11.
  36. Kawase T, Ishikawa I, Orikasa M, Suzuki A. An assessment of the impact of thimerosal on childhood neurodevelopmental disorders. Geier DA, Geier MR. J Biochem (Tokyo). 1989 Jul; 106(1): 8-10. Aluminum enhances the stimulatory effect of NaF on prostaglandin E2 synthesis in a clonal osteoblast-like cell line, MOB 3-4, in vitro. Pediatr Rehabil. 2003 Apr-Jun;6(2):97-102.
  37. Geier MR, Geier DA. Thimerosal in childhood vaccines, neurodevelopmental disorders, and heart disease in the United States. J Amer Physc Surg 8: 6-11, 2003.
  38. Allen JW, Shanker G, Tan KH, Aschner M. The consequences of methylmercury exposure on interactive functions between astrocytes and neurons. Neurotoxicology 23: 755-759, 2002.
  39. Hansen JC, Reske-Nielsen E, et al. Distribution of dietary mercury in a dog. Quantitation and localization of total mercury in organs and central nervous system. Sci Total Environ 78: 23-43, 1989.
  40. Zanoli P, Cannazza G, Baraldi M. Prenatal exposure to methyl mercury in rats: focus on changes in kyrenine pathway. Brain Res Bull 55: 235-238, 2001.
  41. Olivieri G, Brack C, et al. Mercury induces cell cytotoxicity and oxidative stress and increases beta-amyloid secretion and tau phosphorylation in SHY5Y neuroblastoma cells. J Neurochem 74: 231-236, 2000.
  42. Juarez BI, Mattinez M, et al. Methylmercury increases glutamate extracellular levels in frontal cortex of awake rats. Neurotoxicology and Teratology 24: 767-771, 2002.
  43. Geier DA, Geier MR. An assessment of the impact of thimerosal on childhood neurodevelopmental disorders. Pediatric Rehabil 6: 97-102, 2003.
  44. Geier DA, Geier MR. A comparative evaluation of the effects of MMR immunization and mercury doses from thimerosal-containing childhood vaccines on the population prevalence of autism. Med Sci Monit 10: P133-139, 2004. Baskin DS, Ngo H, Didenko VV. Thimerosal indices DNA breaks, caspase-3 activation, membrane damage, and cell death in cultured human neurons and fibroblast. Toxicol Sci 74: 361-368, 2003.
  45. Pichichero ME, et al. Mercury concentrations and metabolism in infants receiving vaccines containing thimerosal: a descriptive study. Lancet 360: 1737-1741, 2002.
  46. Murata K, Dakeishi M. Impact of prenatal methylmercury exposure on child neurodevelopment in the Faroe Islands. Nippon Eiseigaku Zasshi 57: 564-570, 2002.
  47. Davidson PW, Myers GJ, et al (Clarkson TW-member of panel) Effects of prenatal and postnatal exposure from fish consumption on neurodevelopment: outcomes at 66 months of age in the Seychelles Child Development Study. JAMA 280: 701-707, 1998.
  48. Palumbo DR, Cox C, et al. (ClarksonTW) Association between prenatal exposure to methylmercury and cognitive functioning in Seychellois children: a reanalysis of the McCarthy Scales of Children’s Ability from the main cohort study. Environ Res 84: 81-88, 2000.
  49. Hornig M, Chian D, Lipkin WI. Neurotoxic effects of postnatal thimerosal are mouse strain dependent. Mol Psychiatry (In press)
  50. Ueha-Ishibashi T, et al. Property of thimerosal-induced decrease in cellular content of gluatathione in rat thymocytes: a flow cytometric study with 5-chloromethylfluorescein. Toxicol in Vitro 18: 563-569, 2004.
  51. Ueha-Ishibaschi T, et al. Effect of thimerosal, a preservative in vaccines, on intracellular Ca+2 concentration of ra cerebellar neurons. Toxicology 195: 77-84, 2004.
  52. Havarinasab S, Lambertsson L, et al. Dose-response study of thimerosal-induced murine systemic autoimmunity. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 194: 169-179, 2004.
  53. Verstraeten T, Davis RL, DeStefano F, et al. Safety of thimerosal-containing vaccines: a two-phase study of computerized health maintenance organization databases. Pediatrics 112: 1039-1048, 2003. (This is the published study that was discussed in the conference. Here the damaging data is erased and the public is told the thimerosal-containing vaccines are perfectly safe. In this paper Dr. Verstraeten identified himself as working for the CDC, but in fact he is working for GlaxoSmithKline. The editors of the journal Pediatrics should have been willing to disclose this information once it was brought to their attention but they would not.)

Aluminum References

  1. Murayama H, Shin RW, Higuchi J, Shibuya S, Muramoto T, Kitamoto T. Interactionof aluminum with PHFtau in Alzheimer’s disease neurofibrillary degeneration evidenced by desferrioxamine-assisted chelating autoclave method.Am J Pathol. 1999 Sep;155(3):877-85.
  2. Shin RW, Kruck TP, Murayama H, Kitamoto T. A novel trivalent cation chelator Feralex dissociates binding of aluminum and iron associated with hyperphosphorylated tau of Alzheimer’s disease. Brain Res. 2003 Jan 24;961(1):139-46
  3. Li W, Ma KK, Sun W, Paudel HK. Phosphorylation sensitizes microtubule-associated protein tau to Al(3+)-induced aggregation. Neurochem Res. 1998 Dec;23(12):1467-76.
  4. Singer SM, Chambers CB, Newfry GA, Norlund MA, Muma NA. Tau in aluminum-induced neurofibrillary tangles. Neurotoxicology. 1997;18(1):63-76.
  5. Toda S, Yase Y. Effect of aluminum on iron-induced lipid peroxidation and protein oxidative modification of mouse brain homogenate. Biol Trace Elem Res. 1998 Feb;61(2):207-17.
  6. Sayre LM, Perry G, Harris PL, Liu Y, Schubert KA, Smith MA. In situ oxidative catalysis by neurofibrillary tangles and senile plaques in Alzheimer’s disease: a central role for bound transition metals. J Neurochem. 2000 Jan;74(1):270-9.
  7. Xie CX, Yokel RA. Aluminum facilitation of iron-mediated lipid peroxidation is dependent on substrate, pH and aluminum and iron concentrations. Arch Biochem Biophys. 1996 Mar 15;327(2):222-6.
  8. Kawase T, Ishikawa I, Orikasa M, Suzuki A. Aluminum enhances the stimulatory effect of NaF on prostaglandin E2 synthesis in a clonal osteoblast-like cell line, MOB 3-4, in vitro. J Biochem (Tokyo). 1989 Jul; 106(1): 8-10.
  9. Jope RS. Modulation of phosphoinositide hydrolysis by NaF and aluminum in rat cortical slices. J Neurochem. 1988 Dec; 51(6): 1731-6.
  10. Blair HC, Finch JL, Avioli R, Crouch EC, Slatopolsky E, Teitelbaum SL. Micromolar aluminum levels reduce 3H-thymidine incorporation by cell line UMR 106-01. Kidney Int. 1989 May; 35(5): 1119-25.
  11. Shainkin-Kestenbaum R, Adler AJ, Berlyne GM, Caruso C. Effect of aluminium on superoxide dismutase. Clin Sci (Lond). 1989 Nov; 77(5): 463-6.
  12. Kawase T, Orikasa M, Suzuki A. Aluminofluoride- and epidermal growth factor-stimulated DNA synthesis in MOB 3-4-F2 cells. Pharmacol Toxicol. 1991 Nov; 69(5): 330-7.
  13. Gomes MG, Moreira CA, Mill JG, Massaroni L, Oliveira EM, Stefanon I, Vassallo DV. Effects of aluminum on the mechanical and electrical activity of the Langendorff-perfused rat heart. Braz J Med Biol Res. 1994 Jan; 27(1): 95-100.
  14. Jope RS. Modulation of phosphoinositide hydrolysis by NaF and aluminum in rat cortical slices. J Neurochem. 1988 Dec; 51(6): 1731-6.
  15. Husaini Y, Rai LC, Mallick N. Impact of aluminium, fluoride and fluoroaluminate complex on ATPase activity of Nostoc linckia and Chlorella vulgaris. Biometals. 1996 Jul; 9(3): 277-83.
  16. Blair HC, Finch JL, Avioli R, Crouch EC, Slatopolsky E, Teitelbaum SL. Micromolar aluminum levels reduce 3H-thymidine incorporation by cell line UMR 106-01. Kidney Int. 1989 May; 35(5): 1119-25.
  17. Lai JC, Lim L, Davison AN. Effects of Cd2+, Mn2+, and Al3+ on rat brain synaptosomal uptake of noradrenaline and serotonin. J Inorg Biochem. 1982 Nov; 17(3): 215-25.
  18. Shainkin-Kestenbaum R, Adler AJ, Berlyne GM, Caruso C. Effect of aluminium on superoxide dismutase. Clin Sci (Lond). 1989 Nov; 77(5): 463-6.
  19. Department of Health and Human Services National Vaccine Program Office Presents: Workshop on Aluminum in Vaccines. Caribe Hilton International Hotel, San Juan, Puerto Rico: Jointly sponsored by: task Force for Child Survival and Development. May 12, 200.
  20. Varner JA, Jenson KF, Harvath W, Isaacson RL. Chronic administration of aliminum-fluoride or sodium-fluoride to rats in drinking water: alterations in neuronal and cerebrovascular integrity. Brain Res 784: 284-298, 1998.
  21. Strunecka A, Pataocka J. Aluminofluoride complexes: new phosphate analogues for laboratory investigations and potential danger for living organisms. http://www.fluoridation.com/brain3.htm.
  22. Candura SM, Castildi AF, et al. Interaction of aluminum ions with phosphoinositide metabolism in rat cerebral cortical membranes. Life Sci 49: 1245-1252, 1991.
  23. Publicover SJ. Brief exposure to the G-protein activator NaF/ AlCl3 induces prolonged enhancement of synaptic transmission in area of rat hippocampal slices. Expl Brain Res 84: 680-684, 1991.
  24. Brenner A. Macrophagic myofascitiitis: a summery of Dr. Gherardi’s presentations. Vaccine 20LSupp 3): S5-6, 2002.
  25. Lacson AG, D’Cruz CA, et al. Aluminum phagocytosis in quadriceps muscle following vaccination in children: relationship to macrophagic myofasciitis. Pediatr Dev Pathol 5: 151-158, 2002.
  26. Flarend RE, Hem SL, et al. In vivo absorption of aluminum-containing vaccine adjuvants using 26 Al. Vaccine 15: 131401318, 1997.
  27. Authier FJ Cherin P, et al. Central nervous system disease in patients with macrophagic myofasciitis. Brain 124: 974-983, 2001.
  28. Gherardi RK. Lessons from macrophagic myofasciitis: towards definition of a vaccine adjuvant-related syndrome. Rev Neurol (Paris) 159: 162-164, 2003.
  29. Bergfors E, Trollfors B, Inerot A. Unexpectantly high incidence of persistent itching and delayed hypersensitivity to aluminum in children after the used of absorbed vaccines from a single manufacturer. Vaccine 22: 64-69, 2003.
  30. Deloncle R, Fauconneau B, et al. Aluminum L-glutamate complexes in rat brain cortex: in vivo prevention of aluminum deposit by magnesium D-aspartate. Brain Res 946: 247-252, 2002.
  31. Mundy WR, Freudenrich TM, Kodavanti PR. Aluminum potentates glutamate-induced calcium accumulation and iron-induced oxygen free radical formation in primary neuronal cultures. Mol Chem Neuropathol 32: 41-57, 1997.

References Concerning Lead

  1. Naatala JT, Loikkanen JJ, et al. Lead amplifies glutamate-induced oxidative stress. Free Radical Biology Medicine 19: 689-693, 1995.
  2. Morgan RE, Garavan H, et al. Early lead exposure produces lasting changes in sustained attention, response initiation, and reactivity to errors. Neurotoxicology and Teratology 23: 519-531, 2001.
  3. Needleman HL, McFarland C, et al. Bone lead levels in adjudicated delinquents: A case control study. Neurotoxicology and Teratology 24: 711-717, 2002.
  4. Dietrich KN, Ris MD, et al. Early exposure to lead and juvenile delinquency. Neurotoxicology and Teratology 23: 511-518, 2001.

My References

  1. Blaylock R. Interaction of cytokines, excitotoxins, and reactive nitrogen and oxygen species in autism spectrum disorders. J. Amer Nutr Assoc 6: 21-35, 2003.
  2. Blaylock RL. The central role of excitotoxicity in autism spectrum disorders. J Amer Nutra Assoc 6: 7-19, 2003.
  3. Blaylock RL. Chronic microglial activation and excitotoxicity secondary to excessive immune stimulation: possible factors in Gulf War Syndrome and autism. J Amer Phys Surg 9: 46-51, 2004.

http://www.mercola.com/2004/sep/22/blaylock_vaccine_coverup.htm

December 21, 2007

Another Vaccine Scam: Hep B for Newborns? Is this necessary?

Filed under: big medicine, big pharma, vaccines and their dangers — Tags: , — sesame seed @ 9:36 pm
The newly released 2002 immunization schedule encourages the routine use of hepatitis B vaccine for all infants before hospital discharge to

  • Safeguard against maternal hepatitis B testing errors and test reporting failures
  • Protect neonates discharged to households in which hepatitis B chronic carriers other than the mother may reside
  • Enhance the completion of the childhood immunization series

The annual “Recommended Childhood Immunization Schedule” of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) is issued in January of each year.

Pediatrics Vol. 109 No. 1 January 2002, pp. 162


Dr. Mercola’s Comment:Folks I am outraged. We need to take action now. These recommendations are inexcusable.There is no possible logical recommendation for this action. All of these arguments are fatally flawed.If you are new to the site these may sound like lunatic ramblings of some quack, but before you come to that, or a similar conclusion, I challenge you to examine the facts.The central fact, and the one that helps to explain these insane recommendations, is that the maker of the hepatitis B vaccine, Merck, makes about $1 billion a year from vaccine sales.

A billion dollars a year goes a long way toward influencing public policy.

Who is Behind This?

The group that is pushing this through is called The Hepatitis B coalition. Part of the Immunization Action Coalition, this group was started by a $750,000 grant from the CDC. It is supported by the World Health Organization, World Bank, Rockefeller Foundation and ongoing funding from Smith-Kline, Merck, Aventis and Johnson & Johnson.

Let us not forget that it has been less than three years since the federal government asked the drug companies to take mercury out of this vaccine, and they still haven’t complied.

I have seen many dozens of children who were given this vaccine on the first day of life and subsequently developed autism. Others, like Michael Belkin’s daughter, weren’t as lucky and died immediately after the vaccine.

Michael is a successful Wall Street Financial analyst with his own company, and has testified to Congress on this issue and regularly forwards news health stories to me.

Well in the single dose hepatitis B vials, the drug companies have replaced the mercury with aluminum, which is another potent neurotoxin that has been associated with Alzheimer’s. But who knows what damage it will do to the immature central nervous system of a one-day old infant.

The multi dose hepatitis B vials still contain mercury.

Folks, hepatitis B is about as difficult to catch as AIDS. Namely, you nearly always need to have blood or sexual contact of some sort. That is why the main risk factors are IV drug abusers and those who engage in sex with multiple partners.

Is Hepatitis Vaccine Safe?

The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) was developed by the government to report vaccine reactions. Many experts believe that only 10% of the adverse reactions are reported though as reporting is not mandated by law.

Even with only 10% of the problems being reported there were nearly 25,000 VAERS hepatitis B reports from July 1990 to October 31, 1998, showing 439 deaths and 9673 serious reactions involving emergency room visits, hospitalization, disablement or death.

The presence of findings such as brain edema in healthy infants who die very soon after receiving hepatitis B vaccine is profoundly disturbing, especially in view of the frequency of neurologic symptoms in the VAERS.

Does this make any sense?

Is Hepatitis B Vaccine Effective in Newborns?

Vaccine derived immunity is thought to be short lived. Between 30-50% of vaccinated individuals lose their antibiodies within 7 years.

Up to 60% of persons who initially respond will lose detectable antibodies within 12 years.. So that means that these vaccines will provide little to no protection to the real risks of acquiring hepatitis B, promiscuous sexual behavior and IV drug abuse.

Does this make any sense?

How Many Children Are Hurt or Helped By Hepatitis B Vaccine?

Hepatitis B is a rare, mainly blood-transmitted disease. In 1996 only 54 cases of the disease were reported to the CDC in the 0-1 age group. There were 3.9 million births that year, so the observed incidence of hepatitis B in the 0-1 age group was just 0.001%. In the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), there were 1,080 total reports of adverse reactions from hepatitis B vaccine in 1996 in the 0-1 age group, with 47 deaths reported.

Let us put this in simpler terms. For every child with hepatitis B there were 20 that were reported to have severe complications. Let us also remember that only 10% of the reactions are reported to VAERS, so this means:

Traditional medicine is harming 200 children to protect one from hepatitis B.

Does this make any sense?

How Serious Is a Hepatitis B Infection?

The numbers speak for themselves.

Approximately 50% of patients who contract Hepatitis B develop no symptoms after exposure.

However, the exposure ensures that they will have life-time immunity. An additional 30% develop only flu-like symptoms, and again, this group will acquire life-time immunity.

Of the remaining 20% exposed to Hepatitis B will develop the symptoms of the disease. 95% of this 20% will fully recover, with life-time immunity.

Therefore, less than 5% of people who contract Hepatitis B will become chronic carriers of the infection.

The numbers get even smaller: of that 5%, nearly 75% (or 3.75% of the total exposed) will live with an asymptomatic infection and only 25%, (or only 1.25% of the total number of people exposed) will develop chronic liver disease or liver cancer, 10-30 years after the acute infection. (Hyams, K.C. (1995) Risks of chronicity following acute hepatitis B virus infection: A review. Clin. Infect. Dis. 20, 992-1000.)

Think of that in terms of probability: the possibility of contracting the disease is exceedingly difficult for children and only 1.25% of those that are exposed will actually develop the most serious complication!

This type of a “protecting the needle in the haystack” medicine is absurd at best, dangerous at worst.

Does this make any sense?

How Many Safety Studies Have Been Done On Hepatitis B Vaccine?

None.

A manufacturer’s representative was asked in a 1997 Illinois Board of Health hearing to show evidence that the hepatitis B vaccine is safe for a 1-day old infant. The representative stated:

“We have none. Our studies were done on 5- and 10-year-olds.”

— The Congressional Quarterly, August 25, 2000, pg. 647

One would think that these would be mandatory, but they are not. All that is required is to show efficacy, (i.e. that the vaccine stimulates an antibody response after it is give), not safety.

In most other industries the fraud represented here would lead to criminal charges.

Does this make any sense?

What Can You Do?

Please tell every pregnant woman you know who about this issue. They need to know the facts BEFORE they are in the hospital and have time to make an informed objective decision. If they are still convinced their child needs hepatitis B vaccine, beg them to make sure their child does not receive the vaccine as a newborn. Delay the vaccine until they really are at a possible risk, like late adolescence.

I am not asking much here. Only some compassion for the helpless. If you have ever seen the agony of families who are struggling with caring for brain injured children you will know what I mean.

I have shown dozens of times in this newsletter, drugs that are thought to be safe are pulled from the market after they have killed dozens or hundreds of people. I am hopeful that hepatitis B vaccinations in newborns will be stopped. Medical science will have to recognize the truth sooner or later.

Folks, drug deaths pale in comparison to the devastation in lost lives that is resulting from implementation of this hepatitis B recommendation.

You can play a large role here. Most of all us did not have a chance to make a difference in the 9/11 tragedy, but nearly everyone of us can help protect the precious brain cells of a newborn.

Don’t Delay.

Contact every pregnant woman you know immediately. Save a life.

God Bless you in your efforts to protect the future of our civilization.


Note To Physicians:I am a member of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS). This is a group of over 10,000 US medical doctors, and most of us have reached the conclusion that the head of the organization, Dr. Jane Orient, has about this issue. To the extent that the physician simply complies without making an independent evaluation of the appropriateness of the vaccine for each patient, he is abdicating his responsibility under the Oath of Hippocrates to:

“prescribe regimen for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgment and never do harm to anyone.”

Mercola on Media: Why Media Consolidation is Bad for Your Health

Media outlets and Big Pharma demonstrate incredible collusion, to say the least. They are serving up disinformation concerning your most vital resource, your health.

Dr. Mercola’s newsletter is one of the best on the internet to help you 1. sort out disinformation; 2. get on the road to better health; 3. learn how to think logically and holistically (a corollary of 1 & 2).

Why You Are Being Deceived by the News Media

http://v.mercola.com/blogs/public_blog/Why-You-Are-Being-Deceived-by-the-News-Media-20815.aspx

In the last 15 years, your sources for news have shrunk drastically.

Whereas in 1983, 50 corporations ruled the U.S. news media, by 2004 this number decreased to a minuscule six corporations.

When Ben Bagdikian predicted this more than 20 years ago in his book The Media Monopoly, he was called “alarmist”. But when he updated his book in the 1990’s, there were already fewer than two dozen media corporations controlling almost all of America’s newspapers, magazines, TV stations, radio stations, books, records, movies, videos, wire services and photo agencies. He predicted that the number would fall even farther, and was greeted with skepticism. But his critics have been proven wrong as an increasingly small number of corporations control an increasingly huge percentage of the media market.

I

Media Reform Information Center

Dr. Mercola’s Comment:

Today, your mind is controlled by Time Warner, Disney, Murdoch’s News Corporation, Bertelsmann of Germany, Viacom (formerly CBS) and General Electric’s NBC. These are the top owners of the entire media industry, which includes everything you read and hear in newspapers, magazines, TV and radio stations, books, records, movies, videos, wire services and photo agencies. Is this a problem?

You bet it is!

There is Virtually No Competition in the Media Market Today Whatsoever

With a paltry six mega-corporations deciding what’s news and what’s not, you end up with a watered-down, hyped-up, “Paris-Hilton-Daily-Blow-By-Blow” censored for entertainment-value type information, which somehow now passes for news.

The Internet has Become the Last Bastion of Independent, Free-Thinking News

And health-related information is no exception to this rule. These mega-companies wield incredible power when it comes to slamming down the natural health industry and dumbing down the public. You have seen proof of it on numerous occasions already, with their “shocking news that vitamins are bad for your health” articles, just as an example.

I am proud to be a top-ranked independent voice in the vastness of corporate monopoly, offering information to empower you with alternative choices that can revolutionize your health, open your eyes to the truth, and keep you safely out of the pharmaceutical sickness loop.

http://www.mercola.com/2003/nov/22/reuters.htm

World’s Largest Media Source Controlled by World’s Largest Drug Company

 
By Dr. Joseph MercolaReuters supplies the global business community and news media with a range of products including real-time financial data, transaction systems, access to numeric and textual historical databases, news and pictures. In my view they are the strongest news collection agency in the world, and they supply the majority of the news you hear on the radio, see on TV or read in the paper. They are also a major source of news for my Web site and my blog.

Three years ago Glaxo Wellcome-SmithKline merged with Beecham to create the world’s largest drug company. This company is one of the primary distributors of hepatitis B vaccine, which I frequently warn about.

Well, a Texas attorney provided me with some documentation that shows a strong link between Glaxo and Reuters. As shown on the GlaxoSmithKline Web site, Sir Christopher Hogg is Glaxo’s non-executive chairman. Sir Christopher Hogg was born in 1936 and has an MBA from Harvard. Interestingly, Sir Christopher is also the non-executive chairman at Reuters.

It does not take much intelligence to understand that Reuters, the world’s primary source of news information, is heavily prejudiced in favor of the drug company. We have a major uphill battle to fight against these forces. Fortunately, the Internet and technology has seriously leveled the playing field and is one of the primary reasons why I remain highly confident that we are making more than a dent in the process.

For one, this newsletter is starting to make a difference. Earlier this year I began promoting raw milk and it started to make a national impact–so much so that an investigative reporter from the Wall Street Journal did an extensive interview with me for a recent front-page story on the topic. National Fox News also did an extensive interview with me on the same topic. Interestingly, both of these organizations neglected to include me in their final stories.

The important point to realize though is that this newsletter–and you–are making a difference. The major national media is starting to pay attention. They have no choice. We have to capture media attention to expand the message of health care freedom from the drug company tyranny. SO, please continue to encourage all your friends and relatives to sign up for the free newsletter so you and your children can have a healthier future.

Most Media Coverage of Drugs Highly Biased

 
A study of how the mainstream mass media covers health found that many news stories on drugs fail to report side effects or researchers’ financial ties to the companies that make the medications. The researchers looked at 207 newspaper and TV stories from 1994 to 1998 on three drugs: aspirin; Zocor, a cholesterol-lowering drug; and Fosamax, an osteoporosis drug.In the 170 stories that cited experts or scientific studies, half included at least one expert or study with financial ties to the drug’s manufacturer. Of those, only 40 percent reported the potential conflict of interest. The study also found that fewer than half the news stories reported the drugs’ side effects and only 30 percent noted their cost.This report was published in the New England Journal of Medicine, whose incoming editor has been charged by the FDA for an apparent conflict of interest involving a drug company. He has admitted that he may have made a mistake last year when he praised a new asthma drug made by a company that had hired him to evaluate studies about the medication.

Additionally, forty percent of the stories studied did not report the numbers behind the claims of medical benefits. Also, 83 percent of the studies reported only the relative benefit, 2 percent reported only the absolute benefit, and only 15 percent reported both.

For example, many 1996 stories about a Fosamax study said the drug would cut an osteoporosis patient’s risk of a broken hip in half – the relative benefit. But most failed to include the absolute reduction in risk, from a 2 percent chance of a hip fracture to 1 percent.

Reporting only the relative benefit is an approach that has been shown to increase the enthusiasm of doctors and patients for long-term preventive treatments and that could be viewed as potentially misleading. In addition, while most of the top medical journals require researchers to report their financial ties to drug companies, some studies do not include the information because a researcher fails to disclose it.

New England Journal of Medicine 2000; 342: 1668-1671.

COMMENT: Here we have it again. NEJM comes up with two winner articles documenting the incredible influence that the drug companies have on the media. With their new editor coming in my guess is that we will not see these types of articles published again in the near future.

Fortunately, you don’t have to be fooled. That is the purpose of this newsletter, to give you the truth behind the health news you see on TV or read in the paper or periodicals. I have access to the same wire feeds that the news media does, but no drug company is funding me to influence what I have to say. If you feel that this service is helpful and would like to help your friends and relatives receive the truth behind the headlines you can encourage them to subscribe to the newsletter by clicking on the button below. My goal is to have this news reach as many people as possible. If a significant mass of people understand the truth we will be able to change the way health care is done in this country. I believe the goal is achievable as the Internet levels the playing field. It will happen eventually, but you can facilitate that process by helping to spread the word.

http://www.mercola.com/2003/apr/2/drug_companies.htm

More Drug Company Conflict of Interests

A government review of widely prescribed anti-depressant drugs may not be trustworthy as most of the members have ties to the drug manufacturers.

The side effects of Seroxat, Prozac and other antidepressant drugs in the SSRI (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor) class were undergoing an “intensive review” because many patients have reported severe withdrawal symptoms when trying to come off Seroxat.

Additionally, the drugs have been associated with a small number of suicides, committed shortly after patients, who were not previously in severely depressed states, began taking the drugs.

However, two of the four scientists on the review board hold shares in GlaxoSmithKline, manufacturers of Seroxat. Two other members of the review team were involved in the promotional press launch of Seroxat, and the chairman of the team was one of the signatories to a paper that concluded withdrawal symptoms from SSRIs are rare and relatively mild.

In addition, the review will not take into account first-hand evidence from patients, only reports from their doctors.

The team was drawn from the committee on the safety of medicines, which is part of the Department of Health’s medicines control agency. The committee maintains that team members leave the room if they have personal interests such as shareholdings to an aspect of the discussion.

Reportedly, several members of the team did declare personal interests and left the room during some discussions, however meeting minutes showed that all members did not declare all of their manufacturer connections.

The medicines control agency stated that the system for preventing conflicts of interests works well and that there has been no evidence showing that team members did not act with integrity.

The Guardian March 17, 2003


Dr. Mercola’s Comment

The traditional medical paradigm is fatally flawed. Relying on drugs and surgeries to correct diseases caused by poor diet and stress is a prescription for disaster.

If you haven’t seen the signs around you please take notice. Health costs are rising through the roof, and shortly we will be spending over 2 trillion dollars a year for health care in the U.S.

It is safe to estimate that over three-fourths of this money is wasted on short-term fixes, primarily drugs and surgeries, which in no way address the long-term cause of the problem.

If those funds were redirected to optimize food and stress concerns, we would have more than enough funds left over to help the more than 40 million uninsured Americans.

The above article provides a solid review of the pervasive influence of drug companies.

By being aware of their self-interested motives you can keep yourself from falling into their deceptive traps.

December 19, 2007

Another excellent article by Ron Paul

Filed under: alternative health news, autism/adhd, big medicine, big pharma, Ron Paul — Tags: , , — sesame seed @ 6:35 pm

I am not against a single-payer system, but if it’s going to have forced vaccinations and forced psychiatric screenings, then, yes, I guess I can change my opinion. It’s a sign of maturity, is it not, to change your opinions when you see how the tide is going?

 

Congressional Control of Health Care is Dangerous

for Children

by Ron Paul
by Ron Paul


DIGG THIS

This week Congress is again grasping for more control over the health of American children with the expansion of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). Parents who think federally subsidized health care might be a good idea should be careful what they wish for.

Despite political rhetoric about a War on Drugs, federally funded programs result in far more teenage drug use than the most successful pill pusher on the playground. These pills are given out as a result of dubious universal mental health screening programs for school children, supposedly directed toward finding mental disorders or suicidal tendencies. The use of antipsychotic medication in children has increased fivefold between 1995 and 2002. More than 2.5 million children are now taking these medications, and many children are taking multiple drugs at one time.

With universal mental health screening being implemented in schools, pharmaceutical companies stand to increase their customer base even more, and many parents are rightfully concerned. Opponents of one such program, called TeenScreen, claim it wrongly diagnoses children as much as 84% of the time, often incorrectly labeling them, resulting in the assigning of medications that can be very damaging. While we are still awaiting evidence that there are benefits to mental health screening programs, evidence that these drugs actually cause violent psychotic episodes is mounting.

Many parents have very valid concerns about the drugs to which a child labeled as “suicidal” or “depressed,” or even ADHD, could be subjected. Of further concern is the subjectivity of diagnosis of mental health disorders. The symptoms of ADHD are strikingly similar to indications that a child is gifted, and bored in an unchallenging classroom. In fact, these programs, and many of the syndromes they attempt to screen for, are highly questionable. Parents are wise to question them.

As it stands now, parental consent is required for these screening programs, but in some cases mere passive consent is legal. Passive consent is obtained when a parent receives a consent form and fails to object to the screening. In other words, failure to reply is considered affirmative consent. In fact, TeenScreen advocates incorporating their program into the curriculum as a way to by-pass any consent requirement. These universal, or mandatory, screening programs being called for by TeenScreen and the New Freedom Commission on Mental Health should be resisted.

Consent must be express, written, voluntary and informed. Programs that refuse to give parents this amount of respect, should not receive federal funding. Moreover, parents should not be pressured into screening or drugging their children with the threat that not doing so constitutes child abuse or neglect. My bill, The Parental Consent Act of 2007 is aimed at stopping federal funding of these programs.

We don’t need a village, a bureaucrat, or the pharmaceutical industry raising our children. That’s what parents need to be doing.

Find this article at:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul411.html

December 17, 2007

Straight Dope on GARDASIL–Still trust Big Pharma?

Filed under: big medicine, big pharma, vaccines and their dangers — Tags: , , , — sesame seed @ 6:21 pm

[From the excellent NVIC newsletter]

NVIC E-newswww.nvic.org

www.vaccineawakening.blogspot.com

One Less? Evaluating the High Cost of GARDASIL

by Barbara Loe Fisher

To view a TV news story on the HPV Vaccine controversy, click here:

The debate about whether all young girls should routinely be vaccinated with HPV vaccine continues to be a big topic of discussion in homes and doctors’ offices around the country. At the same time, reports of serious reactions to Merck’s HPV vaccine, GARDASIL, continue to pile up. Last month, a young 15 year old soccer player and star athlete in Kansas almost died within three hours of being injected with GARDASIL. In September, a 12 year old Florida girl who played softball and ran cross country suddenly collapsed shortly after getting a shot of GARDASIL and became paralyzed. Twenty-eight American women, who were pregnant when they were injected with GARDASIL vaccine, have miscarried their babies.

Last year at this time, Merck was giving marching orders to lobbyists and teaming up with politicians to ram school mandates for 11 year old girls to get injected with three doses of its new and very expensive HPV Vaccine, GARDASIL. Never mind that GARDASIL had only been studied in less than 1200 girls under age 16 in pre-licensure clinical trials and was not tested for safety in combination with other vaccines like meningococcal and TdaP vaccines routinely given to pre-adolescents today. http://www.nvic.org/Diseases/HPV/pr022107HP V.htm

Merck failed to make the case that the only opposition to the proposed mandates was coming from parents who did not want their pre-teen daughters to get a vaccine for a sexually transmitted disease because of religious beliefs and moral convictions. NVIC argued that, beyond the moral and parental rights issues, there was a legitimate case to be made that GARDASIL should not be mandated because of outstanding product safety issues. At the end of the day, parents across the nation made it made it clear that they did not want three doses of a poorly tested vaccine for a sexually transmitted infection that cannot be acquired in the school setting to be added to school mandates that already include dozens of doses of vaccines.

The proposed HPV vaccine mandates failed in all the states in 2007 but that did not prevent GARDASIL from becoming a blockbuster new product for Merck and it does not mean that Merck and pro- forced vaccination proponents will not try again in 2008 to get laws passed requiring its use. One Wall Street guru has predicted the $300 million Merck made this year will grow to more than $4 billion. In fact, brisk GARDASIL sales was one reason why, despite the $4.85 billion the drug maker had to pay for patients injured by painkiller Vioxx, the company turned a profit in 2007.

NVIC issued three reports in 2007 analyzing GARDASIL reaction reports being filed in the federal Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) by nurses, doctors and patients. To date, the FDA VAERS data reveal that more than 4,000 GARDASIL adverse events have been reported to VAERS through October 2007. Descriptions of these vaccine reaction reports can be viewed and VAERS database searches made on NVIC’s website at http://www.medalerts.org/vaersdb/index.html.

( Click here and here to access the GARDASIL reaction reports directly)

On August 15, 2007, NVIC wrote a letter to the Centers for Disease Control accompanied by a detailed NVIC analysis of increased GBS and other serious adverse event reports in VAERS that have occurred when GARDASIL is given at the same time with meningococcal vaccine (Menactra) , asking the CDC to issue an advisory to doctors and parents to be cautious when administering GARDASIL with Menactra. The CDC quickly dismissed the significance of the increased risk of injecting GARDASIL simultaneously with Menactra and refused to alert anyone to the potential increased risk.

Now a new study, which was funded by Kaiser (CDC’s research partner) and authored by researchers with financial ties to vaccine manufacturers, has been published in a medical journal in a pro-active pre- damage, damage control attempt to dismiss the serious autoimmune and other negative health outcomes following HPV vaccination as “a coincidence.”

Because teenagers and adult women can talk (while babies cannot), those who are in the business of hyping HPV vaccination for profit and power know they will have a much bigger problem covering up the brain and immune system damage that occurs when healthy girls and women are injected with HPV vaccine. Just like Merck tried to make opposition to HPV vaccine mandates all about sex, so public health officials and doctors promoting HPV vaccination are going to try to sweep HPV vaccine reactions under the carpet using the unscientific but convenient “coincidence” defense.

Lost in all the hype for young girls to be “One Less” is discussion of the basic facts about HPV infection in America :

* The majority of women clear the HPV virus from their bodies naturally but women with risk factors, such as HIV infection, smoking, long-time use of oral contraceptives, and co-infection with herpes simplex virus or chlamydia, are at higher risk for chronic HPV infection.

* Between 1955 and 1992, cervical cancer deaths in American women dropped by 74 percent due to routine pap smears.

* There are about 9,800 new cases of cervical cancer annually diagnosed in the U.S., which represents .007 percent out of the approximately 1,372,000 new cancer cases of all types diagnosed.

* There are about 3,700 deaths in mostly older American women annually attributed to HPV- related cervical cancer, which is about .006 percent of the approximately 570,000 cancer deaths that occur in the U.S.

* Most cervical pre-cancers develop slowly, so nearly all cervical cancers can be prevented with regular pap smear screening and prompt treatment.

We already are asking our children to get more than 50 doses of vaccines by age twelve!” says the National Vaccine Information Center’s Barbara Loe Fisher. If you have a daughter, there maybe one more vaccine on the list. Twenty-six states and the District of Columbia have introduced legislation requiring girls, as young as eleven, to get the vaccine that could prevent the Human Papillomavirus. “As a mother you kind of want to wrap your child in bubble wrap and just protect them from anything you can.” Janet Riessman says protecting her daughter, Sage, from the virus which can cause cervical cancer was an easy decision. “For me it was all prevention.” But some parents and even healthcare advocates have questions about safety. Barbara Loe Fisher tells dvmMoms.com, “It was only studied on less than 1,200 girls under the age of 16.” This HPV vaccine has been on the market for little over a year. There have already been more than 4,000 reported adverse reactions and at least three people have died. The FDA and the CDC say these numbers may not tell the full story. And they claim most reactions have been minor. “The 4,000 adverse events that have been reported could be just the tip of the iceberg,” says Loe Fisher. She says half of those reactions were serious enough to send girls to the emergency room. She’s concerned about making the HPV vaccine mandatory.” – Lesli Foster, WUSA-TV (November 28, 2007) http://www.wusa9.com/rss/local_articl e.aspx?storyid=65760

“A Lawrence couple is furious over a new government-approved vaccine designed to prevent a type of cancer. They say it almost killed their daughter and significantly altered her life. 15-year-old Marissa Omon is an athlete. The daughter of a Nigerian soccer player she played basketball, volleyball and track, until now. Surgeons put a defibrillator inside her chest Monday night fearing her heart could stop at any moment. “HPV [vaccine] cost my daughter. It almost cost her her life,” said Edem Omon. Edem Omon is convinced his healthy, athletic teenage daughter Miranda almost died because of a vaccine doctors gave her to prevent cervical cancer….Edem said he reluctantly allowed a doctor to give her the HPV vaccine. “He convinced me the drug was safe,” said Edem. Less than three hours later, while practicing basketball at Free State High School, Miranda suddenly collapsed. Her heart stopped. Paramedics needed a defibrillator to revive her. Miranda was rushed to Children’s Mercy where she spent several days unable to walk or talk. Doctors ran a battery of tests, CT scans, x-rays and biopsies. They could find no explanation for Miranda’s sudden heart problem. They say they do not believe the HPV vaccine has anything to do with it.”
– Larry Seward, KSHB- TV (November 13, 2007)
http://www.nbcactionnews.com/news/l ocal/story.aspx?content_id=fabcbaad-8971-4db0- 8ed1-42ccbc106f20

“Christina Bell says she had seen ads for the vaccine so after consulting with her doctor she agreed to have her 12-year-old daughter, Brittany vaccinated. Two months ago the Florida girl suddenly collapsed. Her mother says Brittany used to play softball and run cross country. Now she can’t feel her legs. Kelley Dougherty of Merck tells IB News that paralysis is not one of the recognized side effects of Gardasil use and is not even on the warning label.”
– Jane Akre, Injuryboard.com (November 14, 2007)
http://www.injuryboard.com/national- news/did-gardasil-vaccine-cause-a-12-yr-olds- paralysis.aspx?googleid=28460

“Since June 2006, when the HPV vaccine Gardasil was approved by the Food and Drug Administration, there have been 28 reported cases in which pregnant women miscarried after receiving the vaccine. Nonetheless, based on the clinical trials done prior to approval of the drug – which indicated that miscarriages among pregnant women given Gardasil were statistically consistent with miscarriages among women given placebos and in the general population – the FDA remains convinced the vaccine is safe and is not further investigating its effect on pregnant women. In May, a 24-year-old woman suffered a miscarriage, which an investigator in a report issued to the federal government said, “may have been caused by Gardasil because the patient received the injection within 30 days of the pregnancy.” In July, a 17-year-old girl from Texas was unaware she was pregnant when she got her second dose of Gardasil. She miscarried, but the cause of the miscarriage hasn’t been determined, according to a report. The reasons for two other miscarriages this year in Florida – one by a 16-year-old and another by a 24-year-old both – are undetermined, according to reports. But it is known that both women had Gardasil vaccinations shortly before the miscarriages.”
– Fred Lukas, CNS News.com (Decekmber 6, 2007)
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0% 2C2933%2C315466%2C00.html

[and the official party line:]

“Concerns about supposed adverse effects of vaccines seem to occur regularly. Usually the evidence for the adverse effect leading to the scare derives from some case reports rather than from trials or carefully conducted comparative studies. Spontaneous reports of suspected adverse drug reactions, including those to vaccines, remain an important source of new information for monitoring the safety of medicines. However, suspicion about an event does not demonstrate causality. Many suspected adverse drug reactions are simply coincident in time with administration of the drug or vaccine. During the next few years, there will be vaccines introduced to groups of people who have not traditionally been vaccinated. Pandemic flu vaccine may be given to age groups who have not been, in large scale, recipients of vaccines. The human papilloma virus (HPV) disease burden and the outstanding efficacy profile of the novel HPV vaccines are such that these vaccines are currently being implemented or considered for implementation in many industrialized countries……We are concerned that the large-scale implementation of HPV vaccines in industrialized countries could reactivate the vaccine- safety debates linking vaccination to autoimmune diseases. This could possibly represent a major issue for the sustainability of HPV immunization programs in industrialized countries, and consequently for their implementation in developing countries where they are most needed….” – Claire-Anne Siegrist, MD et al., Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2008;26(11):979-984
https://profreg.medscape. com/px/getlogin.do? urlCache=aHR0cDovL3d3dy5tZWRzY2FwZS5jb20vdm lld2FydGljbGUvNTY1ODQ5 (subscription required)

November 30, 2007

Need more reasons to hate Big Pharma?

Folks, 1. how about asking yourself if you really need a drug or 2. asking first if a non-invasive herb could do the job of a drug?

Or, change your diet and activity level–for free–so that you don’t get sick, and don’t need a doctor.

30-Nov-2007

Dear Cecil:

I recently heard a statistic on a radio talk show that in the U.S. alone there are over 7,000 deaths per year due to mistakes made by pharmacists because of the physicians’ illegible handwriting on the prescription! Can this be true? — Don Jones, Berea, Ohio

Cecil replies:

You’d almost hope so, Don, given that Time magazine saw fit to lead with it: “Doctors’ sloppy handwriting,” a January 2007 article begins, “kills more than 7,000 people annually.” (I’d bet Darvon to doughnuts that’s where the radio personality you heard saw it.) But the author may have had some difficulty deciphering his own notes: the actual stat alluded to — apparently from a 1998 Lancet paper via subsequent reports by the Institute of Medicine — is that each year 7,000 U.S. deaths result from all medication-related errors of any sort, inside and outside hospitals, and not just those tied to poor penmanship.

Which, of course, is still plenty to ponder while popping your next pill, and there’s more where that came from. Scanning an IOM report from last year we learn:

  • About 1,400 prescribing errors are made per every 1,000 hospital admissions (remember that a typical inpatient may receive 20-plus doses of meds daily), more than 100 of them serious.
  • Two leading studies of medication errors made by nursing home staff didn’t even include the most common mistake, administering drugs at the wrong time, and still found between 12 and 15 errors per 100 doses.
  • A 2003 study reported that nearly one in eight prescriptions phoned in to pharmacies contain misinformation, while estimates of pharmacists’ error rate in dispensing drugs range from under 2 percent up to nearly 24 percent. Even using the lowest figure, that’s more than 50 million mistakes a year nationwide.

(Anecdotal evidence break: My assistant Una says she gets the same six prescriptions filled monthly and guesses the pharmacy commits one serious screwup every other month — an 8 percent error rate on refills, for God’s sake.)

But whatever the incidence of medication errors (and more figures got thrown around last week following the heparin overdose reportedly given to Dennis Quaid’s infant twins), it’s hard to pin down the role of handwriting. One small-scale study from 2002 found that 15 percent of handwritten medical records at a Spanish hospital were unclear due to legibility problems (the surgeons’ notes were the worst), a 2001 British paper reported that more than 10 percent of handwritten prescriptions contained errors, and U.S. studies have found that 20 percent of prescriptions or more were unreadable or readable only with effort. Some experts estimate that maybe a quarter of medication errors are due to illegibility. But time-honored notions aside, comparative studies disagree over whether those who’ve earned an MD do tend to have worse handwriting than those who haven’t. Maybe it only seems that way when that little scrap of paper could determine whether you live or die.

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/071130.html

By the way, folks, don’t let this mass-media stuff about handwriting errors fool you into the propaganda that health records really need to be “computerized” and scannable and available everywhere, or even in a chip (or verichip), because suddenly doctors are just so stupid. There is a technology to get your records quickly from one doctor to another. It is called a fax machine. These medical errors are caused by overmedication just as much as handwriting flaws. Not to mention that the FDA takes bribes and approves drugs and foods that have not been fully tested and which are harmful (aspartame, vioxx, etc).

November 27, 2007

Important news about cell phones and autism

I thought I would share this in the public interest because, again, this is information that needs to be known and studied before we go marching blindly into the future. I have autism-like symptoms, and I can definitely feel when there are multiple wifi signals in my apartment (but finding decent, affordable housing is difficult enough).

I try to minimize my cell phone use, though it is still far above Dr. Mercola’s acceptable levels. I would love to have a land line if noise issues didn’t cause me to move so often. Isn’t it interesting that sidewalk pay phones are becoming a rarer and rarer sight in our cities?


http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2007/11/27/how-cell-phones-may-cause-autism.aspx

Rates of autism, a disabling neurodevelopmental disorder, have increased nearly 60-fold since the late 1970s, with the most significant increases occurring in the past decade.

The cause of autism is unknown, although theories include such potential causes as:

  • Genetic predisposition
  • Inability to clear heavy metals
  • Increased vulnerability to oxidative stress
  • Environmental exposures including mercury preservatives in vaccines
  • Trans-generational accumulation of toxic heavy metals

Now a groundbreaking new theory has been suggested by a study published in the Journal of the Australasian College of Nutritional & Environmental Medicine: electromagnetic radiation (EMR) from cell phones, cell towers, Wi-Fi devices and other similar wireless technologies as an accelerating factor in autism.

EMR May be the Missing Link

The study, which involved over five years of research on children with autism and other membrane sensitivity disorders, found that EMR negatively affects cell membranes, and allows heavy metal toxins, which are associated with autism, to build up in your body.

Meanwhile, the researchers pointed out that autism rates have increased concurrently along with the proliferation of cell phones and wireless use.

EMR, the researchers say, could impact autism by facilitating early onset of symptoms or by trapping heavy metals inside of nerve cells, which could accelerate the onset of symptoms of heavy metal toxicity and hinder therapeutic clearance of the toxins .

Speaking in reference to the huge rise in autism rates, Dr. George Carlo, the study’s co-author, said, “A rise of this magnitude must have a major environmental cause. Our data offer a reasonable mechanistic explanation for a connection between autism and wireless technology.”

They also suggest that EMR from wireless devices works in conjunction with environmental and genetic factors to cause autism.

Primary researcher for this article is Tamara Mariea. Her clinic is called Internal Balance™ Inc.(www.internalbalance.com) and is a state-of-the-art Detoxification Clinic located in the Nashville, TN area. Her objective is to provide high quality and current up-to-date information on the hottest topics in the natural health industry including sound advice on how to implement a personal wellness and detoxification program that works.

One of the most successful programs offered at Internal Balance is the unique strategies implemented for autistic children. In working backward through the autistic child’s life, making changes to their environment, diet and implementing State-of-the-Art detoxification strategies, the Internal Balance team has witnessed numerous changes and improvements in the lives and families of these children. In a few cases, they have witnessed miracles that have changed lives forever, including Mariea’s team.

Parents consistently report back that during and after the detoxification process and most importantly after making modifications to their home, they see huge changes in their children’s developmental progress and a decrease in the children’s general sensory discomfort.

Although Mariea believes that autism is a complicated condition that must have several factors at play for a child to fall to this diagnosis, she does believe that the three largest factors at play are

  • Genetically determined detoxification capacity
  • Early insult to immune system via contaminated vaccines and
  • Being born with high levels of toxic burden and into a technologically advanced society riddled with ever increasing levels of radiation

Wireless Radiation in the Etiology and Treatment of Autism (PDF Download Page)

Dr. Mercola’s Comments: I am absolutely convinced that the explosion of cell phone usage around the world is one of the primary contributors to the autism epidemic. The information-carrying radio waves from cell phone base stations and cell phones makes children’s exposure to vaccines and heavy metals much more dangerous than they typically are.

Why?

Because EMR may actually trap heavy metals inside your cells, allowing them to cause damage and hindering your body from detoxifying them.

While I realize that most people will not avoid cell phones because of their convenience, I would urge you to not let your kids use them.

I warned of these dangers on my Today Show interview last month, but the media blacklisted it and only showed a short section of what I had to say.

So let me say it again here: the density of your child’s skull is far less than an adult’s, and their brain is far more susceptible to these information-carrying radio waves.

For this reason, you should not allow your child to use a cell phone, and you should also never hold an infant while you’re talking on one — when you are on a cell phone the radiation plume can easily reach an infant in your other arm and penetrate their skull.

In October, I spent two full days with Dr. George Carlo, who is the co-author of this groundbreaking study and an undisputed world expert in cell phone safety. I was so compelled with the information I heard that my next book in 2009 will detail the reasons why I believe using cell phones is far more dangerous than smoking cigarettes ever was.

Largest Study Ever on Cell Phone Safety

Dr. Carlo was given a $28-million grant from the cell phone industry in the ’90s to prove cell phones were safe. He is an MD, taught as a professor at George Washington Medical School, and has a degree in public health — so he was up for the challenge.

However, Dr. Carlo did not come up with the results the cell phone industry would have wanted. After his research he found that they DO, in fact, cause damage. The cell phone industry offered him a position for $1 million a year to silence him, but he refused, and started a non-profit institute called The Safe Wireless Initiative to inform the world of this danger.

Folks, by the end of this year it’s expected that 4 billion cell phones will have been sold. This is a massive explosion in cell phone use, and one that is undoubtedly linked to health problems, including autism.

The information-carrying radio waves from cell phones may:

  • Damage your cell membranes
  • Decrease your intracellular communication by disrupting microtubular connections that allow biophotons to communicate between cells
  • Increase deposits of heavy metals into your cells, which increases intracellular production of free radicals and can radically decrease cellular production of energy — thus making you incredibly fatigued

Cell phone users are also 240 percent more prone to brain tumors, and a study back in 2004 found that your risk of acoustic neuroma (a tumor on your auditory nerve) was nearly four times greater on the side of your head where your phone was most frequently held.

What is even more concerning, though, is that there is VERY solid evidence that the number of brain tumors will increase to 500,000 per YEAR in 2010 — and this will double to 1 million every year by 2015 if the causes are not addressed.

Folks, this is the real deal and represents an impending health care crisis.

Can Cell Phones Ever be Used Safely?

Ideally, I believe you should not use cell phones. In reality, though, I know that’s not a practical option for many of you.

If you choose to use a cell phone you should use the speakerphone function whenever possible — and keep the phone about two feet away from any body part. Do not keep the phone on your belt or in your pocket even when you’re not using it, as the radiation WILL penetrate your body wherever the phone is attached. Instead, stow it away in a purse, backpack, or your car’s glove compartment.

For times when a speakerphone isn’t practical, you can use a NON-Blue Tooth headset, such as the Blue Tube headset. While Blue Tooth is certainly safer than no headset at all, it is still broadcasting its own information-carrying radio waves into your brain, just at a lower intensity than a cell phone. And there quite simply is no safe biological threshold for either of them.

I feel SO STRONGLY about the dangers that cell phones pose to your health, and your children’s, that I agreed to host an event with Dr. Carlo in Chicago in the near future.

Understanding implantable RFID for busy people

I’m just copying and pasting some of the easiest to understand material I’ve gleaned from my own research, because there is a fair quantity of information/ interpretation/editorials out there and it is true that this information needs to be known, but people are busy.

Assuming there is no such thing as a mind control implant, the accounts appearing in our in-boxes (and across the internet) raise disturbing questions about our society. Is our ubiquitous surveillance technology creating a surge in neurosis and mental illness? Research suggests that people do tend to get paranoid if they believe they have no way of knowing when they are being watched. Perhaps the rise in CCTV cameras, database profiling, and guerilla marketing is making us all a little nuts, and some people express it more overtly than others.

-Katherine Albrecht

Think pedophiles and/or illegal aliens should be tagged with RFID?
I’d say that’s a very bad idea.

Living in this surveillance and power-mad century, there’s a wise Chinese proverb we should all keep in mind:

“The fire you kindle for your enemy often burns you more than it burns him.”

While some people may, at first glance, think it’s a good idea to tag the more dangerous and unsavory elements of society with a computer chip, it’s actually a very bad idea in the long run. An industry that’s built around tagging human beings against their will, whether they’re illegal immigrants, criminals, or even mass murderers, will grow fat and powerful and bureaucratic from feeding at the trough of our tax dollars. An infrastructure of human tagging will take root, then, like all industries, it will want to see its market expand. (Think of the prison-industrial complex today — or any powerful lobby.)

The human-implant-prison-industrial-complex will shmooze at political fundraisers and send lobbyists to urge politicians to expand the mandatory chipping program to other “markets.” They’ll urge the tagging of parolees and ex-felons. In fact, they’ll say, society would be safer if all criminals — rapists, drug dealers, prostitutes, thieves, and domestic abusers — had a chip implant, along with gun law violators, marijuana smokers, drunk drivers, custody violators, tax cheats, habitual traffic violators, shoplifters, protesters who won’t stay in their designated First Amendment zones, rowdy college revelers, and eventually the guy who didn’t fill out the right paperwork to add a deck onto the back of his house.

Once the mandatory chipping lobby really gets going, they won’t stop at criminals. For our own safety, they’ll get the lawmakers to agree that we ought to chip nuclear plant workers, anyone handling biological or chemical agents, drivers transporting hazardous materials, anyone owning a gun, anyone working with children, anyone preparing food for public consumption, anyone…

Get the picture yet?

No matter who you are and how saintly a life you lead, I can almost promise you that if we light this fire to burn the pedophiles, somewhere down the road it will burn us and our children, too.

Big Brother has surrounded us with dried kindling and he’s hankering for a match. Don’t hand it to him.

– Katherine Albrecht

November 19, 2007

How can you protect yourself and stay healthy in perilous times?

Look into the teachings of Dr. Ted Broer and Dr. Russel Blaylock.
These folks are rightly against aspartame,
they’re exposing trans fats (hydrogenated fats)

and are part of an anti-conventional medicine community.
Power to them!

russelblaylockmd.com
http://www.healthmasters.com/

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.