In a remarkable letter written on April 6, 2006 to the Helen Clark, the Prime Minister of New Zealand, the Scientists of the Physicians and Scientists for Responsible Genetics [PSRG] took the bold step of warning the PM and every member of the New Zealand Parliament about the known and unknown dangers of biotech foods. They urged the PM and Parliament to move very cautiously on the approval of any genetically modified foods and cited a wealth or reasons why that caution was necessary.
They also urged that they not rely on US decision making since the US FDA and USDA cannot be relied upon to act responsibly in this issue and detail some of the reasons for that lack of trust questioning, among other things, the competency and accuracy of the US agencies involved with approval of GM foods. They charge, and document both FDA and USDA with very specific deficiencies, including the fact that they ignore their own scientists and approve GM foods as safe when there is no evidence that they are, in fact, safe. US approval, however, is generally taken around the world as strong and often compelling evidence of a food’s safety by the countries around the world which still chose to believe the deadly fiction that the US has the world’s best food supply, safety and security. The EU Food Safety organization takes some heavy hits, too, as it is quoted as saying that it has no idea how to analyze and, whether GM or not.
The report is rather technical in spots so, although it is presented without editing, I have taken the liberty of emphasizing parts of it which I find particularly interesting and relevant. In other words, I have placed all bold face text in that format since it does not appear in bold in the original letter.
Please share this information widely since it directly and compellingly offers information that consumers need to know as they choose their diets for themselves and their families. Please remember that the US FDA prohibits the accurate labeling of genetically modified foods so that consumers will not make the “mistake” of rejecting GM food in the US. It strongly urges the rest of the world to adopt the same potentially deadly standard through Codex and, in fact, the Working Group on Biotech (GM) Foods (Accra, Ghana, January 28-30, 2007) will consider this proposition again (as the same group did in Norway last year). The Natural Solutions Foundation will be there reporting on every development for you.
Support our kind of on-going information for yourself and your circle of influence. Join the Natural Solutions Foundation’s Health Freedom e-Alerts (http://drrimatruthreports.com/index.php?page_id=187). Your information is secure with us. I promise.
Oh, yes, there is something else you can do in this critically important process of reclaiming our food: disseminate widely (with proper attribution so people can find the Natural Solutions Foundation when they go looking for more information) and donate. Your tax exempt donations are the life blood of the Natural Solutions Foundation. Help us keep on helping you to maintain your health freedom!
And eat organic. You will note in the MP’s letter that the changes induced by the GM crops could be reversed over time even in adults. That should give you pause and hope. Organic, real organic, not phony Codex-standard organic, is the answer there.
Yours in health and freedom,
Dr. Rima
Rima E. Laibow, MD
Medical Director
Natural Solutions Foundation
www.HealthFreedomUSA.org
www.GlobalHealthFreedom.org
Letter to PM on genetically engineered organisms
Thursday, 6 April 2006, 2:56 pm
Press Release: Physicians and Scientists for Responsible Genetics
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0604/S00056.htm
The Right Hon. Helen Clark
Cc to all MPs
Prime Minister
ERMA
Parliament Buildings
FSANZ
WELLINGTON
Media
A letter addressed to Prime Minister Helen Clark
Dear Helen Clark
PSRG calls your attention to 8 April 2006, designated the day to inform people and to demonstrate public concern about genetically engineered organisms (GEOs).
Of particular concern to us are decisions of FSANZ and other regulatory bodies; the decision not to adopt country of origin labeling; the inadequacy of current GEO label ling requirements; the use of genetic engineering technology to produce pharmaceutical and industrial materials; and potential applications to release GEOs into the New Zealand environment.
(For the purposes of this letter, genetic engineering and genetic modification are synonymous.)
1. The effects on human consumers ingesting genetically engineered organisms
We advise you of the following research that raises serious concerns about the risks of consuming GEOs.
1.1. Eating genetically engineered soybeans affected the liver and pancreas of study mice.
In 2005, Italian researchers1 found that genetically engineered (GE) soybeans affected the liver and pancreas in mice. Previously, the researchers had shown that absorption of GE soy by mice induced modifications in the nuclei of their liver cells. It was later shown that reverting the diet of the mice to conventional food caused the observed differences to disappear. It was also found that several of these changes could be “induced in adult organisms in a very short time.”
1.2. Genetically engineered pea research abandoned because of adverse results
Also in 2005, CSIRO2 scientists abandoned a research project after ten years. They found that the genetically engineered peas they had developed caused lung damage in mice.
1.3. The cauliflower mosaic virus acting as a catalyst to provoke gene expression (2006)
ADVERTISEMENT
Dr Terje Traavik, scientific director of the University of Tromso’s Institute of Genetic Ecology in Norway, has demonstrated 3 that an element of the genetic structures used to engineer a plant – the cauliflower mosaic virus (35S CaMV) promoter – can provoke gene expression in cultured human cells. [In other words, this genetic element could promote cancer] Developers of genetically engineered plants have previously claimed that the promoter normally only performs that way with plants.
1.4. Monsanto’s MON 863 genetically engineered corn
In April 2004, a toxicological study released to Le Monde4 reportedly showed that rats fed with MON 863 presented anomalies, including an increase in the white blood cell count, changes in blood sugar, and a reduction in the red blood cell count. The paper claimed that in considering a decision on its release, despite re-examining the file, regulators did not reportedly take another look at Monsanto’s statistical analysis.
An independent study was commissioned from Gilles-Eric Seralini, of the University of Caen, and Dominique Cellier, of the University of Rouen. Dominique Cellier, a biocomputer specialist, is reported to have said that: “Monsanto’s statistical analysis of the differences observed in the rats was very superficial. They isolate the variables instead of using so-called multi-variable analysis methods, which consist of looking at the observed anomalies in a coherent way. If one uses those methods, one observes coherence between the weight, urinary tract, and haematological anomalies in the animals fed GMOs.”
Commenting on evaluating procedures for GEOs, Jean-Michel Wal of the GEO group of the European Authority on Food Security, is cited as saying: “We don’t know how to study a food overall, whether it’s a GMO or not; there’s no norm.”
2. Regulation and safety testing of GEOs
We wish to raise serious concerns about New Zealand’s reliance on the approval process of US government agencies. The companies that develop and promote genetically engineered food crops generally carry out toxicological studies on the effects of consuming them. These studies are meant to then be double checked by food safety authorities, but the criticism is that the experiments are simply not reproduced [by the FDA], even though industry studies often show adverse biological impacts.
2.1. Inadequate and unsatisfactory regulation
The FDA declared genetically engineered foods are substantially equivalent to conventional foods. It ignored the warnings of its own scientists and put in place food rules that assume no unforeseen effects will occur and, therefore, no safety testing is required, for genetically engineered foods. This premise has been well proven to be wrong.
2.1.a. Early in 2000, German scientists discovered that antibiotic resistant marker (ARM) genes from engineered canola were transferring their resistance to the bacteria found in the guts of bees that had consumed pollen from the plants.
2.1.b. Earlier European Union studies had revealed that ARM genes found in genetically engineered foods could transfer into bacteria in the human gut as well as soil bacteria (http://www.organicconsumers.org/ge/genemarker.cfm ).
2.2. British Medial Association
Concerns were raised as long ago as 1999 when the British Medical Association called for a global moratorium on genetically engineered crops. The BMA were concerned that ARM genes would cause antibiotic resistance to develop in bacteria by horizontal gene transfer. Such resistance would serve to erode the effectiveness of antibiotics for humankind. Crops are still produced using ARM genes.
2.3. Recommended new safety test method
In 2006, agricultural economist, Dr Charles Benbrook – a former adviser to the Carter, Reagan and Clinton administrations – warned of serious concerns over safety in respect of generically engineered foods.5 He claims that these food crops should be re-tested using Australian food safety technology developed by the Australian National University. The failed pea trials were tested using it.
2.4. Instigating safety assessments
As a direct result of the failed pea trails (1.2), Western Australia has instigated an independent, long-term animal feeding trial to collect and assess data on the safety of GE food crops. New Zealand should also take the initiative.
3. Current applications for genetically engineered crops
Recent applications to Food Safety ANZ for the approval of foods derived from genetically engineered alfalfa and corn raise concerns.
a.. Food derived from glyphosate-tolerant Lucerne (Application A575) J101 and J163 for human consumption.
b.. Food derived from Monsanto’s high-lysine corn LY038 (Application A549) genetically engineered to have higher than usual levels of the amino acid, lysine, intended for animal feed.
It is stated that these will be used for animal feed, although some may find its way into human food products. PSRG maintains that the risks that it is intrinsically unwise to allow GE animal feed into the human food chain.
3.1. Transgenes in cows’ milk
In June 2004, a study was released by the Research Centre for Milk and Foodstuffs in Weihenstephan, Bavaria that showed that parts of the gene construct from RoundupReady soybean and from Bt176 maize was found in milk from cows fed these genetically engineered plants. The report says the gene segments may have got into the milk via feed or dust from the feed in the air. No further studies have been made to clarify the exact means by which the DNA fragments got into the milk. (See http://news.bbc.co.uk/.)
3.2. Transgenes in the gut bacteria of human volunteers
A study commissioned by the UK Food Standards Agency (FSA) and carried out at the University of Newcastle, demonstrated that DNA from a genetically engineered food – in this case soybean in the form of a burger and a milkshake – found its way into the gut bacteria of human volunteers. (See the FSA Report on http://www.foodstandards.gov.uk/.)
3.3. The long-term effects of ingesting material from transgenic sources on a daily basis have not been assessed.
4. Adverse effects of genetically engineered crops – MON 8106, 7, 8 Monsanto’s MON 810 corn produces an artificial, truncated version of a Cry toxin derived from the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis. This family of toxins has a pathogenic effect on Lepidopteron insects.
4.1. Genetically engineered plants are not equivalent to bio pesticides
A study spanning several years has monitored the quantity of Cry1Ab toxins in DK-440 BTY (MON 810) corn. Cry toxins are compounds that have gained acceptance in pest control (i.e., in bio pesticides such as DIPEL). However, genetically engineered plants are not equivalent to these bio-pesticides from the aspect of environmental analysis and ecotoxicology.
The principal difference with regard to toxin release is related to the extent and duration of exposure: while bio-pesticide applications release a small quantity of the toxin on a single or several occasions, the GE plant produces the toxin protein on a continuous basis, unnecessarily, during its entire vegetation cycle, as long as the gene section(s) added artificially to the plant and responsible for encoding the protein are active.6
4.2. Cry toxin produced in the entire plant during the whole growth period Székács et al6 have confirmed that the Cry toxin is produced in the plant during the whole period of growth. That is, in a dry plant, under moderate temperature, the toxin remains biologically active for several years. Post-harvest the maize stubble contains a significant quantity of Cry toxin. Cry toxin, over-wintering in the stubble, can be detected in plant residues after a period of one year.
4.3. Comparisons between bio pesticides and Bt plants
Székács et al compared the quantity of Cry-toxin proteins produced by the Bt-plant with the doses registered and permitted for their use in bio pesticides, and determined the toxin quantity in DIPEL. They found that MON 810 Bt-corn produces 1500-3000 times more Cry1Ab toxin than the Cry1Ab toxin dose corresponding to a single treatment with DIPEL.
They also found that only part of the toxin from the Bt-plant is decomposed during the growth period. Further, a significant part of the remaining quantity in the stubble enters the soil, where it may affect soil life (animals and micro-organisms).
4.4. Cry pollen and contamination
A study (Marva’s et al)7 carried out over several years looked at the possible effects of the pollen of DK-440 BTY corn grown in Nagykovácsi, Júlia-major, a valley where no maize was grown during the years concerned.
The distance of the intra-specific hybrid formation was examined on white, tassel-free maize and the results showed that pollen transfer could occur at 800 metres.
This poses risks for organically grown maize where zero tolerance is accepted for GE [Genetically Engineered – editor] -hybrids. Seeds developing from a traditional female blossom pollinated with cry gene- containing pollen (i.e., from MON 810), have a high probability (1/3) of acquiring the capability of producing the Cry1Ab toxin.
4.5. The effects on essential insect species
Around fields planted with Bt-corn hybrids, the Bt-pollen settled on weeds, presenting a danger to the hatching caterpillars of protected varieties of butterflies. This means that in the case of extensive Bt-corn cultivation, butterfly species could recede [that is, be damaged or extermated – editor].
A study by Béla Darvas and Éva Lauber8 found that insects developed resistance to the toxin content in Bt-corn leaves. The conclusion is that this will generate a growth in the number of insect populations on which Bacillus thuringiensis products – used almost exclusively in organic farming – will no longer have a suitable effect.
5. Food crops engineered to produce non-food [chemicals and pharmaceuticals -editor] products – the potential contamination of other engineered, conventional and organically grown crops.
In 2004, the US Department of Agriculture oversaw 67,000 acres of biotech field trials, some of which involved producing non-food products in a food crop. Corn is the most utilized food crop for engineered traits because it is easy to work with and produces a lot of grain. The concern is that food plants genetically engineered for non-food products could contaminate plants engineered as food crops and/or conventional crops, and enter the food supply as did StarLink’s Cry9C protein in 2000.
5.1. Report on the US Department of Agriculture as a regulator9
A recent report found that the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) has failed to properly oversee field trials of genetically engineered crops, including plants engineered to produce chemicals for medical and industrial uses. The report says that the USDA “lacks basic information” on field trial locations and what happens to the crops after harvest. For example, auditors located two harvested pharmaceutical crops in storage, about which the USDA knew nothing nor had it approved.
The two-year safety audit by the United States Office of Inspector General also found that: “Current (USDA) regulations, policies and procedures do not go far enough to ensure the safe introduction of agricultural biotechnology.”
6. Pharmaceutical drugs produced using genetic engineering technology
Some people react differently to proteins that are genetically engineered as against equivalent proteins that are produced naturally. Genetic engineering technology is not as precise or as predictable as chemical drugs because it relies on the intricate workings of complex living cells in the process of manufacture, and even the subtlest of changes in the process can have unpredictable results. Some drugs – e.g. human insulin – are created by engineering the required human gene into bacterial or animal cells.
PSRG [Physicians and Scientists for Responsible Genetics – REL] urges you, Prime Minister, to put safety before industry profit and instigate changes to the NZ system of regulation that will protect New Zealanders.
Signed by the Trustees of Physicians and Scientists for Responsible Genetics
Paul G Butler, BSc, MB, ChB, Dip. Obst. (Auckland), FRNZCGP General Practitioner, Trustee PSRG, AUCKLAND
John R Clearwater, BSc, MSc, PhD
Principal Scientist, Clearwater Research and Consulting, Trustee PSRG, AUCKLAND
Bernard J Conlon, MB, BCh, BAO, DCH, DRCOG, DGM, MRCGP (UK), FRNZCGP General Practitioner, Trustee PSRG, MURUPARA
Elvira Dommisse, BSc(Hons), PhD
Former Research Scientist, Trustee PSRG, CHRISTCHURCH
Michael E Godfrey, MBBS, FACAM, FACNEM
Director, Bay of Plenty Environmental Health Clinic, Trustee PSRG, TAURANGA
Neil Macgregor, BSc, MSc, PhD
Soil Microbiologist, Institute of Natural Resources, Massey University, Trustee PSRG, PALMERSTON NORTH
Peter R Wills, BSc, PhD
Associate Professor, University of Auckland, Trustee PSRG, AUCKLAND
Robert G Anderson, BSc, PhD
Lecturer retired, Trustee PSRG, TAURANGA
Jean Anderson
Businesswoman retired, Trustee PSRG, TAURANGA.
Signed on behalf of PSRG
Jean Anderson
Secretary
www.psrg.org.nz.
for the Trustees of Physicians and Scientists for Responsible Genetics
This extremely important document about the mercury vaccine cover up knowingly being carried out by the FDA, CDC, Institute of Medicine, scientists and the pharmaceutical industry is extremely important to you whether you have a child or not.
Since compulsory vaccination is becoming the order of the day in an increasing number of contexts (University of Maine students were locked out of their dormitories and dining halls, classes and libraries if they refused to submit to vaccination with the measles/mumps/rubella vaccine on December 10, 2007: 2300 children in Prince George’s County MD were vaccinated at gun point – or re-vaccinated because the school lost their records! – with vaccines that the lead States Attorney on the case, Glen Ivey, said were too toxic to give to his own children on December 11, 2007, New Jersey pre-schoolers must receive additional mercury containing flu vaccines as of December 11, 2007, for example). But more and more adult and pediatric compulsory vaccinations are in the offing: adults and children will be confronted with these assaults in the days and weeks to come as the population is “softened up” for mass vaccination with who knows what for who knows what.
The Natural Solutions Foundation believes that information is power. We believe that you need this information. Please read it and ask each of the people you forward it to to take the following actions:
1. Join the secure Natural Solutions Health Freedom eAlert list (http://drrimatruthreports.com/index.php?page_id=187)
2. Tell your Congressional and State legislators that you and your family want to be protected from any form of compulsory drugging or vaccination. Click here (http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/568/t/1128/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=21833) to send an email to your elected representatives demanding this protection.
Yours in health and freedom,
Dr. Rima
Rima E. Laibow, MD
Medical Director
Natural Solutions Foundation
Back to Deadly Immunity
ROBERT F. KENNEDY JR.
June 20, 2005
In June 2000, a group of top government scientists and health officials gathered for a meeting at the isolated Simpsonwood conference center in Norcross, Georgia. Convened by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the meeting was held at this Methodist retreat center, nestled in wooded farmland next to the Chattahoochee River, to ensure complete secrecy. The agency had issued no public announcement of the session — only private invitations to fifty-two attendees. There were high-level officials from the CDC and the Food and Drug Administration, the top vaccine specialist from the World Health Organization in Geneva and representatives of every major vaccine manufacturer, including GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Wyeth and Aventis Pasteur. All of the scientific data under discussion, CDC officials repeatedly reminded the participants, was strictly “embargoed.” There would be no making photocopies of documents, no taking papers with them when they left.
The federal officials and industry representatives had assembled to discuss a disturbing new study that raised alarming questions about the safety of a host of common childhood vaccines administered to infants and young children. According to a CDC epidemiologist named Tom Verstraeten, who had analyzed the agency’s massive database containing the medical records of 100,000 children, a mercury-based preservative in the vaccines — thimerosal — appeared to be responsible for a dramatic increase in autism and a host of other neurological disorders among children. “I was actually stunned by what I saw,” Verstraeten told those assembled at Simpsonwood, citing the staggering number of earlier studies that indicate a link between thimerosal and speech delays, attention-deficit disorder, hyperactivity and autism. Since 1991, when the CDC and the FDA had recommended that three additional vaccines laced with the preservative be given to extremely young infants — in one case, within hours of birth — the estimated number of cases of autism had increased fifteenfold, from one in every 2,500 children to one in 166 children.
Even for scientists and doctors accustomed to confronting issues of life and death, the findings were frightening. “You can play with this all you want,” Dr. Bill Weil, a consultant for the American Academy of Pediatrics, told the group. The results “are statistically significant.” Dr. Richard Johnston, an immunologist and pediatrician from the University of Colorado whose grandson had been born early on the morning of the meeting’s first day, was even more alarmed. “My gut feeling?” he said. “Forgive this personal comment — I do not want my grandson to get a thimerosal-containing vaccine until we know better what is going on.”
But instead of taking immediate steps to alert the public and rid the vaccine supply of thimerosal, the officials and executives at Simpsonwood spent most of the next two days discussing how to cover up the damaging data. According to transcripts obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, many at the meeting were concerned about how the damaging revelations about thimerosal would affect the vaccine industry’s bottom line. “We are in a bad position from the standpoint of defending any lawsuits,” said Dr. Robert Brent, a pediatrician at the Alfred I. duPont Hospital for Children in Delaware. “This will be a resource to our very busy plaintiff attorneys in this country.” Dr. Bob Chen, head of vaccine safety for the CDC, expressed relief that “given the sensitivity of the information, we have been able to keep it out of the hands of, let’s say, less responsible hands.” Dr. John Clements, vaccines adviser at the World Health Organization, declared that “perhaps this study should not have been done at all.” He added that “the research results have to be handled,” warning that the study “will be taken by others and will be used in other ways beyond the control of this group.”
In fact, the government has proved to be far more adept at handling the damage than at protecting children’s health. The CDC paid the Institute of Medicine to conduct a new study to whitewash the risks of thimerosal, ordering researchers to “rule out” the chemical’s link to autism. It withheld Verstraeten’s findings, even though they had been slated for immediate publication, and told other scientists that his original data had been “lost” and could not be replicated. And to thwart the Freedom of Information Act, it handed its giant database of vaccine records over to a private company, declaring it off-limits to researchers. By the time Verstraeten finally published his study in 2003, he had gone to work for GlaxoSmithKline and reworked his data to bury the link between thimerosal and autism.
Vaccine manufacturers had already begun to phase thimerosal out of injections given to American infants — but they continued to sell off their mercury-based supplies of vaccines until last year. The CDC and FDA gave them a hand, buying up the tainted vaccines for export to developing countries and allowing drug companies to continue using the preservative in some American vaccines — including several pediatric flu shots as well as tetanus boosters routinely given to eleven-year-olds.
The drug companies are also getting help from powerful lawmakers in Washington. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, who has received $873,000 in contributions from the pharmaceutical industry, has been working to immunize vaccine makers from liability in 4,200 lawsuits that have been filed by the parents of injured children. On five separate occasions, Frist has tried to seal all of the government’s vaccine-related documents — including the Simpsonwood transcripts — and shield Eli Lilly, the developer of thimerosal, from subpoenas. In 2002, the day after Frist quietly slipped a rider known as the “Eli Lilly Protection Act” into a homeland security bill, the company contributed $10,000 to his campaign and bought 5,000 copies of his book on bioterrorism. The measure was repealed by Congress in 2003 — but earlier this year, Frist slipped another provision into an anti-terrorism bill that would deny compensation to children suffering from vaccine-related brain disorders. “The lawsuits are of such magnitude that they could put vaccine producers out of business and limit our capacity to deal with a biological attack by terrorists,” says Dean Rosen, health policy adviser to Frist.
Even many conservatives are shocked by the government’s effort to cover up the dangers of thimerosal. Rep. Dan Burton, a Republican from Indiana, oversaw a three-year investigation of thimerosal after his grandson was diagnosed with autism. “Thimerosal used as a preservative in vaccines is directly related to the autism epidemic,” his House Government Reform Committee concluded in its final report. “This epidemic in all probability may have been prevented or curtailed had the FDA not been asleep at the switch regarding a lack of safety data regarding injected thimerosal, a known neurotoxin.” The FDA and other public-health agencies failed to act, the committee added, out of “institutional malfeasance for self protection” and “misplaced protectionism of the pharmaceutical industry.”
The story of how government health agencies colluded with Big Pharma to hide the risks of thimerosal from the public is a chilling case study of institutional arrogance, power and greed. I was drawn into the controversy only reluctantly. As an attorney and environmentalist who has spent years working on issues of mercury toxicity, I frequently met mothers of autistic children who were absolutely convinced that their kids had been injured by vaccines. Privately, I was skeptical.
I doubted that autism could be blamed on a single source, and I certainly understood the government’s need to reassure parents that vaccinations are safe; the eradication of deadly childhood diseases depends on it. I tended to agree with skeptics like Rep. Henry Waxman, a Democrat from California, who criticized his colleagues on the House Government Reform Committee for leaping to conclusions about autism and vaccinations. “Why should we scare people about immunization,” Waxman pointed out at one hearing, “until we know the facts?”
It was only after reading the Simpsonwood transcripts, studying the leading scientific research and talking with many of the nation’s pre-eminent authorities on mercury that I became convinced that the link between thimerosal and the epidemic of childhood neurological disorders is real. Five of my own children are members of the Thimerosal Generation — those born between 1989 and 2003 — who received heavy doses of mercury from vaccines. “The elementary grades are overwhelmed with children who have symptoms of neurological or immune-system damage,” Patti White, a school nurse, told the House Government Reform Committee in 1999. “Vaccines are supposed to be making us healthier; however, in twenty-five years of nursing I have never seen so many damaged, sick kids. Something very, very wrong is happening to our children.”
More than 500,000 kids currently suffer from autism, and pediatricians diagnose more than 40,000 new cases every year. The disease was unknown until 1943, when it was identified and diagnosed among eleven children born in the months after thimerosal was first added to baby vaccines in 1931.
Some skeptics dispute that the rise in autism is caused by thimerosal-tainted vaccinations. They argue that the increase is a result of better diagnosis — a theory that seems questionable at best, given that most of the new cases of autism are clustered within a single generation of children. “If the epidemic is truly an artifact of poor diagnosis,” scoffs Dr. Boyd Haley, one of the world’s authorities on mercury toxicity, “then where are all the twenty-year-old autistics?” Other researchers point out that Americans are exposed to a greater cumulative “load” of mercury than ever before, from contaminated fish to dental fillings, and suggest that thimerosal in vaccines may be only part of a much larger problem. It’s a concern that certainly deserves far more attention than it has received — but it overlooks the fact that the mercury concentrations in vaccines dwarf other sources of exposure to our children.
What is most striking is the lengths to which many of the leading detectives have gone to ignore — and cover up — the evidence against thimerosal. From the very beginning, the scientific case against the mercury additive has been overwhelming. The preservative, which is used to stem fungi and bacterial growth in vaccines, contains ethylmercury, a potent neurotoxin. Truckloads of studies have shown that mercury tends to accumulate in the brains of primates and other animals after they are injected with vaccines — and that the developing brains of infants are particularly susceptible. In 1977, a Russian study found that adults exposed to much lower concentrations of ethylmercury than those given to American children still suffered brain damage years later. Russia banned thimerosal from children’s vaccines twenty years ago, and Denmark, Austria, Japan, Great Britain and all the Scandinavian countries have since followed suit.
“You couldn’t even construct a study that shows thimerosal is safe,” says Haley, who heads the chemistry department at the University of Kentucky. “It’s just too darn toxic. If you inject thimerosal into an animal, its brain will sicken. If you apply it to living tissue, the cells die. If you put it in a petri dish, the culture dies. Knowing these things, it would be shocking if one could inject it into an infant without causing damage.”
Internal documents reveal that Eli Lilly, which first developed thimerosal, knew from the start that its product could cause damage — and even death — in both animals and humans. In 1930, the company tested thimerosal by administering it to twenty-two patients with terminal meningitis, all of whom died within weeks of being injected — a fact Lilly didn’t bother to report in its study declaring thimerosal safe. In 1935, researchers at another vaccine manufacturer, Pittman-Moore, warned Lilly that its claims about thimerosal’s safety “did not check with ours.” Half the dogs Pittman injected with thimerosal-based vaccines became sick, leading researchers there to declare the preservative “unsatisfactory as a serum intended for use on dogs.”
In the decades that followed, the evidence against thimerosal continued to mount. During the Second World War, when the Department of Defense used the preservative in vaccines on soldiers, it required Lilly to label it “poison.” In 1967, a study in Applied Microbiology found that thimerosal killed mice when added to injected vaccines. Four years later, Lilly’s own studies discerned that thimerosal was “toxic to tissue cells” in concentrations as low as one part per million — 100 times weaker than the concentration in a typical vaccine. Even so, the company continued to promote thimerosal as “nontoxic” and also incorporated it into topical disinfectants. In 1977, ten babies at a Toronto hospital died when an antiseptic preserved with thimerosal was dabbed onto their umbilical cords.
In 1982, the FDA proposed a ban on over-the-counter products that contained thimerosal, and in 1991 the agency considered banning it from animal vaccines. But tragically, that same year, the CDC recommended that infants be injected with a series of mercury-laced vaccines. Newborns would be vaccinated for hepatitis B within twenty-four hours of birth, and two-month-old infants would be immunized for haemophilus influenzae B and diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis.
The drug industry knew the additional vaccines posed a danger. The same year that the CDC approved the new vaccines, Dr. Maurice Hilleman, one of the fathers of Merck’s vaccine programs, warned the company that six-month-olds who were administered the shots would suffer dangerous exposure to mercury. He recommended that thimerosal be discontinued, “especially when used on infants and children,” noting that the industry knew of nontoxic alternatives. “The best way to go,” he added, “is to switch to dispensing the actual vaccines without adding preservatives.”
For Merck and other drug companies, however, the obstacle was money. Thimerosal enables the pharmaceutical industry to package vaccines in vials that contain multiple doses, which require additional protection because they are more easily contaminated by multiple needle entries. The larger vials cost half as much to produce as smaller, single-dose vials, making it cheaper for international agencies to distribute them to impoverished regions at risk of epidemics. Faced with this “cost consideration,” Merck ignored Hilleman’s warnings, and government officials continued to push more and more thimerosal-based vaccines for children. Before 1989, American preschoolers received eleven vaccinations — for polio, diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis and measles-mumps-rubella. A decade later, thanks to federal recommendations, children were receiving a total of twenty-two immunizations by the time they reached first grade.
As the number of vaccines increased, the rate of autism among children exploded. During the 1990s, 40 million children were injected with thimerosal-based vaccines, receiving unprecedented levels of mercury during a period critical for brain development. Despite the well-documented dangers of thimerosal, it appears that no one bothered to add up the cumulative dose of mercury that children would receive from the mandated vaccines. “What took the FDA so long to do the calculations?” Peter Patriarca, director of viral products for the agency, asked in an e-mail to the CDC in 1999. “Why didn’t CDC and the advisory bodies do these calculations when they rapidly expanded the childhood immunization schedule?”
But by that time, the damage was done. At two months, when the infant brain is still at a critical stage of development, infants routinely received three inoculations that contained a total of 62.5 micrograms of ethylmercury — a level 99 times greater than the EPA’s limit for daily exposure to methylmercury, a related neurotoxin. Although the vaccine industry insists that ethylmercury poses little danger because it breaks down rapidly and is removed by the body, several studies — including one published in April by the National Institutes of Health — suggest that ethylmercury is actually more toxic to developing brains and stays in the brain longer than methylmercury.
Officials responsible for childhood immunizations insist that the additional vaccines were necessary to protect infants from disease and that thimerosal is still essential in developing nations, which, they often claim, cannot afford the single-dose vials that don’t require a preservative. Dr. Paul Offit, one of CDC’s top vaccine advisers, told me, “I think if we really have an influenza pandemic — and certainly we will in the next twenty years, because we always do — there’s no way on God’s earth that we immunize 280 million people with single-dose vials. There has to be multidose vials.”
But while public-health officials may have been well-intentioned, many of those on the CDC advisory committee who backed the additional vaccines had close ties to the industry. Dr. Sam Katz, the committee’s chair, was a paid consultant for most of the major vaccine makers and was part of a team that developed the measles vaccine and brought it to licensure in 1963. Dr. Neal Halsey, another committee member, worked as a researcher for the vaccine companies and received honoraria from Abbott Labs for his research on the hepatitis B vaccine.
Indeed, in the tight circle of scientists who work on vaccines, such conflicts of interest are common. Rep. Burton says that the CDC “routinely allows scientists with blatant conflicts of interest to serve on intellectual advisory committees that make recommendations on new vaccines,” even though they have “interests in the products and companies for which they are supposed to be providing unbiased oversight.” The House Government Reform Committee discovered that four of the eight CDC advisers who approved guidelines for a rotavirus vaccine “had financial ties to the pharmaceutical companies that were developing different versions of the vaccine.”
Offit, who shares a patent on one of the vaccines, acknowledged to me that he “would make money” if his vote eventually leads to a marketable product. But he dismissed my suggestion that a scientist’s direct financial stake in CDC approval might bias his judgment. “It provides no conflict for me,” he insists. “I have simply been informed by the process, not corrupted by it. When I sat around that table, my sole intent was trying to make recommendations that best benefited the children in this country. It’s offensive to say that physicians and public-health people are in the pocket of industry and thus are making decisions that they know are unsafe for children. It’s just not the way it works.”
Other vaccine scientists and regulators gave me similar assurances. Like Offit, they view themselves as enlightened guardians of children’s health, proud of their “partnerships” with pharmaceutical companies, immune to the seductions of personal profit, besieged by irrational activists whose anti-vaccine campaigns are endangering children’s health. They are often resentful of questioning. “Science,” says Offit, “is best left to scientists.”
Still, some government officials were alarmed by the apparent conflicts of interest. In his e-mail to CDC administrators in 1999, Paul Patriarca of the FDA blasted federal regulators for failing to adequately scrutinize the danger posed by the added baby vaccines. “I’m not sure there will be an easy way out of the potential perception that the FDA, CDC and immunization-policy bodies may have been asleep at the switch re: thimerosal until now,” Patriarca wrote. The close ties between regulatory officials and the pharmaceutical industry, he added, “will also raise questions about various advisory bodies regarding aggressive recommendations for use” of thimerosal in child vaccines.
If federal regulators and government scientists failed to grasp the potential risks of thimerosal over the years, no one could claim ignorance after the secret meeting at Simpsonwood. But rather than conduct more studies to test the link to autism and other forms of brain damage, the CDC placed politics over science. The agency turned its database on childhood vaccines — which had been developed largely at taxpayer expense — over to a private agency, America’s Health Insurance Plans, ensuring that it could not be used for additional research. It also instructed the Institute of Medicine, an advisory organization that is part of the National Academy of Sciences, to produce a study debunking the link between thimerosal and brain disorders. The CDC “wants us to declare, well, that these things are pretty safe,” Dr. Marie McCormick, who chaired the IOM’s Immunization Safety Review Committee, told her fellow researchers when they first met in January 2001. “We are not ever going to come down that [autism] is a true side effect” of thimerosal exposure. According to transcripts of the meeting, the committee’s chief staffer, Kathleen Stratton, predicted that the IOM would conclude that the evidence was “inadequate to accept or reject a causal relation” between thimerosal and autism. That, she added, was the result “Walt wants” — a reference to Dr. Walter Orenstein, director of the National Immunization Program for the CDC.
For those who had devoted their lives to promoting vaccination, the revelations about thimerosal threatened to undermine everything they had worked for. “We’ve got a dragon by the tail here,” said Dr. Michael Kaback, another committee member. “The more negative that [our] presentation is, the less likely people are to use vaccination, immunization — and we know what the results of that will be. We are kind of caught in a trap. How we work our way out of the trap, I think is the charge.”
Even in public, federal officials made it clear that their primary goal in studying thimerosal was to dispel doubts about vaccines. “Four current studies are taking place to rule out the proposed link between autism and thimerosal,” Dr. Gordon Douglas, then-director of strategic planning for vaccine research at the National Institutes of Health, assured a Princeton University gathering in May 2001. “In order to undo the harmful effects of research claiming to link the [measles] vaccine to an elevated risk of autism, we need to conduct and publicize additional studies to assure parents of safety.” Douglas formerly served as president of vaccinations for Merck, where he ignored warnings about thimerosal’s risks.
In May of last year, the Institute of Medicine issued its final report. Its conclusion: There is no proven link between autism and thimerosal in vaccines. Rather than reviewing the large body of literature describing the toxicity of thimerosal, the report relied on four disastrously flawed epidemiological studies examining European countries, where children received much smaller doses of thimerosal than American kids. It also cited a new version of the Verstraeten study, published in the journal Pediatrics, that had been reworked to reduce the link between thimerosal and autism. The new study included children too young to have been diagnosed with autism and overlooked others who showed signs of the disease. The IOM declared the case closed and — in a startling position for a scientific body — recommended that no further research be conducted.
The report may have satisfied the CDC, but it convinced no one. Rep. David Weldon, a Republican physician from Florida who serves on the House Government Reform Committee, attacked the Institute of Medicine, saying it relied on a handful of studies that were “fatally flawed” by “poor design” and failed to represent “all the available scientific and medical research.” CDC officials are not interested in an honest search for the truth, Weldon told me, because “an association between vaccines and autism would force them to admit that their policies irreparably damaged thousands of children. Who would want to make that conclusion about themselves?”
Under pressure from Congress and parents, the Institute of Medicine convened another panel to address continuing concerns about the Vaccine Safety Datalink Data Sharing program. In February, the new panel, composed of different scientists, criticized the way the VSD had been used in the Verstraeten study, and urged the CDC to make its vaccine database available to the public.
So far, though, only two scientists have managed to gain access. Dr. Mark Geier, president of the Genetics Center of America, and his son, David, spent a year battling to obtain the medical records from the CDC. Since August 2002, when members of Congress pressured the agency to turn over the data, the Geiers have completed six studies that demonstrate a powerful correlation between thimerosal and neurological damage in children. One study, which compares the cumulative dose of mercury received by children born between 1981 and 1985 with those born between 1990 and 1996, found a “very significant relationship” between autism and vaccines. Another study of educational performance found that kids who received higher doses of thimerosal in vaccines were nearly three times as likely to be diagnosed with autism and more than three times as likely to suffer from speech disorders and mental retardation. Another soon-to-be published study shows that autism rates are in decline following the recent elimination of thimerosal from most vaccines.
As the federal government worked to prevent scientists from studying vaccines, others have stepped in to study the link to autism. In April, reporter Dan Olmsted of UPI undertook one of the more interesting studies himself. Searching for children who had not been exposed to mercury in vaccines — the kind of population that scientists typically use as a “control” in experiments — Olmsted scoured the Amish of Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, who refuse to immunize their infants. Given the national rate of autism, Olmsted calculated that there should be 130 autistics among the Amish. He found only four. One had been exposed to high levels of mercury from a power plant. The other three — including one child adopted from outside the Amish community — had received their vaccines.
At the state level, many officials have also conducted in-depth reviews of thimerosal. While the Institute of Medicine was busy whitewashing the risks, the Iowa legislature was carefully combing through all of the available scientific and biological data. “After three years of review, I became convinced there was sufficient credible research to show a link between mercury and the increased incidences in autism,” says state Sen. Ken Veenstra, a Republican who oversaw the investigation. “The fact that Iowa’s 700 percent increase in autism began in the 1990s, right after more and more vaccines were added to the children’s vaccine schedules, is solid evidence alone.” Last year, Iowa became the first state to ban mercury in vaccines, followed by California. Similar bans are now under consideration in thirty-two other states.
But instead of following suit, the FDA continues to allow manufacturers to include thimerosal in scores of over-the-counter medications as well as steroids and injected collagen. Even more alarming, the government continues to ship vaccines preserved with thimerosal to developing countries — some of which are now experiencing a sudden explosion in autism rates. In China, where the disease was virtually unknown prior to the introduction of thimerosal by U.S. drug manufacturers in 1999, news reports indicate that there are now more than 1.8 million autistics. Although reliable numbers are hard to come by, autistic disorders also appear to be soaring in India, Argentina, Nicaragua and other developing countries that are now using thimerosal-laced vaccines. The World Health Organization continues to insist thimerosal is safe, but it promises to keep the possibility that it is linked to neurological disorders “under review.”
I devoted time to study this issue because I believe that this is a moral crisis that must be addressed. If, as the evidence suggests, our public-health authorities knowingly allowed the pharmaceutical industry to poison an entire generation of American children, their actions arguably constitute one of the biggest scandals in the annals of American medicine. “The CDC is guilty of incompetence and gross negligence,” says Mark Blaxill, vice president of Safe Minds, a nonprofit organization concerned about the role of mercury in medicines. “The damage caused by vaccine exposure is massive. It’s bigger than asbestos, bigger than tobacco, bigger than anything you’ve ever seen.”
It’s hard to calculate the damage to our country — and to the international efforts to eradicate epidemic diseases — if Third World nations come to believe that America’s most heralded foreign-aid initiative is poisoning their children. It’s not difficult to predict how this scenario will be interpreted by America’s enemies abroad. The scientists and researchers — many of them sincere, even idealistic — who are participating in efforts to hide the science on thimerosal claim that they are trying to advance the lofty goal of protecting children in developing nations from disease pandemics. They are badly misguided. Their failure to come clean on thimerosal will come back horribly to haunt our country and the world’s poorest populations.
NOTE: This story has been updated to correct several inaccuracies in the original, published version. As originally reported, American preschoolers received only three vaccinations before 1989, but the article failed to note that they were innoculated a total of eleven times with those vaccines, including boosters. The article also misstated the level of ethylmercury received by infants injected with all their shots by the age of six months. It was 187 micrograms – an amount forty percent, not 187 times, greater than the EPA’s limit for daily exposure to methylmercury. Finally, because of an editing error, the article misstated the contents of the rotavirus vaccine approved by the CDC. It did not contain thimerosal. Salon and Rolling Stone regret the errors.
An earlier version of this story stated that the Institute of Medicine convened a second panel to review the work of the Immunization Safety Review Committee that had found no evidence of a link between thimerosal and autism. In fact, the IOM convened the second panel to address continuing concerns about the Vaccine Safety Datalink Data Sharing program, including those raised by critics of the IOM’s earlier work. But the panel was not charged with reviewing the committee’s findings. The story also inadvertently omitted a word and transposed two sentences in a quote by Dr. John Clements, and incorrectly stated that Dr. Sam Katz held a patent with Merck on the measles vaccine. In fact, Dr. Katz was part of a team that developed the vaccine and brought it to licensure, but he never held the patent. Salon and Rolling Stone regret the errors.
CLARIFICATION: After publication of this story, Salon and Rolling Stone corrected an error that misstated the level of ethylmercury received by infants injected with all their shots by the age of six months. It was 187 micrograms – an amount forty percent, not 187 times, greater than the EPA’s limit for daily exposure to methylmercury. At the time of the correction, we were aware that the comparison itself was flawed, but as journalists we considered it more appropriate to state the correct figure rather than replace it with another number entirely.
Since that earlier correction, however, it has become clear from responses to the article that the forty-percent number, while accurate, is misleading. It measures the total mercury load an infant received from vaccines during the first six months, calculates the daily average received based on average body weight, and then compares that number to the EPA daily limit. But infants did not receive the vaccines as a “daily average†– they received massive doses on a single day, through multiple shots. As the story states, these single-day doses exceeded the EPA limit by as much as 99 times. Based on the misunderstanding, and to avoid further confusion, we have amended the story to eliminate the forty-percent figure.
Correction: The story misattributed a quote to Andy Olson, former legislative counsel to Senator Bill Frist. The comment was made by Dean Rosen, health policy adviser to the senator. Rolling Stone and Salon.com regret the error.
On December 11, 2007, outgoing New Jersey Health Commissioner Fred Jacobs gave a gift to Merck, the vaccine and pharmaceutical giant: every pres schooler in New Jersey must receive the flu-enriched shot along with other dangerous vaccines. Parental objections were over ridden by Jacobs who dismissed. Councilwoman Charlotte Vandervalk (R-Bergen) opposed the regulations and has introduced a bill to make exemptions on conviction alone an option for parents. Merck’s Corporate headquarters is in Whitehouse Station, New Jersey.
You can let the Commissioner know how you feel about this by going to the following NJ state link and completing the Comment Form, selecting “General Feedback” in the Program field: http://www.nj.gov/health/feedback.shtml – please be polite…
We’ll also be following these developments through our fellow foundation trustee Ralph Fucetola JD and his blog,
http://vitaminlawyerhealthfreedom.blogspot.com
And you can Take Action here:
http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/568/t/1128/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=21833
———————————————-
Here is the article from the Jersey Journal:
The Jersey Journal
PRE-K FLU VAX
Jersey order to be first some parents oppose it
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
TRENTON – New Jersey moved yesterday toward becoming the first state to require flu shots for preschoolers after a health advisory board backed new vaccine mandates over the opposition of worried parents.
The Public Health Council voted to require New Jersey children attending preschool or licensed day care to get annual flu shots, and to get three additional vaccines for youngsters starting Sept. 1, 2008.
No other state requires preschool, day care or older students to get flu shots, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics.
The state’s health commissioner, Dr. Fred M. Jacobs, has until next Tuesday to sign off on the mandates, though they have already been approved by Gov. Jon S. Corzine. Health Department spokesman Tom Slater said Jacobs was expected sign off on the proposal.
Besides the flu shots, New Jersey also will require preschoolers to get a pneumococcal vaccine and sixth-graders to get a whooping cough booster shot and a meningitis shot.
“Implementation of these rules will save lives and prevent disease and suffering in children, their families and the community,” deputy health commissioner Dr. Eddy Bresnitz told the council yesterday.
The Council voted in favor of the requirements 5-2, with one abstention, with member Dennis San Filippo saying he would like to see studies done on whether it’s safe for young children to get so many doses of different vaccines.
All four vaccines are recommended by the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the American Academy of Pediatrics and other medical groups.
Parents concerned about possible dangers of the new vaccines and government intrusion in family medical decisions have been trying to block the new shots.
They note that flu vaccines contain trace amounts of mercury, a toxic heavy metal, and that mercury-free shots can be difficult to obtain.
According to the CDC and other scientific groups, there’s no convincing evidence the trace amounts of mercury in flu shots cause harm.
Following the vote yesterday, concerned parents said they will keep urging support for a bill that would give parents a right to a “philosophical objection” to vaccine mandates, as many other states have.
The new vaccines will be available for free for low-income families through the federal Vaccines for Children program, and private insurers generally will cover the cost, Bresnitz said.
———————————
And this is what the Star Ledger reported about Assemblywoman Vandervalk, leading the opposition to forced vaccinations:
“I’m gravely concerned about what’s happening here today,” said Assemblywoman Charlotte Vandervalk (R-Bergen), a sponsor of a bill (A165) that would allow parents to opt out of the vaccine mandates by filing a “conscientious exemption” form with the local health department.
“With New Jersey reporting the highest incidence of autism and a cause yet to be identified, we don’t know what will happen,” she said. “What happened to our freedom?”
——————————–
It is our hope that lots of Jersians and others concerned with this issue will send strong messages of support for Assembly member Vandervalk’s strong, principled stands against the “clout” of Big Pharma. Her bill has been “prefiled” for the new legislature that starts meeting in January. We’ve spoken to her office and she appreciates all the support that can be generated for this bill.
Please check back for updates and new Action Items.
And, of course, we need your generous help to make this possible:
http://drrimatruthreports.com/index.php/index.php?page_id=189
———————————————–
UPDATE
The following is a sample of information we’re continually receiving about the Compulsory Vaccination issue and is reprinted here to give you an idea of how important this issue is becoming. With your help, we can magnify our “netroots” (Internet grassroots) impact on public policy. Please make sure you get your friends and email contacts to join the eAlert list at www.healthfreedomusa.org today!
From our DC advocate, Charles Frohman – http://www.cfrohman.com/
1. Alberta Health halts mumps inoculations
Posted by: “C. F.” cfroh@yahoo.com cfroh
Date: Thu Dec 13, 2007 3:37 pm ((PST))
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/
Alberta Health halts mumps inoculations
The Canadian Press
December 12, 2007
Edmonton — Alberta has suspended its campaign to vaccinate young
people against mumps because of severe allergic reactions to the vaccine.
Alberta Health says it is holding off on inoculating 17- to
26-year-olds after five young people with a history of allergies had
bad responses.
All five have recovered.
The campaign was undertaken because of an outbreak of mumps around the
province.
________________________________________________________________________
Maryland Mass Forced Vaccination Update –
2. 700 Maryland parents exposed to jail for nonvaccination
Posted by: “C. F.” cfroh@yahoo.com cfroh
Date: Thu Dec 13, 2007 3:37 pm ((PST))
http://www.washingtonpost.com/
More Students Are Vaccinated
The number of Prince George’s County students who have not met the
state’s immunization requirements dropped by more than half over the
past month after State’s Attorney Glenn F. Ivey (D) threatened
students’ parents with fines and possible jail time, a school system
spokesman said Monday.
Spokesman John White said that 1,084 students had not received a full
program of shots for chicken pox and hepatitis B as of Saturday. This
was a significant improvement over the situation Nov. 13, when Ivey
and school officials sent a letter to the parents of more than 2,300
students warning that they could face a $50 fine for each day they
were out of compliance or up to 10 days in jail.
“The letter certainly got people’s attention,” White said. “It had the
desired effect.”
Many parents reported to free clinics to get their children the
vaccines; others provided proof that they’d gotten the immunizations
in the past. Parents may also request medical and religious exemptions
from the immunization requirement, which the state put into effect in
January.
Of those who have not gotten immunized, White said slightly more than
700 students’ parents — what White called “chronic” cases where there
is no sign that they have made an effort to get immunized or provide
an exemption — have been referred to Ivey’s office for possible legal
action.
Ramon V. Korionoff, a spokesman for Ivey’s office, said last week that
no parents had been fined or jailed.
________________________________________________________________________
3. Merck recalls over 1m doses of children’s vaccine
Posted by: “C. F.” cfroh@yahoo.com cfroh
Date: Thu Dec 13, 2007 3:37 pm ((PST))
http://www.blacklistednews.com/view.asp?ID=4989
Merck recalls over 1m doses of children’s vaccine
Published on Thursday, December 13, 2007.
AddThis Social Bookmarking Widget
Source: AP – Media Monarchy
merck recalls over 1m doses of children’s vaccine
More than a million doses of a common vaccine given to babies as young
as two months was being recalled Wednesday because of contamination
risks, but the top U.S. health official said it was not a health threat.
The recall is for 1.2 million doses of the vaccine for Hib, which
protects against meningitis, pneumonia and other serious infections,
and a combination vaccine for Hib and hepatitis B. The vaccine is
recommended for all children under 5 and is usually given in a
three-shot series, starting at two months.
Drug maker Merck & Co., which announced the recall after testing
showed a sterilization problem in a Pennsylvania factory, said
concerned parents should contact their child’s doctor.
“The potential for contamination of any individual vaccine is low,”
said Merck spokeswoman Kelly Dougherty.
Dr. Julie Gerberding, head of the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, echoed that in a news conference.
“This is not a health threat in the short run, but it is an
inconvenience,” she said.
________________________________________________________________________
5. Re: Bush Set To Veto To Remove Mercury From Infant Vaccines
Posted by: “Charles D. Frohman” cfroh@yahoo.com cfroh
Date: Thu Dec 13, 2007 3:37 pm ((PST))
Thanks! I blogged about this and would love it if you commented: click
www.CommonInterest.info and scroll down to “pre-holiday threats to liberty”
Jessica Frohman
in the subject and its one I am informed about as well… thought you might be
interested in this…
Bush Set To Veto To Remove Mercury From Infant Vaccines Infant Vaccines
President Bush would veto the HHS-Labor-Education Appropriations Bill because of
the cost and “objectionable provisions” such as a measure to ban the use of
childhood flu vaccines that contain thimerosal, a mercury-based preservative.
Autism advocacy groups are outraged because President Bush stated in a
questionnaire during his 2004 campaign: “I support the removal of Thimerosal
from vaccines on the childhood national vaccine schedule. During a second term
as President, I will continue to support increased funding to support a wide
variety of research initiatives aimed at seeking definitive causes and/or
triggers of autism. It is important to note that while there are many possible
theories about causes or triggers of autism, no one material has been definitely
included or excluded.”
But since 2005, President Bush has steadfastly refused to issue an Executive
Order banning high amounts of mercury in vaccines that would protect children
and pregnant women despite repeated requests from the autism community that he
uphold his campaign promise. Under his current administration, mercury has been
and will continue to be knowingly injected into the youngest of American
citizens. The controversial mercury-containing preservative thimerosal has been
linked by thousands of parents as being the cause of their children’s mercury
poisoning and autism.
The flu vaccine which continues to be manufactured with mercury is recommended
for all pregnant women, infants and children despite the fact that the Institute
of Medicine in 2001 recommended against the policy of exposing these same
sensitive groups to thimerosal containing vaccines. According to the EPA, one in
every six women of childbearing age already has blood levels of mercury high
enough to cause neurological damage to their unborn children due to
environmental exposures alone.
“Injecting even more mercury into the bodies of pregnant women, infants and
children when it is not a necessary component of vaccines is just bad medicine,”
said Lyn Redwood, president of SafeMinds and parent of a mercury-injured child.
“It defies logic that a flu vaccine must be disposed of as a hazardous waste if
it is not used, but somehow injecting the same mercury-containing vaccine into a
baby is safe.”
Charles D. Frohman
202-536-4346 (office)/202-258-8027 (mobile)
________________________________________________________________________
6. Vaccine Politics
Posted by: “C. F.” cfroh@yahoo.com cfroh
Date: Thu Dec 13, 2007 3:37 pm ((PST))
http://infowars.net/articles/december2007/131207Vaccine.htm
Vaccine Politics
Rick Fisk
Lew Rockwell.com
Thursday December 13, 2007
The first vaccine mandated by governments was the small pox vaccine.
Today, you’ll hear any number of medical professionals refer to the
vaccine as proof of Western military medicine’s superiority over any
other discipline. The World Health Organization proclaims proudly to
anyone who will listen that the vaccine has eradicated smallpox (yet
for a disease “indistinguishable from smallpox,” apply the same
vaccine used to protect against smallpox).
So prevalent is the favorable view of vaccines, that people who
question this “truism” are ridiculed. But, when the vaccine had been
about 100 years old (it is now over 200 years old), it had its
detractors. One of them was a scientist, Alfred Russel Wallace.
Wallace was an interesting man. His list of accomplishments is
stunning. Sometimes referred to in England as the “Grand Old Man of
Science,” he continued to produce papers into his 90s. A reluctant
socialist, he felt that science and government didn’t mix and had no
problem arguing against government involvement in science.
Wallace focused on biology and zoology in his early career and turned
to social issues later in life. One such social issue was vaccination.
He noted in 1906 that doctors were not the best judges of a vaccine’s
efficacy though they were continuously consulted on vaccination policy
by government officials.
In the first place they are interested parties, both pecuniarily
and in a much greater degree on account of professional training and
prestige. Only three years after vaccination was first introduced, on
the recommendation of the heads of the profession, and their expressed
conviction that it would give lifelong protection against a terrible
disease, Parliament voted Jenner [the scientist who created the
smallpox vaccine derived from cowpox] £10,000 in 1802, and £20,000
more in 1807, besides endowing vaccination with £3,000 a year in 1808.
From that time doctors as a body were committed to its support; it has
been taught for nearly a century as an almost infallible remedy in all
our medical schools; and has been for the most part accepted by the
public and the legislature as if it were a well-established scientific
principle, instead of being as the historian of epidemic diseases –
Dr. Creighton – well terms it, a grotesque superstition.
This quote is from a summary of his original arguments against
mandatory use of the smallpox vaccine in 1889: Vaccination: Proved
Useless & Dangerous. (Wallace wasn’t one for mincing words.) The 1889
work was an epidemiological study which showed that smallpox rates in
London and the rest of England were not reduced at all by the
mandatory use of the vaccine. In fact, other illnesses increased
during the time that the smallpox vaccination was forced on the
population suggesting that the effect on immunity was negative rather
than positive as vaccination proponents kept asserting.
The 1889 study was instrumental in influencing public opinion and
ultimately forcing the repeal of laws making smallpox vaccination
mandatory in England. Other European nations followed suit. The U.S.
government’s medical and scientific organizations and the World Health
Organization have disregarded Wallace’s findings, as well as a long
list of subsequent papers and corroborations, and have proclaimed that
the smallpox vaccine was a smashing success.
This has occurred, in spite of the fact that there have been no
counter-examples to disprove the contrary view. There have been many
examples since which tend to support Wallace’s conclusions however.
For instance, one of the most stunning antidotes to the idea that
smallpox was eradicated due to mandatory vaccination is the Japanese
example. The practice of “revaccination” was prevalent there (and in
the British Navy) until their vaccination rate exceeded 100%! In spite
of this, Japan faced huge smallpox epidemics. All told, the Japanese
lost 48,000 people to smallpox, most of them vaccinated at least once.
When the government stopped the mandatory vaccinations, the epidemics
were finally arrested. Were the smallpox vaccination truly effective
as a prophylactic, such an example could not exist. Unfortunately,
there are dozens just like it all over the world.
In 1904, the U.S. Army decided to forcibly vaccinate the Philippine
population ostensibly to improve health conditions but more likely
intended to protect military personnel. They touted its success when
in the following two years smallpox appeared to be under control.
However, from 1917 to 1919, in a population of 11 million that had a
reported 100% vaccination rate, smallpox epidemics claimed over 70,000
lives out of 163,000 reported infections.
By contrast, Australia, from 1900 to 1915, which never instituted a
mandatory vaccine program, reported 3 deaths due to smallpox over the
entire period.
A doctor who treated smallpox victims in San Antonio near the turn of
the century wrote of his experiences. Charles Campbell became so
trusted by his patients and coworkers that they agreed to allow him to
expose them to smallpox to help him prove his own theories about how
smallpox was transmitted, treated and how its effects could be minimized.
Only one of his patients received the pock marks so customarily
associated with the disease and that patient’s pock marks were “done
intentionally.” Dr. Campbell’s belief, based on his observations and
experience, was that smallpox was spread by bed bugs, a pest most of
us haven’t had to experience in our lifetimes but is making a
comeback. That the bed bug could be a vector makes logical sense given
what we know about the spread of smallpox to Native American
populations via blanket distributions. Viruses do not live for long
periods of time absent a host; unlike bacteria which can lay dormant
for decades while retaining viability. Bed bugs, like fleas, offer a
convenient host for a virus and can live for weeks without food in
unwashed bedding. Campbell’s work has been mostly ignored by the
establishment medical community and the press.
Why haven’t Campbell’s experiences, treatment results and the general
knowledge of the smallpox vaccine’s danger been more prevalent instead
of the current view that vaccines are a modern miracle?
This puzzling contradiction doesn’t just apply to the smallpox
vaccine. We’re told that polio’s low current rate of infection is due
to the vaccine. However, a closer look tends to discredit that idea as
well. Those who track world health statistics do not consider
vaccination as having reduced disease rates by any more than 3%
world-wide during the 19th and 20th centuries. The reduction in
infectious disease has been attributed to sanitary improvements or
natural immunity and natural disease cycles, not vaccination.
Furthermore, since 1970, there have been no cases of polio in the U.S.
which are not attributed to the vaccine itself.
In spite of the overwhelming evidence against the benefits of
vaccination, our own government health officials continue to recommend
a growing battery of vaccinations, starting with infants at birth. The
CDC’s recommended vaccination schedule(pdf) is staggering compared to
what it was just 20 years ago. If you strictly followed the CDC’s
recommendations, your child would have twenty-five vaccine injections
by the time they reached four years of age. What justifies such a number?
To be fair, the growing list of vaccinations is suggestive rather than
mandatory. That being said, there are government officials who use
these suggestions to augment the list of “mandatory” vaccinations that
children must have before attending public school. Think about that
for a second. How are state school boards qualified to mandate
vaccination schedules?
Doubts over the efficacy of vaccines appear to be increasing as
information has been made available. Until the internet, many of the
contrary studies were not available to the general public. We are only
recently discovering that what we’re told by our own government
agencies and the drug companies they appear to represent, are not
exactly representative of the facts.
The list of additives and basic ingredients found in many vaccines
would be otherwise advised against by ethical medical professionals,
but we are told repeatedly by our own FDA that there is no evidence to
suggest that injecting mercury (thimerosal) and other additives
directly into the bloodstream is harmful. Meanwhile, the EPA will send
in armed police to shut down somebody’s private business as an
immanent threat to the population if some bureaucrat happened to
detect mercury on or about the premises.
Why the disparity? Quite frankly, it is because the corporations who
create the vaccines have gained control over our regulatory agencies
and legislative bodies. The FDA’s regulations have been continuously
augmented internally and by Congress to protect pharmaceutical
companies from litigations. The Vaccine Adverse Effects Reporting
System has been put in place to protect the public, but is really a
way to protect the drug companies from lawsuits.
Apathy and lack of confidence in ourselves has led to an irrational
reliance upon government experts employed by the, FDA, CDC and WHO to
inform us about the causes of disease and to control how our
government responds to health crises. That is a lot of power
concentrated in one place.
What has resulted from this unholy marriage of corporate interests and
the government is not public health but political medicine. Both
figuratively and literally, political medicine is poison that seeks to
destroy common sense, customer choice and too often, lives. When it
isn’t denying medication that has been proven useful to cancer
patients, it is attempting to mandate medicine and ban food supplements.
If one didn’t know any better, one might conclude that the FDA and
related health agencies of the federal government, want you to get sick.
________________________________________________________________________
And from Dr. Rebecca Carley –
Soldiers being trained to give immunizations to base civilians
http://www.stripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=50931
By Jimmy Norris, Stars and Stripes
Pacific edition, Thursday December 13, 2007
YONGSAN GARRISON, South Korea — With even more family members on the way to
South Korea as part of the transformation of U.S. forces on the peninsula, the
18th Medical Command had some good news for those who will be seeking
immunizations.
Thanks to a team of instructors from Walter Reed Army Medical Center in
Washington, 19 more 18th Medical Command soldiers will be qualified Friday to
administer immunizations to civilians.
The instructor team was in South Korea to give a five-day immunology course to
medics.
Prior to the course, the medics were qualified to give immunizations only to
active-duty soldiers. The five days of training are normally part of Walter
Reed’s 5½-week immunization and allergy technician course.
But the cost and loss of manpower involved in sending them on temporary duty
for that training would not have been practical, said Master Sgt. Desmond Smith,
18th Medical Command spokesman.
“It’s easier to bring someone here than to send 19 soldiers to the States,”
he said.
The visiting instructors did not cover the allergy portion of the 5½-week
course, so students will not receive what the Army calls an additional skill
identifier. They will, however, receive a certificate of completion for their
training and a memorandum verifying they have completed the training necessary
to give immunizations to children.
“There was clearly a need at 121 [Combat Support Hospital] to increase the
number of people who could give pediatric immunizations,” said Maj. Cecilia
Mikita, who led the team from Walter Reed.
The training covered 20 types of immunizations and six ways to administer them.
It also included lectures on record keeping, the effects of various vaccines on
the body, and the proper handling and storage of vaccines.
Included in the hands-on portion of the course were stations at the hospitalÂ’s
pediatric immunization clinic, 1st Replacement CenterÂ’s medical in-processing
area, and Yongsan GarrisonÂ’s Troop Medical Clinic.
“A lot of stuff I learned on the job, but this course gives you a real
standard,” said student Pfc. David Dasilma. “I can educate my patients now and
tell them why they need a shot and what it does to their body.”
Smith said the training should lead to a decrease in wait times at immunization
clinics.
“It helps because if you come in for a shot there’s more than one person
available to give it now,” he said.
Dr. Carley Responds:
The idea that a 5 day course could prepare anyone to handle the consequences of
inoculations (which include anaphylactic shock and death) is insane. Worse yet,
“The visiting instructors did not cover the allergy portion”. As is explained
in my documents on www.drcarley.com, the corruption of the immune system caused
by inoculations with disease is what causes allergies, as well as all autoimmune
diseases and cancer.
This is the beginning: soldiers will now be shooting diseases, as well as
bullets. As you all know from the MSNBC links on my site, the bird flu vaccine
has already been licensed. The model state health emergency powers act gives
the governors of every state the authority to order inoculations be given to
citizens. The bird flu vaccine will cause the bird flu pandemic, which will
give the traitor in the white house an excuse to proclaim martial law. One of
his executive orders gives him the power to cancel the 2008 election in the case
of such a situation.
I tell you this not to scare you, but prepare you. Each of you must decide what
you will do when the knock comes on the door and you are ordered to take the
bird flu vaccine. The only way this can be stopped is to wake up enough people
that the plan does not work due to mass refusal, as occurred a couple of years
ago when Bush wanted all health workers to be inoculated with smallpox.
I ask each of you to send your own lists this e-mail, so they can send it out to
theirs, and so on. Let the truth spread like a virus, so the obvious plan is
not successful. There is nothing to fear but fear itself…the truth will set
us free. I do not believe this; I KNOW it.
Let’s roll….
Dr. Carley
—
Dr. Rebecca Carley
http://www.drcarley.com
*** Dr. Carley’s information is not intended to diagnose, treat or cure any
diseases. Rather, it is for educational purposes only. ***
November 22, 2007
By now you probably know that the State’s power to intimidate and violate the rights of parents and the bodies of their children was manifsted very clearly – and deeply chillingly – on November 19, 2007 in Prince George’s County, Maryland, at the insistence of a State’ Attorney, Glen Ivey, who understood vaccination well enough to protect his own children from the dangers of Hepitits B vaccine, a dangerous and unnecessary “treatment” for a sexually transmitted disease administered, often with disastrous results, to new born infants as well as toddlers and pre-pubertal children.
I spoke recently with an expert on the demographics of the Wasington DC area who share the following with us: Prince George’s County, Maryland, is one of the largest Afro-American counties in the US and is a very low income area. Many parents there are under-employed and under-informed about their waiver rights. The debacle at the Court House was surreal. The seriousness of the event appeared to escape the officias enforcing the where the presiding Judge, C. Philip Nicholse, overserving the unhappiness of the children being forcibly vaccinated noted, “It’s cute. It’s like their parents dragging them off to church.” Cute? Children being assaulted without recourse against the will of their parents without full disclosure of their rights to a waiver? Not my idea of cute, but then, I’m not really big into health fascism.
Prince George’s country receives $63 per child per day. If the figures widely reported in the press are correct and 2300 children were being barred from attending school because they were not vaccinated, then Prince George’s County, a large and very poor school district, was costing itself $144,900 PER DAY by denying these children access to its schools and services. Of course, instead of making money by attacking the immune and nervous systems of their students, they could have simply re-examined their Pharmo-centic policy of requiring dangerous, unnecessary and ineffective drugging of their students, or at least informing their parents of the rights they had available to refuse vaccination for their kids AND have them attend school anyway.
Somehow, 2300 free vaccinations seems like a good bargain, even for double vaccinations for the approximately 900 children whose records the school had lost but whom they inisisted on vaccinating again for their own administrative and financial convenience. At no time of which I am aware did the Judges or State’s Attorney make it clear to parents what recourse they would have if their children suffered vaccine injury because of this forced vaccination and what steps they would personally take to take care of those children whose nervous systems, immune systems or other body parts were adversely impacted by vaccinations their parents did not want them to have.
Here is the eye-winess report of the Director of the Vaccine Information Center, Barbara Loe-Fisher who is herself the mother of a vaccine injured child. Faced with dogs and guns, Ms. Loe-Fisher retreated from the perimeter which she had unwittingly crossed. As you read her account, you will learn of other assaults on children whose parents do not want them exposed to dangerous and ineffective medical procedures. Please be prepared for more of same.
The police power of the state is being geared up to serve the economic needs of Big Pharma while Big Pharma is working hand in glove to prepare for the gathering momentum in the assault on our freedoms with a pharmaceutical bent: think Avian Flu, for example. Remember that dozens of new vaccines are in the pipeline: vaccines for smoking, for more sexually transmitted diseases, for HIV/AIDS, for cancer. And each of them is dangerous, unproven and highly profitable ONLY if they are administered on a hige scale to virtually all of the population.
The scenario is clear: some “emergency” or “pandemic” is declared – not necessarily because of any real threat, of course, and Americans are lined up to receive their shots exactly the way the 2300 economically productive kids in Prince George’s County were lined up (“It’s cute.”) Those who resist may well be threatened with, or taken to, the detention centers which are standing empty around the United States, there to be held for indefinite periods of time, perhaps forever, until they accept that vaccination. The laws permitting this type of compulsory “treatment” are already in place. The Patriot and Bioshield Acts have set the stage. Will Americans allow the curtain to be rung up on the drama of a national re-enactment of last week’s tragegy in Prince George’s County? If not, we need to act now.
Click here , http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/568/t/1128/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=21835, to tell Congress that we Americans are NOT willing to have our bodies assaulted with “treatments” that we do not chose for ourselves and our children.
Now, Barbara Loe-Fisher’s highly informative and frightening eye-witness article:
November 19, 2007
National Vaccine Information Center
Police with Dogs: Vaccinating Kids in Maryland
by Barbara Loe Fisher“In Germany, they came first for the Communists, and I didn’t speak up
because I wasn’t a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t
speak up because I wasn’t a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist. Then they came
for the Catholics, and I didn’t speak up because I was a Protestant. Then
they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up.” – Martin
Niemueller
I watched them bundled up against the cold winter air on Saturday,
November 17, 2007, with their children and the letter from the State of
Maryland threatening them with imprisonment or fines of $50 a day for
failing to show proof their children had gotten a chickenpox or hepatitis
B shot. Confused, angry or scared but mostly resigned, they were working
mothers and fathers trudging toward the courthouse to face the Judge
ordering them to get vaccinated or go to jail. Patrolling the scene was a
SWAT team of policemen with dogs.There were a few vaccine safety and informed consent advocates who showed
up to witness what happened at the Prince George’s County Courthouse,
among them Washington D.C. Attorney Jim Moody and autism activist Kelli
Ann Davis, of SAFEMINDS and Charles Frohman, representing the American
Association of Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) [and the Natural Solutions Foundation REL]
as well as several Moms with children who developed autism after vaccination.The U.S. media turned out but they were kept behind barricades and denied
access into the building, as were the advocates and other members of the
general public. There was no public oversight on what was happening to
the parents and children inside.I listened to or spoke with several mothers leaving the building with
their children and learned the sad truth about what was happening behind
the closely guarded, closed doors of the Courthouse. The parents were not
being asked questions about their child’s medical history or whether the
children had experienced health problems after previous vaccinations. The
parents were not being given information about vaccine side effects or
how to monitor their children for signs of vaccine reactions. They were
not given forms for religious and medical exemptions to vaccination
allowed in Maryland….Apparently, the children were being re-vaccinated with not just hepatitis
B and chicken pox vaccines, the two new vaccines added to the Maryland
school requirement list, but also with other required vaccines for which
the public school system could find no record. One mother told me her
children were up- to-date on their shots but the school system lost the
records and she had to give her children all the required vaccines on the
spot or face jail or fines.My son, Chris, who became learning disabled after suffering a serious
reaction to a fourth DPT shot in 1980, traveled with me to Maryland
carrying a camera. After growing up watching his Mom work to change
one-size-fits-all vaccine policies that were responsible for his vaccine
reaction, Chris recently decided he wants to help NVIC put a face on what
it means to be vaccine injured in America and what it means when
Americans do not have the right to freely exercise informed consent to
vaccination.Chris set up his camera as I talked with a mother hundreds of yards from
the front of the Courthouse door. I was about 12 inches inside a row of
large cement balls that apparently were erected as a barrier to prevent
terrorist attacks. I did not know I wasn’t supposed to be talking with
this Mom inside the barrier. She was telling me about how she wasn’t
given any information about vaccines before her children were injected
with three vaccines.All of a sudden, out of the corner of my eye I saw an armed guard with a
dog emerge from the Courthouse and walk toward us. I got a sick feeling
in the pit of my stomach. It was the dread that any citizen of any
country in any century has ever felt when an armed guard with a dog
starts advancing. As if we were common criminals or terrorists, he yelled
and gestured to us to move behind the stones.We moved without a word. And the sick feeling in the pit of my stomach
told me we were being shown the power of the State wielded by that armed
guard with the dog, just as parents inside the Courthouse were being
shown the power of the State wielded by doctors with syringes.
There has been talk this past week about whether or not U.S. vaccine laws
are, indeed, laws or whether they are simply recommendations that do not
have the force of law behind them. Because the enactment of public health
laws was not defined in the U.S. Constitution as a federal activity, in
1905 the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the power of the states to pass
public health laws requiring citizens to be vaccinated or re-vaccinated.
http://biotech.law.lsu.edu/c ases/vaccines/Jacobson_v_Massachusetts.htmThere is now more than 100 years of case law reinforcing the U.S. Supreme
Court decision and the right of states to exercise police power to
enforce vaccine laws. The post-911 enactment of the Homeland Security
Law, the Model State Health Emergency Powers Act and Bioshield I and II
makes it clear that the State will use police power to enforce quarantine
or vaccination whenever the State chooses to wield that power.The method of punishment for not obeying U.S. state vaccine laws is up to
the state legislatures which make the laws. Today, many state
legislatures have turned over vaccine law-making to unelected government
health and education officials, who may enlist state attorneys and judges
in the court system to enforce punishments. One of the punishments which
many states have chosen when children have not received all state
mandated vaccines is to bar children from attending school unless they
file and the State approves exemptions to vaccination outlined by the
State.The National Vaccine Information Center receives calls and emails every
week from parents who are being harrassed by government officials about
filing a religious exemption to vaccination or cannot find a doctor to
write a medical exemption. Maryland has a very strictly worded religious
exemption that requires the parent to be opposed to all vaccines in order
to obtain it.Those parents, who do not vaccinate their children and do not either make
arrangements with the State to homeschool them or successfully file a
state-approved exemption, are in violation of another state law: truancy
laws. Failure to send your child to school in Maryland between the ages
of 5 and 16 is a misdemeanor punishable by fines and jail time or both.
This is the law which the Maryland government officials moved to enforce
when they enlisted the help of State’s Attorney Glenn Ivey (D) and Judge
C. Philip Nichols to turn parents of unvaccinated children into
criminals.In one news report, Judge Nichols was quoted as observing that the
children looked unhappy waiting in line for their vaccinations. He is
quoted as saying “It’s cute. It looks like their parents are dragging
them to church.”The big difference between being dragged into a Courthouse to get
vaccinated and being dragged to church is that an hour of prayer rarely
results in catastrophic brain injury or death. I still wonder how many of
those children, who were injected with multiple vaccines in the
Courthouse, are having vaccine reactions today. Their parents, many of
whom are uninformed about how to recognize vaccine reactions, will never
know what happened to their children if they regress into chronic poor
health after the shots they were forced to get on Saturday.We know that attacks on the religious and philosophical exemptions to
vaccination in America are on the increase and are being led by vaccine
patent holders like Paul Offit, M.D. and others who want to force
vaccination.In 1996, a sixteen year old Milwaukee boy was handcuffed, stripped and
jailed overnight because he hadn’t shown public school or county health
authorities proof that he had gotten a second MMR shot. In 1997, I made a
presentation to the National Vaccine Advisory Committee defending the
moral right to exercise a conscientious belief exemption to vaccination
and predicting what would happen if Americans did not win that freedom.What happened in Maryland this weekend is a final wake-up call for
America.Dozens of new vaccines are being rushed to market in the next decade and
most will target children and adults for mandated use. Limiting the power
of the State to force vaccination is all that stands between the people
and tyranny.There is only one way we will be free in the future: the laws must be
changed so that every state allows a conscientious belief exemption to
vaccination. Parents in Texas, after working with Parents Requesting Open
Vaccine Education (PROVE) to educate the Texas legislature about the need
for a conscientious belief exemption, got that exemption added in 2004
(www.vaccineinfo.net ). NVIC provided information and strategic support
for PROVE’s seven year effort to secure strong informed consent and
privacy protections in Texas vaccine laws but it was Dawn Richardson,
Rebecca Rex and the people of Texas who got the job done.
Is this the America you want for yourself and for the future? If not, take action now: contact Congress, http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/568/t/1128/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=21835, to tell your elected Congressmen and women know they need to protect us and the US by protecting the Constitution.
Yours in health and freedom,
Dr. Rima
Rima E. Laibow, MD
Medical Director
Natural Solutions Foundation
Are Science and the Biotech Industry Sleeping in the Same Bed?
By Jeffrey M. Smith, author of Seeds of Deception
One day in April 1998, Professor Phillip James walked into the office of Arpad
Pusztai and placed a large stack of documents on his desk . The documents were
submissions from biotech companies seeking approval of their GM soy, corn, and
tomatoes. He called in Arpad’s wife Susan from the adjoining office. James was
the director of the Rowett Institute in Aberdeen, Scotland, Europe’s leading
nutritional research facility.
He told the Pusztais, both senior scientists there, that the British
agriculture minister was meeting with European ministers in Brussels to vote
on genetically modified (GM) foods, and he wanted a scientific opinion on
them.
Arpad Pusztai looked at the stack-nearly 700 pages-then back at James. He was
confident that his director and the other eleven scientists on the committee
that approves GM foods for the UK were far too busy to actually read these
studies.
The Pusztais, however, had worked for more than two years on a UK government
grant, leading a 20-member research team to design the ideal testing protocol
for evaluating GM foods. They also conducted safety tests on a new variety of
GM potatoes intended for commercialization.
The Pusztais were therefore among the most qualified scientists in the world
to evaluate the papers James had just given them. Arpad asked how much time
they had. “Two and a half hours,” said James. They quickly got to work,
focusing on the design and the data.
Arpad was shocked at what he discovered. The research was incredibly poor. He
described it as superficial, flimsy, and just plain bad science. Reading those
studies was a turning point in the life of this very pro-biotech scientist.
Arpad was the leading researcher in his field, with more than 300 articles and
12 books to his credit. Based on his reputation and experience, the government
had awarded him the GM research grant over 27 competing applicants.
As a man of integrity, accustomed to thorough and rigorous science, Arpad
expected the same from others. But he realized that the approach taken by
biotech industry scientists was diametrically opposed to his own. “I was doing
safety studies,” he said. “They were doing as little as possible to get their
products to market as quickly as possible.”
Abominable Scientific Methods Ignored
Pusztai called the minister and told him that although he wasn’t expecting to
have such a strong opinion after only two and a half hours, there was
definitely not enough information to declare the foods safe for humans.
But the minister responded, “I don’t know why you are telling me this,
Professor James has already accepted it.” It had already been on the market
for two years.
Months later, Arpad had another shock. Young rats fed a genetically engineered
potato developed extensive health problems. Some had smaller, less developed
brains, livers, and testicles, and also partial atrophy of the liver. Some
suffered damaged immune systems and organ damage. And there was excessive cell
growth in the stomach and intestines.
The potato was engineered to produce its own insecticide, but the insecticide
itself was not the cause of these problems. In fact, other rats that had eaten
natural potatoes that were spiked with the insecticide fared much better.
Thus, since the insecticide was not the cause of the poor health of the GM-fed
rats, it was almost certainly the process of genetically modifying the
potatoes that was the culprit.
Arpad realized that if his potatoes had been subjected to the same superficial
industry studies he had reviewed, the potatoes would have been approved. The
organ damage, cell growth, immune functions, and so on, would be undetected.
More worrisome was the fact that the soy, corn, and tomatoes that were
approved were not tested for these potential problems. And they were created
with the same process that Arpad used to engineer his potatoes.
The Cost of Speaking Out
With permission from his director, Arpad accepted an invitation to be
interviewed on television and express his concerns about GM food. For two days
he was a hero at his institute.
Then, on a Tuesday afternoon, two phone calls from the prime minister’s office
were allegedly forwarded through the institute’s receptionist to the director.
On Wednesday morning, Phillip James fired Arpad after 35 years and silenced
him with threats of a lawsuit. His 20-member research team was dismantled and
the UK government abandoned its plans for long-term safety study requirements
for GM foods. The Rowett Institute then issued several statements trashing
Arpad and his research in an apparent attempt to protect the biotech
industry.
Eventually Arpad was invited to speak before Parliament, his gag order lifted,
and his research published in the prestigious Lancet.
Despite his work being cut off in the middle, his rat study remains the most
in-depth animal feeding safety study ever published on GM foods. Tragically,
no similar studies have yet been applied to the GM foods on the market. No one
is monitoring to see if the organs, immune system, and cells of humans eating
GM foods are being similarly influenced.
Arpad has since been commissioned to review all published animal feeding
studies on GM foods. There are only about a dozen. In his paper, published as
a chapter in the book Food Safety, he reported consistent shortcomings in
industry-sponsored research. Their poor designs allow significant problems to
go unnoticed. When problems were identified, they were not followed up.
Arpad and his wife have made presentations on GM foods around the world. In
2001, they appeared before New Zealand’s Royal Commission of Inquiry on
Genetic Modification, where the sentiments and experience of several other
presenters echoed their own.
Are Science and Commerce ‘Sleeping in the Same Bed’?
Parliament member Sue Kedgley testified: “Personally I have been contacted by
telephone and e-mail by a number of scientists who have serious concerns about
aspects of the research that is taking place… and the increasingly close
ties that are developing between science and commerce, but who are convinced
that if they express these fears publicly, even at such a Commission… or
even if they asked the awkward and difficult questions, they will be eased out
of their institution.”
Mae-Wan Ho, a biophysicist and geneticist, told the Commission that the
scientific evidence on GM foods “simply did not support the claims… that the
technology is precise and safe.” Ho has endured numerous attacks for her
opinions, including being hounded out of her position at the UK’s Open
University.
Epidemiologist Judy Carman testified that the few animal feeding studies on GM
foods are too short to adequately test for cancer or for problems in
offspring. Further, they are not evaluating “biochemistry, immunology, tissue
pathology, gut function, liver function, and kidney function.” Carman, who has
investigated outbreaks of disease, said that health problems associated with
GM foods might be impossible to track in the human population, or take decades
to discover.
Carman is repeatedly attacked for her critical stance. One pro-GM scientist
threatened disciplinary action through her Vice-Chancellor. Another circulated
a defamatory letter to government and university officials in October 2004,
alleging that Carman was unethical and that her work was similar to
“inaccurate
anti-vaccine scaremongering [that] kills people.”
Geneticist Michael Antoniou, who works on human gene therapy, told the New
Zealand Commission, “genetic engineering technology, as it’s being applied in
agriculture now, [is] based on the understanding of genetics we had 15 years
ago, about genes being isolated little units that work independently of each
other.” He explained that genes actually “work as an integrated whole of
families.”
Falling on (More) Deaf Ears in the UK and Around the World
In 2003, Antoniou represented non-governmental organizations on the UK’s
supposedly balanced GM Science Review Panel that was part of the nationwide
“GM Nation?” public debate. He was shocked to find scientists there still
supporting obsolete theories of gene independence. Some even claimed that the
order of genes in the DNA was entirely irrelevant. Antoniou was outnumbered by
eleven scientists representing either the biotech industry or appointed by the
pro-biotech UK government. His well-supported arguments fell on deaf ears.
Since the debate, new studies have further verified Antoniou’s position by
showing that genes are not randomly located along the DNA, but clustered into
groups with related functions.
Virologist Terje Traavik testified that GM crops “might be the basis for real
ecological and health catastrophes.” Three years later, in a February 2004
meeting with delegates to the UN biosafety protocol conference, Traavik
presented preliminary evidence from three studies which might fulfill his
earlier prediction.
a.. Philippinos living next to a GM cornfield developed serious symptoms
while the corn was pollinating.
b.. Promoters-genetic material routinely inserted into GM crops-were found
to transfer to rat organs after a single transgenic meal. Key safety
assumptions about genetically engineered viruses were overturned, calling into
question the safety of using these viruses as vaccines.
Traavik, naturally, was attacked.
Biologist Phil Regal told the Commission, “I think the people who boost
genetic engineering are going to have to do a mea culpa and ask for
forgiveness, like the Pope did on the inquisition; you know, ‘we made a
mistake, let’s start over.'”
Sue Kedgley had another idea. She said, “I would recommend that perhaps we
could set up human clinical trials using volunteers of genetically engineered
scientists and their families, because. they are so convinced of the safety of
the products that they are creating. they would very readily volunteer to
become part of a human clinical trial.”
(C) Jeffrey Smith, 2004
Not eager to eat GM foods? At least 70% of all prepared foods in the US have GM components. Organic foods, on the other hand, do not. Eat organic. It’s cheap compared to disease.