VACCINES  EARTHWALK-USA

GARDASIL WARNING! CLICK HERE      

Vaccine May Be More Dangerous Than Swine Flu

Tuesday, July 7, 2009 9:54 AM

By: Dr. Russell Blaylock

An outbreak of swine flu occurred in Mexico this spring that eventually affected 4,910 Mexican
citizens and resulted in 85 deaths. By the time it spread to the United States, the virus caused only
mild cases of flu-like illness.


Thanks to air travel and the failure of public health officials to control travel from Mexico, the virus
spread worldwide. Despite predictions of massive numbers of deaths and the arrival of doomsday,
the virus has remained a relatively mild disease, something we know happens each year with flu
epidemics.


Worldwide, there have only been 311 deaths out of 70,893 cases of swine flu. In the United States,
27,717 cases have resulted in 127 deaths. Every death is a tragedy, but such a low death rate should
not be the basis of a draconian government policy.


It is helpful to recall that the Centers for Disease Control with the collusion of the media, constantly
tell us that 36,000 people die from the flu each year, a figure that has been shown to be a lie. In this
case, we are talking about 300 plus deaths for the entire world.


This virus continues to be an enigma for virologists. In the April 30, 2009 issue of Nature, a virologist
was quoted as saying,“Where the hell it got all these genes from we don’t know.” Extensive analysis
of the virus found that it contained the original 1918 H1N1 flu virus, the avian flu virus (bird flu), and
two new H3N2 virus genes from Eurasia. Debate continues over the possibility that swine flu is a
genetically engineered virus.


Naturally, vaccine manufacturers have been in a competitive battle to produce the first vaccine. The
main contenders have been Baxter Pharmaceuticals and Novartis Pharmaceuticals, the latter of which
recently acquired the scandal-ridden Chiron vaccine company. Both of these companies have had
agreements with the World Health Organization to produce a pandemic vaccine.


The Baxter vaccine, called Celvapan, has had fast track approval. It uses a new vero cell technology,
which utilizes cultured cells from the African green monkey. This same animal tissue transmits a
number of vaccine-contaminating viruses, including the HIV virus.


The Baxter company has been associated with two deadly scandals. The first event occurred in 2006
when hemophiliac components were contaminated with HIV virus and injected in tens of thousands of
people, including thousands of children. Baxter continued to release the HIV contaminated vaccine
even after the contamination was known.


The second event occurred recently when it was discovered that Baxter had released a seasonal flu
vaccine containing the bird flu virus, which would have produced a real world pandemic, to 18
countries. Fortunately, astute lab workers in the Czech Republic discovered the deadly combination
and blew the whistle before a worldwide disaster was unleashed.


Despite these two deadly events, WHO maintains an agreement with Baxter Pharmaceuticals to
produce the world’s pandemic vaccine.


Novartis, the second contender, also has an agreement with WHO for a pandemic vaccine. Novartis
appears to have won the contract, since their vaccine is near completion. What is terrifying is that
these pandemic vaccines contain ingredients, called immune adjuvants that a number of studies
have shown cause devastating autoimmune disorders, including rheumatoid arthritis, multiple
sclerosis and lupus.


Animal studies using this adjuvant have found them to be deadly. A study using 14 guinea pigs found
that when they were injected with the special adjuvant, only one animal survived. A repeat of the
study found the same deadly outcome.


So, what is this deadly ingredient? It is called squalene, a type of oil. The Chiron company, maker of
the deadly anthrax vaccine, makes an adjuvant called MF-59 which contains an ingredient of serious
concern--squalene. A number of studies have shown that squalene can trigger all of the above-
mentioned autoimmune diseases when injected.


The MF-59 adjuvant has been used in several vaccines. These vaccines, including tetanus and
diphtheria, are the same vaccines frequently associated with adverse reactions.


I reviewed a number of studies on this adjuvant and found something quite interesting. Several
studies done on human test subjects found MF-59 to be a very safe immune adjuvant. But when I
checked to see who did these studies, I found—to no surprise—that they were done by the Novartis
Pharmaceutical Company and Chiron Pharmaceutical Company, which have merged. They were all
published in “prestigious” medical journals. Also, to no surprise, a great number of studies done by
independent laboratories and research institutions all found a strong link between MF-59 and
autoimmune diseases.


Squalene in vaccines has been strongly linked to the Gulf War Syndrome. On August 1991, Anthony
Principi, Secretary of Veterans Affairs admitted that soldiers vaccinated with the anthrax vaccine from
1990 to 1991 had an increased risk of 200 percent in developing the deadly disease amyotrophic
lateral sclerosis (ALS), also called Lou Gehrig’s disease. The soldiers also suffered from a number of
debilitating and life-shortening diseases, such as polyarteritis nodosa, multiple sclerosis (MS), lupus,
transverse myelitis (a neurological disorder caused by inflammation of the spinal cord), endocarditis
(inflammation of the heart’s inner lining), optic neuritis with blindness and glomerulonephritis (a type
of kidney disease).


Because squalene, the main ingredient in MF-59, can induce hyperimmune responses and induce
autoimmunity, a real danger exists for prolonged activation of the brain’s immune cells, the microglia.
This type of prolonged activation has been strongly associated with such diseases as multiple
sclerosis, Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, ALS and possibly vaccine-related encephalitis. It
has been shown that activation of the systemic immune system, as occurs with vaccination, rapidly
activates the brain’s microglia at the same time, and this brain inflammation can persist for long
periods.


What most people do not know, even the doctors who recommend the vaccines, is that most studies
by pharmaceutical companies observe the patients for only one to two weeks following vaccination—
these types of reactions may take months or even years to manifest.


It is obvious that the vaccine manufacturers stand to make billions of dollars in profits from this
WHO/government-promoted pandemic. Novartis, the maker of the new pandemic vaccine, recently
announced that they would not give free vaccines to impoverished nations—everybody pays.


One must keep in mind that once the vaccine is injected, there is little you can do to protect
yourself—at least by conventional medicine. It will mean a lifetime of crippling illness and early death.


There are much safer ways to protect oneself from this flu virus, such as higher doses of vitamin D3,
selective immune enhancement using supplements, and a good diet.

2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved




Draw your own conclusions about what is afoot. And if you, like the officers and trustees of the
Natural Solutions Foundation, are deeply concerned by what you see, intuit and conclude from these
facts, you WILL take action by clicking on the two Action Steps that follow. And you WILL enlist
everyone you know and can reach to do the same and activate their contacts and circles of influence.

Click HERE to tell your legislators and your Governor that you demand your right to Self-Shield,
instead of taking the dangerous vaccine OR being incarcerated:

http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/568/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=27275

Click HERE to urge your national and state legislators to protect food and farming (you'll find more
information below):

http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/568/t/1128/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=26714

Yours in health and freedom,
Major General Albert N. Stubblebine III
(US Army, Ret.)
President
Natural Solutions Foundation
__________________________________________________________





URGENT: Push Back Is Working

Net Roots Assemble! It's Time To Marshal Large Numbers of Voices

Prevent Marshal Law!

Self -Shielding and Codex Bills may be Introduced in Congress By Health Freedom Allies!

Push Back Working: Urgently Important to Act on Self Shielding Legislation Demand -- and take that
demand viral!

We have word from the office of the most outspoken friend health freedom has in Congress that he is
considering two new bills to support our freedom, in addition to the nutrient health claims bill that will
be re-introduced into Congress shortly:

1. A Self-Shielding law which would give you the right to choose to remain at home rather than take a
dangerous Pandemic Vaccine or be incarcerated and quarantined.

Click HERE to tell your legislators you demand your right to Self-Shield, instead of taking the
dangerous vaccine OR being incarcerated:
http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/568/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=27275

and

2. A Codex Anti-Harmonization Bill. Taking the US out of Codex's restrictions on our access to
nutrition would be a major step forward!

Meanwhile a New Farm and Food Safety Bill Threatens...

You can read our Counsel Ralph's blog on HR2749 here:
http://vitaminlawyerhealthfreedom.blogspot.com/2009/07/hr-2749-sic-food-safety-bill.html
In it he writes: "While Self-Shielding in the face of manufactured pandemics and weaponized vaccines
got our attention; while Codex further degraded the food supply... Congress was planning its own
surprise: the forced-industrialization-of-farming bills, such as HR 875 & 759, have been replaced by a
new "fast-tracked" (sic) "Food Safety" bill - HR 2749 - that threatens food, health and freedom. It is, in
reality, a "martial law food control bill"

This new Farm and Food Safety (sic) legislation, HR 2749 is being pushed forward with limited debate
as if it were a non-controversial bill and it, like the other dangerous Farm and Food Safety bills,
contains implementation and harmonization language for Codex.

The worst of the Farm and Food Safety (sic) legislation, HR 2749 is being moved under a "Suspension
of Rules" which is how "non-controversial legislation, like naming post offices" is usually done;
limited debate, no amendments, one "up or down" vote and while it probably won't be voted on this
week, it could come up in the next couple weeks.WE MUST FLOOD CONGRESS WITH MESSAGES
REGARDING THIS! IF YOU ONLY DO ONE THING AS A RESULT OF THIS EMAIL, PLEASE, PLEASE, CLICK
BELOW AND ASK EVERYONE YOU KNOW TO DO SO TOO!

Click HERE to urge your national and state legislators to protect food and farming:

http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/568/t/1128/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=26714

Remember, each of these Action Items can be sent in by every member of your family!

Have you clicked and sent the Action Items? Great. Now you can get to work and find ways to motivate
the people in your email list, your relatives, the folks at your local Farmer's Market, Church,
Synagogue, Mosque, Block Club, School, University or whatever groups of people with whom you
communicate. A health fair in your area? A folk dance or festival? Great. These are urgent issues and
all we need is a click of the Freedom Mouse from a large number of people. It really is up to us to
mobilize the kind of Push Back that really does work.

Apparently, the Natural Solutions Foundation's enthusiastic Push Back - YOUR enthusiastic Push Back
- is giving us the purchase we need to have legislation to permit self-shielding AND protection from
Codex considered by a significant Congressman.

And our Push Back may even be impacting the plans of those who control Congress. In order to get
HR 2749 out of committee, the sponsors had to allow an exemption into the bill -- breaching their hard
line position that all food producers were to be treated like industrialized Agrabiz. That exemption
covers any "food (i) produced on a farm; and (ii) sold ...directly to a consumer or restaurant." While it
is not as strong as we'd advise (actually, we advise that the bill be defeated!) we were the first to call
for explicit protective language for family farms, natural, organic, home, etc. food production and
processing -- and your Push Back made this exemption possible! The bill must still be defeated, but
along the way, we want to see the exemptions strengthened!

NOW is the time to pour on the Push Back heat. Now, when every member of Congress and State
Legislature is aware of these issues. Now, while the horrifying FDA-Can-Declare-Martial-Law-And-
Seize-Your-Property HR 2749 is being treated as if it were not controversial, now, while the phony
"Swine Flu" is on everyone's lips (even under their masks!), NOW is the moment when our Push Back,
coupled with helping every single person you know to take similar action, can have the greatest
impact.

Self-Shielding is Your Right!

You know that Health and Health Freedom are under multiple attacks, rather like a castle being
attacked by infantry swarming over the walls, catapults slamming into the towers, corpses dumped
into the wells to poison the water and flaming arrows arcing high over the walls to land in the thatch
roofs of the homes within the walls.

Under Common Law, which the Constitution of these United States says is to be respected, your
Home IS your Castle and you are inviolate within it. Both the UN Declaration of Universal Rights and
the Geneva Conventions agree. But, just as so many other protections and strong walls of freedom
are being breached, so your home is about to be breeched. Under current legislation, there will be no
vaccine exemptions for any reason. You will either take the vaccine, weaponized and dangerous as it
is, or you run the very real risk of relocation, incarceration, isolation, quarantine and God knows what
else. One thing for sure, a vaccine refuser will be viewed as somehow disloyal and there is no reason
to think the food, conditions or treatment will support your health!

Like a prophet running around in rags inside the castle being breached sobbing, "Repent ye, repent
ye", there are well-meaning people propagating petitions to refuse vaccines which have the right
sentiment, but no political impact whatsoever. There are well meaning people telling you that
because 48 States have vaccine exemption options, the "Pandemic Emergency"vaccination will, too.
They are governed by different laws and we believe that there will be no exemptions for them.

Taken together with the fact that virtually every country of which we are aware is either ordering 2
shots of the untested, unsafe and unnecessary Swine Flu vaccine from some vaccine company or
other (and there are apparently 89 different Swine Flu vaccine trials running at the moment!) the race
is on to corral us all into either a vaccination line or a relocation line.

These are the vaccines that the FDA wants you to believe are, along with Tamiflu and its cousin
Relenza, the ONLY ways to protect and treat Swine Flu. You remember that I told you in one of my
earlier reports that we are no longer permitted to discuss Nano silver in this light, so we are not
discussing it in that light. But I want you to know that I find that Nano silver, www.Nutronix.
com/naturalsolutions
, is the finest universal nutrient immune system support that I know and has no known toxicity in any
person of any age or health condition. I trust it implicitly and believe that having a store of it for my
own use and that of those that I love is very important.

CHILDREN FIRST!

Make no mistake: Health Canada, the US and Scotland have said that children will be first. I personally
am concerned that the White House-directed $714M GPS marking of every door in America (with a list
of who lives behind that door) plus the phone calls that we are told were received many homes over
the last months asking how many unvaccinated children live in the home may mean that YOU might be
able to refuse vaccination and accept the consequences, but children will not be permitted to have
their vaccination refused by parents and they may be either mandatorily vaccinated in public schools
OR removed from the home if their parents refuse.

The fact is, governments are getting ready to turn over their health, police and other powers to the
WHO/UN (aka "the New World Order") now that their PPP (Planned Pandemic Pretext) is being
activated. Jane Burgermeister, the courageous journalist who has filed criminal charges over what
she says is genocidal intent by drug companies and governments reports:



SWEDEN: Sweden has ordered two doses of Swine Flu Vaccine per person (18 million). The Swedish
authority that deals with disease control says on their website that in case of a pandemic there will be
"cooperation" with the EU and WHO. Sweden's pandemic plan indicates special pandemic "crisis
management committees" will be given significant emergency powers in the event of a pandemic and
be able to usurp the authority of other branches of local and national government, and will apparently
also be ultimately taking their orders from WHO and the EU









AUSTRIA: Under Austria's Influenza Pandemic Plan of 2005, WHO and the EU are set to take charge of
Austria via a special crisis management team (SKKM) to be set up in the Federal Ministry of Interior in
the event of a "pandemic" emergency. Inoculating the entire Austrian population with (Baxter) shots
is a declared objective of the SKKM. The injections will contain a mix of "whole virus", mercury and
adjuvants - and so be very toxic.


Similar pandemic plans exist in countries all over Europe. In some countries, such as France, the
injections could be mandatory.

Submitted by David Merrino

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 cover-
up being engineered by the pharmaceutical companies in conjunction with powerful governmental
agencies.

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

Congressman Weldon questions 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, that there was no correlation to any neurodevelopmental problems related to thimerosal exposure
in infants. In this letter, Congressman 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.

I contacted Congressman 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 having carefully
analyzed it; I can see why they did not want any outsiders to see 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 Simpsonwood Retreat Center, Norcross, Georgia,
assembled 51 scientists and physicians of which five represented vaccine manufacturers. These
included 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
1997 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 or changes. In other words it was all for show.

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 guidelines for mercury exposure safety levels set by several regulatory
agencies. The three guidelines were set by the ATSDR, the FDA and the EPA. The most consistently
violated safety guideline was that set by the 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, number one,
they were exceeding regulatory safety levels and second, 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.

Dr. Bernier notes that in August 1999 a public workshop was held at Bethesda in 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.

He then notes on page 13 that on 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 that 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 essential 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?

(top)

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 vaccine 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 cost for the poor. Yet, 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, the data on toxicity is sparse, yet
it is recognized to cause hypersensitivity, it can cause neurological problems and even death, and it
is known to easily pass the blood-brain barrier and the placental barrier.

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 the effects on biological systems, especially the
brains 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 awhile 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 is that 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, the
elderly, the chronically ill, the nutritionally deficient, small babies, premature babies, those on certain
medications and inborn defects in detoxification, just to name a few. 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, possibly related to the mercury.

On page 16 as well, Dr. Johnson makes an incredible statement, one that defines the problem we
have in this country with the promoters of these vaccines. He states, "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 "vaccinologist" 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 "uncertain ties". Further, that 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
vaccinations 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."

It's hard to conceive of a true scientist not seeing the incredible irony of these statements. The
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 75 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 is 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 organizations 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. 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. This
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.

The WHO and the "vaccinologist experts" from this country now justify a continued polio vaccination
program with this dangerous vaccine on the basis that 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,
"vaccinologist" 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
that 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% to 15% newborn hepatitis B exposure
risk was very distressing to consider." (page 18) 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 poor immune function in which such epidemic death can occur. In
the United States we would not see this because of better nutrition, better health facilities and better
sanitation. In fact, most deaths seen when measles outbreaks occur in the United States occur either
in children in which vaccination was contraindicated, the vaccine did not work or in children with
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% of children are not resistant to the diseases for which they have been immunized.

(top)

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 from 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 un-reviewed. 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 as regards
neurodevelopmental delays

We should also appreciate that the government sponsored two conferences on the possible role of
metals, aluminum and mercury, being use 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. 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 her 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, 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, and 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, ask, "I wonder is there a particular health outcome that is
related to aluminum salts that may have anything that we are looking at today?" 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 that 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 colloquies 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. 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% 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 7 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,
and 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 shows 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 is-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 of
mercury on the infant brain.

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 limited literature that shows no toxic effects except at very high
levels. None of the well known experts were invited, such as Dr. Aschner 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 reminds everyone that the most sensitive period
for the developing brain is during the early stages of pregnancy. In fact, he pinpoints the 8th to 18th
week 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.

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 that 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.) and 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 the crops contain appreciable levels of mercury. The coal-burning
electrical plant emits high levels of mercury in the air they breathe daily and the seafood they
consume has levels of mercury higher than EPA safety standards. This means that 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
that these children don't matter and that they are to be sacrificed at the alter 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 continue 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, he says, "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. 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 that 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 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 that 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 that 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). Well, we have the answer to that, they simply covered this
study up, declare 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 make it
mandatory or examining the vaccine to make sure they have removed it.

Lets us 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 have been cited by
the regulatory agencies. 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 given 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
we 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 us 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 beings
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 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 aged 3 and 5, doctors at the All Children's Hospital in St.
Petersburg, Florida 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) and cognitive (thinking) and behavioral disorders.

Dr. Gherardi, the French physician who first described the condition in 1998, has collected over 200
proven cases, One third of these developed 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 Geherig's disease). This may also
explain the 10X increase in Alzheimer's disease in those receiving the flu vaccine 5 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 3X 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." Dr. Johnson adds. "the stakes are very high…". From this, how can
one conclude anything 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 that the information would leak out to the public. Stamped in bold letters at the top of each
page of the study was the words-"DO NOT COPY OR RELEASE" and "CONFIDENTIAL".

This is not the wording one would expect on a clinical study of vaccine safety; rather you would
expect it on top-secret NSA or CIA files. Why was this information being secreted? 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 300X 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. She makes this assertion on 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".

Second, 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).

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 of his concerns for his own grandchild. He says, (page 200)
"Forgive this personal comment, but I got called out at eight o'clock 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 which 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 he is not concerned enough about your child 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 that he feels the answers will be a long time coming, but in the mean
time, his grandson will be protected. The American Academy of Pediatrics, The American Academy of
Family Practice, the 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.

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 that ADD
and ADHD are very difficult to diagnose in pre-schoolers. She also notes that some children were
followed for only a short period.

Dr. Stein adds that in fact the average age for diagnosis of ADHD was 4 years and 1 month. A very
difficult diagnosis to make and that the guidelines published by the American Academy of Pediatrics
limits diagnosis to 6 to 12 year olds. Of course, he 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 six.

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 that 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% 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.

In one interesting exchange, which ends up being their justification for the view that mercury is of no
danger in children vaccinated with vaccines containing thimerosal, involves two studies in children
born to mothers consuming high intakes 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 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 scientists from Japan.

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 and even at age 6 years the brain is only 80% formed.

Dr. Clarkson keeps referring to the Seychelles study, which demonstrated that the 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."

In other words, 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. To put this 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 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, that is from birth to age six or seven, 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.



Mercury, for example, 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 over 2000 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 is -So, 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".

Again, on page 229 Dr, Brent rails about the lawsuit problem. He tells the others that 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 scientist 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 in the discussion who the "junk scientists" really are.

Knowing that 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
he then admits that they are in a bad position because they have no data for their defense. Now, who
are the junk scientists?

Is a "real scientist" one who has 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 grandson 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 sites
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 that he attended the aluminum conference the previous year 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 over 60% of communities
having fluoridated drinking water this becomes a major concern.

It has also been learned that fluoroaluminum compounds mimic the phosphate 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.

Over the next ten to fifteen 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 he spills the beans as to
why he is determined that no outsider get hold of this damaging information. He says,

" 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 that 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 says, "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 that they bring up the history of lead as a neurobehavioral toxin. Dr. Weil noted
that the 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 the
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.

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 that 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….". "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 the closing remarks by Dr. Bernier (page 257) he 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 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 he didn't get it straight. There was little or no science
in this meeting; rather it was composed of a lot of haggling and nit picking 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 through 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 that see 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 disorders 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 list 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. Congressman Dave 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
Congressman 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 and now vaccines. 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.
http://209.85.129.132/search?q=cache:CoPQVpRS2ygJ:www.fao.org/docs/eims/upload//221496/national_plan_ai_swe_en.pdf+sweden+pandemic+plan&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk