Gardasil

[crystal sage]

GARDASIL®, a cervical cancer vaccine from Merck & Co., Inc., has been granted a license by the European Commission. GARDASIL has been approved as the first and only vaccine in the European Union (EU) for use in children and adolescents aged 9 to 15 years and in adult females aged 16 to 26 years for the prevention of cervical cancer, high-grade cervical dysplasias/precancers, high-grade/precancerous vulvar dysplastic lesions and external genital warts caused by human papillomavirus (HPV) types 6, 11, 16 and 18. This license applies to the 25 countries that are members of the EU, including the five largest which are France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the United Kingdom.

Is it safe????????

[crystal sage]

Beware GARDASIL

by Helen Lobato

Gardasil is the new vaccine being intensely marketed to the parents of young girls from the age of nine. The vaccine is said to protect against two strains of the Human Papilloma Virus (HPV), which it is believed, cause about 70 per cent of cervical cancers. However there are many facts concerning this form of cancer that are not being presented to the now fearful public.

Recently the alarm bells have been ringing about the risks of dying from Cervical cancer. But HPV, the virus that is blamed for this disease is very common and can be found in about 80% of both men and women. Most of us have had, at one time or another, the HPV virus but most of us do not suffer or die from Cervical cancer. In fact, only one percent of women do develop cervical cancer with the year 2000 figures on the mortality rates for cervical cancer being 3.3 women per 100,000 population in the US and 4 women per 100,000 population in Australia. In Australia there are about 740 cases of cervical cancer each year and around 270 deaths from the disease. Mortality rates generally increase with age with the highest number of deaths occurring in the 75-79 age group.

Less than 6 per cent of cervical cancer deaths occur in women under 35 years of age.

The US national cancer institute says that direct causation has not been proven In a controlled study of age-matched women, 67% of those with cervical cancer and 43% of those without were found to be HPV-positive. These cancers are observed on average only 20-50 years after infection. 1

So what is going on?

Does this virus cause cervical cancer?

Nicholas Regush wrote in VACCINE MADNESS

Back in 1992, however, a question was raised about the dominant and increasingly-entrenched theory that HPV causes cervical cancer. It came from Peter Duesberg and Jody Schwartz, molecular biologists at the University of California at Berkeley. Among the various issues they raised about the acceptance of HPV as the cause of cervical cancer was their fundamental concern that there was a lack of consistent HPV DNA sequences and consistent HPV gene expression in tumors that were HPV-positive. They instead suggested that “rare spontaneous or chemically induced chromosome abnormalities which are consistently observed in HPV DNA-negative and positive cervical cancers induce cervical cancer.”

In short, Duesberg and Schwartz were pointing to the possibility that “carcinogens may be primary inducers of abnormal cell proliferation rather than HPV.” And here’s the key point: “Since proliferating cells [cancer cells dividing wildly] would be more susceptible to infection than resting cells, the viruses would just be indicators rather than causes of abnormal proliferation.”2.

This begs the question: Does a virus, any virus cause a cancer?

We now know that cancer results due to a complex mix of factors related to environment, lifestyle, and heredity. Scientists estimate that about 80 percent of all cancers are related to the use of tobacco products, to what we eat and drink, or, to a lesser extent, to exposure to radiation or cancer-causing agents in the environment and the workplace.3

How then have we come to the conclusion that the Human Papilloma Virus causes cervical cancer?

Maybe the truth lies in what Duesberg and Schwartz discovered. Rather it is carcinogens not a virus that causes the abnormal cell proliferation.

One would hope and expect that Gardasil has been well tested and is safe to inject into young girls and possibly boys.

BUT!

According to The Alliance for Human Research Protection (AHRP) this is not the case. AHRP say that the vaccine has not been proven safe and effective in clinical trials. The fact is that the FDA allowed Merck to use a potentially reactive aluminum containing placebo as a control for most trial participants, rather than a non-reactive saline solution placebo.

They use this aluminum placebo because it can artificially increase the appearance of safety of an experimental drug or vaccine in a clinical trial.

Furthermore the Gardasil vaccine contains 225 mcg of Aluminum and we know that vaccine aluminum adjuvants can allow aluminum to enter the brain, as well as cause inflammation at the injection site leading to chronic joint and muscle pain and fatigue.

Around 60 percent of those who got Gardasil or the aluminum placebo suffered side effects such as headache, fever, nausea, dizziness, vomiting, diarrhea, myalgia and the Gardasil recipients had more serious adverse events such as headache, gastroenteritis, appendicitis, pelvic inflammatory disease, asthma, bronchospasm and arthritis.4

So with cervical cancer causing about one percent of all cancer deaths in women and with the causation in doubt, not to mention the lack of safety displayed by the vaccine trials we need to ask why parents are being urged to get their young daughters vaccinated with Gardasil.

The obvious answer it that there is much hanging on the success of Gardasil. It is predicted that Gardasil could be Merck’s most important money earner, with expected sales of at least $2 billion.This is revenue that Merck badly needs after the Vioxx scandals. To achieve this success Gardasil will be required for school admittance.5

How can we remain silent on the issue of Gardasil?

1. http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/pdlatvir3.htm

2. http://www.redflagsweekly.com/second_opinion/2002_nov25.html

3. http://www.medicinenet.com/cancer_causes/page2.htm

4. http://www.ahrp.org/cms/content/view/263/28/

5. www.honesthuman.com

http://www.newstarget.com/019649.html

Edited December 2, 2006 by crystal sage

[crystal sage]

Seaweed extract blocks HPV cervical cancer virus, scientists discover

(NewsTarget) A new study by the National Cancer Institute has revealed that a seaweed extract called carrageenan can prevent human papillomavirus (HPV) -- a sexually transmitted disease linked to cervical cancer -- from entering human cells.

Researchers found that carrageenan -- derived from red algae -- strongly inhibits HPV from attaching to human cells, which prevents it from entering and infecting the cells. "We were floored by how much better it worked than anything else we have tested," said researcher John Schiller of the National Cancer Institute.

Carrageenan is already in use in sexual lubricants as a thickener, and researchers hope to eventually develop the seaweed extract into an inexpensive gel that could help curb the spread of HPV, which infects 50 percent of sexually active women between the ages of 18 and 22.

An inexpensive gel would compete with Merck's new HPV vaccine called Gardasil. An influential U.S. advisory panel recently advised all 11- and 12-year-old girls to be vaccinated with Gardasil, which is nearly 100 percent effective against the most dangerous strains of HPV. However, the three-course Gardasil vaccination costs $360, which many people cannot afford, especially in developing countries.

The researchers said carrageenan was shown to somewhat affect HIV and herpes, but that genital HPV was a thousand times more susceptible to the seaweed extract. While Gardasil comes with possible side effects including pain, swelling, erythema (redness of the skin), pruritus (itching) and fever, carrageenan is widely used in baby formula as a thickener, and is completely safe to ingest.

##

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn9551

http://www.newstarget.com/019649.html

Edited December 2, 2006 by crystal sage

[crystal sage]

arlier this summer there was quite a stir over the approval or Merck's Gardasil vaccine in all pre-adolescent girls. Since the link betweenn genital warts and cervical cancer was found, there's been an aggressive campaign to force parents into immunizing their underage daughters.

Isn't there something horribly wrong when the FDA seeks to push a vaccine on little girls for a disease that can only be transmitted sexually but will not allow the same girls to have access to emergency contraception? It seems too easy to say that the FDA promoting the sexual abuse and impregnation of little girls by the choice of drugs they approve; but something even more sinister is involved in these decisions.

PlanB has been widely available since 1999 but for longer than that doctors had been experimenting with 'morning after' cocktails of contraceptives for averting unplanned pregnancies. Due to the nature of its preventive use (and the fact it's a derivative of oral contraceptives), it's potential adverse reactions have been proven to be negligible. The effectiveness and safety of this kind of drug treatment has been proven for over 10 years.

Not so with Gardasil.

The National Vaccine Information Center has every reason to believe the clinical trials were rushed to ensure approval of the drug. Merck's clinical trials did not prove Gardasil's long-term safety in children :

"Merck and the FDA do not reveal in public documents exactly how many 9 to 15 year old girls were in the clinical trials, how many of them received hepatitis B vaccine and Gardasil simultaneously, and how many of them had serious adverse events after being injected with Gardasil or the aluminum placebo. For example, if there were less than 1,000 little girls actually injected with three doses of Gardasil, it is important to know how many had serious adverse events and how long they were followed for chronic health problems, such as juvenile arthritis."

According to the Merck product manufacturer insert, there was 1 case of juvenile arthritis, 2 cases of rheumatoid arthritis, 5 cases of arthritis, and 1 case of reactive arthritis out of 11,813 Gardasil recipients plus 1 case of lupus and 2 cases of arthritis out of 9,701 participants primarily receiving an aluminum containing placebo. Clinical trial investigators dismissed most of the 102 Gardasil and placebo associated serious adverse events, including 17 deaths, that occurred in the clinical trials as unrelated.

"There is too little long term safety and efficacy data, especially in young girls, and too little labeling information on contraindications for the CDC to recommend Gardasil for universal use, which is a signal for states to mandate it," said Fisher. "Nobody at Merck, the CDC or FDA know if the injection of Gardasil into all pre-teen girls - especially simultaneously with hepatitis B vaccine - will make some of them more likely to develop arthritis or other inflammatory autoimmune and brain disorders as teenagers and adults. With cervical cancer causing about one percent of all cancer deaths in American women due to routine pap screening, it was inappropriate for the FDA to fast track Gardasil. It is way too early to direct all young girls to get three doses of a vaccine that has not been proven safe or effective in their age group."

What is even more terrifying about this rush to vaccination cheerleading is the thought that a whole generation of little girls is being force to act as guinea pigs for a pharmaceutical that had no economic incentive to ensure the long-term safety of its product. The FDA changed its approval guidelines in the 1990's so that companies paid for the privilege of approval. And with this new "pay-per-approval" scheme, faster and more 'streamlined' methods have been instituted for getting drugs to market with the minimum of testing needed to prove the minimum of safety required for distribution.

The problem is, recalls of deadly drugs have gone up since the pay-per-approval scheme was instituted. The Journal of the American Medical Association has blasted 'post-marketing" surveillance of drugs as potentially dangerous; as in the Vioxx cases. One could say this new twist on drug safety monitoring is in itself a clinic trial that, instead of being burdened by the pharmaceutical company, it is being imposed on users or, to use the pychopathic economic term, "the market".

Actually, that is what a scientist told me about the new wave in R&D during my years at Colgate-Palmolive. My job there was to write the reference manual or "the bible" used by all the consumer affairs representatives. My job was to get all the information that was not considered a trade secret by the company (as in their toothpaste's formula) and turn that into easily scannable information the reps could pop-up on their computer screens during a 'consumer contact' or communication.

Well ... I went a bit beyond the call of duty. I am horrendously curious about a lot of things, like the need for fluoride in toothpaste to avert cavities (not really needed), and the efficacy of tartar-control and whitening toothpastes (they don't whiten teeth at all).

So when I asked about the long terms of triclosan, the drug used on almost all anti-bacterial cosmeceuticals, including toothpaste; the guy looked at me and said : "We don't need to know".

"What do you mean you don't need to know?"

He told me that the company was not asked to provide data on what the long-term effects could be. They were only asked to fulfill the minimum amount of testing required by the FDA for approval. That was the law, as so they complied. I remember asking the guy : "So, if it has any long-term effects on the natural bacterial flora of human skin or mouth, it's none of your business". To which he gave me an uncomfortable nod. I was ferklempt. I couldn't believe the potential long-term consequences on the immune system were not being studied. I asked him, "Don't you want to know". And to my astonishment he answered : "I shouldn't, for liability reasons".

This was sometime between 1994-6. There's now evidence that indeed, autoimmunity problems may well be attributed, in part, to anti-septic (and anti-bacterial) lifestyles.

Six-years later, my gut instinct was proven right.

My past years as a consumer advocate taught me about the great lenghts pharmaceuticals will go to bend the truth to their economic favor and how the government, cash in hand, is a willing ennabler. I learned not to trust the FDA nor any of their allegedly scientific monitoring of food and drugs. For the most part, they don't work with the interests of regular people like you and me in mind. They think of "the market" and "consumers". Not people but an impersonal herd.

Injury and death from physician-monitored prescription drug use is expected. The death or neurological damage of children from a vaccine is expected as normal.

Until someone decided to wage a class-action suit ... or one too many "market samples" die.

http://www.culturekitchen.com/liza/blog/so..._the_fda_how_is

[crystal sage]

http://www.nvic.org/Rallypix.htm

[crystal sage]

Gardasil, aluminum and vaccination by Virginia Young

I started to post a top 10 list of why I am refusing Gardasil but having read the recent posts I have changed my mind. After all I can't keep my list to ten items anyway. I was once like those of you who are blasting the "anti-vaccine" group although I was never so bold as to post it anywhere because I did know a few people who were brave enough to tell me of their reactions. I actually knew several people throughout my life who reacted with the classic reactions that doctors actually admit happening. The kind of reactions that would warrant a medical exemption. Nonetheless I didn't want to follow through and neither did my mother really. We wanted everything to be alright. We wanted the quick fix and instant protection. We chose to vaccinate on doctor's recommendations and the research that was given to us. I have lived to regret that decision.

Members of my family have all reacted to vaccines, even with immediate and classic reactions of high fever, high pitched and inconsolable cries, encephalopathy. I vaccinated my children in the face of these reactions. I questioned the shots and did what I thought was thorough research, but I was never given the truth. When all was said and done and my children were fully vaccinated, the doctors finally admitted they believed that shots caused their problems. Now it was my problem though and not theirs. Over and over I would hear that vaccines are "just too important". So where do the children fall in this list of priorities?

Review of medical records proves we reacted beyond the shadow of a doubt. I had question ed safety but wanted our doctor and family friend to be right, and we certainly all trusted him. I ignored the facts. Reactions do happen and they are not rare. I did not know that a patient cannot sue a physician or anyone administering or manufacturing a vaccine for any reason. I did not know about the NVICP and how it worked or didn't work. I did not know what shoddy research was used and the ugliness of the politics involved in making vaccination policy. I did not know how much money was spent to persuade physicians while at the same time keep them in the dark.

I have a bachelors in Biomedical Science and Masters in Health and my husband is a physician. If anyone should know about these issues it should have been us. We went into medicine and allied health to help others, not hurt them with faulty research and bias.

I used to believe the so-called "anti-vaccine" groups were radical, but then again that is just what I was taught. My pre-med professors actually called them "religious fanatics" and "nuts who cared more about saving a few dollars than their own kids". Pre-med students would sit around nodding their heads in agreement. I would get worked and frustrated with the rest of them when I heard doctors say they were "preventing others from having much needed and life-saving vaccines". I was just as scared as the next person. Now I see these comments for what they really are because I have not only done my research, but I have also become involved.

The bottom line- no vaccine should be forced on any individual. This is all about the bottom dollar and not health. The "common good" argument does not even hold up when one looks at the dramatic increase in the rates of debilitating and deadly diseases following shots. All shots contain carcinogens, mutagens, and teratogens and the long term effects of mass vaccination have never been studied. The largest safety study has been performed for over 100 years and the only ones taking notes and collecting data are the concerned citizens. Those citizens are being harassed publicly, and I can no longer stand by and watch.

As far as Gardasil is concerned, 225 mcg of aluminum was used in the placebo! They had the nerve to put one of the most questionable compounds in the placebo trial. Much of the damage parents witness in their children may very well be caused by this substance. We have known for more than 100 years that aluminum is a potent neurotoxin. Aluminum's long term and synergistic effects have never been studied. Recent research shows definitively that it causes neuronal cell death. I have experienced this personally and I can tell you it is no fun. I will take my chances with the diseases, and I now realize how important it is to have that right.

No one should be given the right to kill and maim innocent citizens for profit.

Posted by: Virginia Young at June 29, 2006 07:17 PM

http://whale.to/vaccines/young.html

http://blogs.chron.com/medblog/archives/20...ivaccine_1.html

[The Skeptic Eric Raven]

That vaccine is going to save many lives. Not everything has to be natural to work.

[crystal sage]

That vaccine is going to save many lives. Not everything has to be natural to work.

But if the natural product is more effective and has fewer side affects... as a lot of the various vaccinations are said to cause neurological damage or side affects... take a look at the internet yourself.... wouldn't it be a smarter alternative... did you read the article above from a doctor??? there are many other doctors and scientists on the internet that speak out against or warn against the use of various vaccinations.....

[The Skeptic Eric Raven]

Polio sure disappeared via vaccines.

[crystal sage]

Polio sure disappeared via vaccines.

http://www.nzavs.org.nz/mobilise/14/10.html

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/magazine/...t_truth/?page=1

THE TRUTH BEHIND THE VACCINE COVER-UP

By Russell Blaylock, M.D.

© 2004

Web Site: http://www.russellblaylockmd.com

Posted: 04 Spetember 2004

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

It all started when a friend of mind sent me a copy of a letter from Congressman David Weldon, M.D. to the director of the CDC, Dr Julie L. Gerberding, in which he alludes to a study by a Doctor Thomas Verstraeten, then representing the CDC, on the connection between infant exposure to thimerosal-containing vaccines and neurodevelopmental injury. In this shocking letter Congressman Weldon referrers to Dr. Verstraeten's study which looked at the data from the Vaccine Safety Datalink and found a significant correlation between thimerosal exposure via vaccines and several neurodevelopmental disorders including tics, speech and language delays, and possibly to ADD.

Congressman Weldon questions the CDC director as to why, following this meeting, Dr. Verstraeten published his results, almost four years later, in the journal Pediatrics to show just the opposite, that is, that there was no correlation to any neurodevelopmental problems related to thimerosal exposure in infants. In this letter, Congressman Weldon refers to a report of the minutes of this meeting held in Georgia, which exposes some incredible statements by the "experts" making up this study group. The group's purpose was to evaluate and discuss Dr. Verstraeten's results and data and make recommendation that would eventually lead to possible alterations in the existing vaccine policy.

I contacted Congressman Weldon's legislative assistant and he kindly sent me a complete copy of this report. Now, as usual in these cases, the government did not give up this report willingly, it required a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit to pry it loose. Having read the report twice and having carefully analyzed it; I can see why they did not want any outsiders to see it. It is a bombshell, as you shall see. In this analysis, I will not only describe and discuss this report, but also will frequently quote their words directly and supply the exact page number so others can see for themselves.

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

During this conference, these scientists focused on the study of the Datalink material, whose main author was Dr. Thomas Verstraesten who identified himself as working at the National Immunization Program of the CDC. It was discovered by Congressman Weldon that Dr. Verstraeten left the CDC shortly after this conference to work for GlaxoSmithKline in Belgium which manufacturers vaccines, a recurring pattern that has been given the name a "revolving door" It is also interesting to note that GlaxoSmithKline was involved in several lawsuits over complications secondary to their vaccines.

To start off the meeting, Dr. Roger Bernier, Associate Director for Science in the National Immunization Program (CDC), related some pertinent history. He stated that Congressional action in 1997 required that the FDA review mercury being used in drugs and biologics (vaccines). In meeting this order, the FDA called for information from the manufacturers of vaccines and drugs. He notes that a group of European regulators and manufacturers met on April 1999 and noted the situation but made no recommendations or changes. In other words it was all for show.

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

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

As an aside, one has to wonder, where was the Public Health Service and American Academy of Pediatrics during all the years of mercury use in vaccines and why didn't they know that, number one, they were exceeding regulatory safety levels and second, why weren't they aware of the extensive literature showing deleterious effects on the developing nervous system of babies? As we shall see even these "experts" seem to be cloudy on the mercury literature.

Dr. Bernier notes that in August 1999 a public workshop was held at Bethesda in the Lister Auditorium by the National Vaccine Advisory Group and the Interagency Working Group on Vaccines to consider thimerosal risk in vaccine use. And based on what was discussed in that conference, thimerosal was removed from the hepatitis B vaccine (HepB). It is interesting to note that the media took very little interest in what was learned at that meeting and it may have been a secret meeting as well. As we shall see, there is a reason why they struggle to keep the contents of all these meetings secret from the public.

He then notes on page 13 that on October 1999 the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) "looked this situation over again and did not express a preference for any of the vaccines that were thimerosal free." In this discussion he further notes that the ACIP concluded that the thimerosal-containing vaccines could be used but the "long-term goal" is to try to remove thimerosal as soon as possible. Now, we need to stop and think about what has transpired here. We have an important group here; the ACIP that essential plays a role in vaccine policy that affects tens of millions of children every year. And, we have evidence from the Thimerosal meeting in 1999 that the potential for serious injury to the infant's brain is so serious that a recommendation for removal becomes policy. In addition, they are all fully aware that tiny babies are receiving mercury doses that exceed even EPA safety limits, yet all they can say is that we must "try to remove thimerosal as soon as possible." Do they not worry about the tens of millions of babies that will continue receiving thimerosal-containing vaccines until they can get around to stopping the use of thimerosal?

It should also be noted that it is a misnomer to say "removal of thimerosal" since they are not removing anything. They just plan to stop adding it to future vaccines once they use up existing stocks, which entails millions of doses. And, incredibly, the government allows them to do it. Even more incredibly, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Academy of Family Practice similarly endorse this insane policy. In fact, they specifically state that children should continue to receive the thimerosal-containing vaccines until new thimerosal-free vaccine can be manufactured at the will of the manufacturers. Are they afraid that there will be a sudden diphtheria epidemic in America or tetanus epidemic?

The most obvious solution was to use only single-dose vials, which requires no preservative. So, why don't they use them? Oh, they exclaim, it would add to the cost of the vaccine. Of course, we are only talking about a few dollars per vaccine at most, certainly worth the health of your child's brain and future. They could use some of the hundreds of millions of dollars they waste on vaccine promotion every year to cover these cost for the poor. Yet, that would cut into some fat-cat's budget and we can't have that.

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

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

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

It takes them awhile to get the two forms of mercury straight, since for several pages of the report they say methylmercury is in thimerosal rather than ethylmercury. They can be forgiven for this. On page 16, Dr. Johnson, an immunologist and pediatrician at the University of Colorado School of Medicine and the National Jewish Center for Immunology and Respiratory Medicine, notes that he would like to see the incorporation of wide margins of safety, that is 3 to 10-fold margins of safety to "account for data uncertainties." What he means is that there are so many things we do not know about this toxin that we had better use very wide margins of safety. For most substances the FDA uses a 100-fold margin of safety.

The reason for this, which they do not mention, is that in a society of hundreds of millions of people there are groups of people who are much more sensitive to the toxin than others. For instance, the elderly, the chronically ill, the nutritionally deficient, small babies, premature babies, those on certain medications and inborn defects in detoxification, just to name a few. In fact, in this study they excluded premature babies and low birth weight babies from the main study, some of which had the highest mercury levels, because they would be hard to study and because they had the most developmental problems, possibly related to the mercury.

On page 16 as well, Dr. Johnson makes an incredible statement, one that defines the problem we have in this country with the promoters of these vaccines. He states, "As an aside, we found a cultural difference between vaccinologist and environmental health people in that many of us in the vaccine arena have never thought about uncertainty factors before. We tend to be relatively concrete in our thinking." Then he says, "One of the big cultural events in that meeting ---was when Dr. Clarkson repetitively pointed out to us that we just didn't get it about uncertainty, and he was actually quite right."

This is an incredible admission. First, what is a vaccinologist? Do you go to school to learn to be one? How many years of residency training are required to be a vaccinologist? Are there board exams? It's a stupid term used to describe people who are obsessed with vaccines, not that they actually study the effects of the vaccines, as we shall see throughout this meeting. Most important is the admission by Dr. Johnson that he and his fellow "vaccinologist" are so blinded by their obsession with forcing vaccines on society that they never even considered that there might be factors involved that could greatly affect human health, the so-called "uncertainties." Further, that he and his fellow "vaccinologists" like to think in concrete terms-that is, they are very narrow in their thinking and wear blinders that prevent them from seeing the numerous problems occurring with large numbers of vaccinations in infants and children. Their goal in life is to vaccinate as many people as possible with an ever-growing number of vaccines. On page 17 his "concrete thinking" once again takes over. He refers to the Bethesda meeting on Thimerosal safety issues and says, "there was no evidence of a problem, only a theoretical concern that young infants' developing brains were being exposed to an organomercurial." Of course, as I shall point out later, it is a lot more than a "theoretical concern". He then continues by saying, "We agree that while there was no evidence of a problem the increasing number of vaccine injections given to infants was increasing the theoretical mercury exposure risk."

It's hard to conceive of a true scientist not seeing the incredible irony of these statements. The medical literature is abound with studies on the deleterious effects of mercury on numerous enzymes, mitochondrial energy production, synaptic function, dendritic retraction, neurotubule dissolution and excitotoxicity, yet, he sees only a "theoretical risk" associated with an ever increasing addition of thimerosal-containing vaccines. It is also important to note that these geniuses never even saw a problem in the first place, it was pressure from outside scientists, parents of affected children and groups representing them that pointed out the problem. They were, in essence, reacting to pressure from outside the "vaccinologist club" and not discovering internally that a problem "might" exist.

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

It is also interesting that Dr. Johnson did admit that the greatest risk was among low birth weight infants and premature infants. Now why would that be if there existed such a large margin of safety with mercury used in vaccines? Could just a few pounds of body weight make such a dramatic difference? In fact, it does but it also means that normal birth weight children, especially those near the low range of normal birth weight, are also in greater danger. It also would mean that children receiving doses of mercury higher than the 75 ug in this study would be at high risk as well because their dose, based on body weight, would be comparable to that of the low birth weight child receiving the lower dose. This is never even considered by these "vaccinologist experts" who decide policy for your children.

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

So, here you have it. The data is convincing enough that the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Academy of Family Practice, as well as the regulatory agencies and the CDC along with these organizations all recommend its removal as quickly as possible because of concerns of adverse effects of mercury on brain development, but not for the children in the developing countries. I thought the whole idea of child health programs in the United States directed toward the developing world was to give poor children a better chance in an increasingly competitive world. This policy being advocated would increase the neurodevelopmental problems seen in poor children (also in this country) of developing countries, impairing their ability to learn and develop competitive minds. Remember, there was a representative of the World Health Organization (WHO), Dr. John Clements, serving on this panel of "experts". He never challenged this statement made by Dr. Johnson.

It also needs to be appreciated that children in developing countries are at a much greater risk of complications from vaccinations and from mercury toxicity than children in developed countries. This is because of poor nutrition, concomitant parasitic and bacterial infections and a high incidence of low birth weight in these children. We are now witnessing a disaster in African countries caused by the use of older live virus polio vaccines that has now produced an epidemic of vaccine related polio, that is, polio caused by the vaccine itself. In, fact, in some African countries, polio was not seen until the vaccine was introduced.

The WHO and the "vaccinologist experts" from this country now justify a continued polio vaccination program with this dangerous vaccine on the basis that now that they have created the epidemic of polio, they cannot stop the program. In a recent article it was pointed out that this is the most deranged reasoning, since more vaccines will mean more vaccine-related cases of polio. But then, "vaccinologist" have difficulty with these "uncertainties". (Jacob JT. A developing country perspective on vaccine-associated paralytic poliomyelitis. Bulletin WHO 2004; 82: 53-58. See commentary by D.M. Salisbury at the end of the article.)

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

In fact, this statement is not based on any risk to U.S. children at all and he makes that plain when he states, "that the potential impact on countries that have 10% to 15% newborn hepatitis B exposure risk was very distressing to consider." (page 18) In other words the risk is not to normal U.S. children but to children in developing countries. In fact, hepatitis B is not a risk until the teenage years and after in this country. The only at-risk group among children is with children born to drug using parents; mothers infected with hepatitis B or HIV infected parents. The reason for vaccinating the newborns is to capture them before they can escape the "vaccinologist's" vaccine program. This is a tactic often used to scare mothers into having their children vaccinated. For example, they say that if children are not vaccinated against measles millions of children could die during a measles epidemic. They know this is nonsense. What they are using is examples taken from developing countries with poor nutrition and poor immune function in which such epidemic death can occur. In the United States we would not see this because of better nutrition, better health facilities and better sanitation. In fact, most deaths seen when measles outbreaks occur in the United States occur either in children in which vaccination was contraindicated, the vaccine did not work or in children with chronic, immune-suppressing diseases.

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

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

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

We should also appreciate that the government sponsored two conferences on the possible role of metals, aluminum and mercury, being use in vaccines without any change in vaccine policy occurring after the meetings. These meetings were held a year before this meeting and before any examination of the data which was being held tightly by the CDC, (which was denied to other independent, highly qualified researchers). I will talk more about what was discussed in the aluminum conference later. It is very important and is only briefly referred to in this conference for a very good reason. If the public knew what was discussed at the aluminum meeting no one would ever get a vaccination using the presently manufactured types of vaccines again.

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

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

In fact, we know that aluminum is a significant neurotoxin and that it shares many common mechanisms with mercury as a neurotoxin. For example, they are both toxic to neuronal neurotubules, interfere with antioxidant enzymes, poison DNA repair enzymes, interfere with mitochondrial energy production, block the glutamate reuptake proteins (GLT-1 and GLAST), bind to DNA, and interfere with neuronal membrane function. Toxins that share toxic mechanisms are almost always additive and frequently synergistic in their toxicity. So, Dr. Johnson's statement is sheer nonsense.

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

To jump ahead, on page 23 Dr, Tom Sinks, Associate Director for Science at the National Center for Environmental Health at the CDC and the Acting Division Director for Division of Birth Defects, Developmental Disabilities and Health, ask, "I wonder is there a particular health outcome that is related to aluminum salts that may have anything that we are looking at today?" Dr. Martin Meyers, Acting Director of the National Vaccine Program Office, answers, "No, I don't believe there are any particular health concerns that was raised." This is after an aluminum conference held the previous year that did indeed find significant health concerns and an extensive scientific literature showing aluminum to be of great concern.

On page 24 Dr. William Weil, a pediatrician representing the Committee on Environmental Health of the American Academy of Pediatrics, brings some sense to the discussion by reminding them that, "there are just a host of neurodevelopmental data that would suggest that we've got a serious problem. The earlier we go, the more serious the problem." Here he means that the further back you go during the child's brain development, the more likely the damage to the infant. I must give him credit; at least he briefly recognized that a significant amount of brain development does take place later. He also reminds his collogues that aluminum produced severe dementia and death in dialysis cases. He concludes by saying, "To think there isn't some possible problem here is unreal." (page 25)

Not to let it end there, Dr. Meyers adds, "We held the aluminum meeting in conjunction with the metal ions in biology and medicine meeting, we were quick to point out that in the absence of data we didn't know about additive or inhibitory activities." Once again we see the "no data" ploy. There is abundant data on the deleterious effects of aluminum on the brain, a significant portion of which came out in that very meeting.

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

Hallelujah, for a brief moment I thought that they had stumbled on one of the most basic concepts in neurotoxicology. Then Dr. Meyers dashed my hopes by saying that single, separated doses would not affect blood levels at all. At this juncture, we need a little enlightenment. It is important to appreciate that mercury is a fat soluble metal. That is, it is stored in the body's fat. The brain contains 60% fat and therefore is a common site for mercury storage. Now, they establish in this discussion that about half of methylmercury is excreted over several months when ingested. A recent study found that ethylmercury has a half-life of 7 days.

Even so, a significant proportion of the mercury will enter the brain (it has been shown to easily pass through the blood-brain barrier) where it is stored in the phospholipids (fats). With each new dose, and remember these children are receiving as many as 22 doses of these vaccines, another increment is added to the brain storage depot. This is why we call mercury an accumulative poison. They never once, not once, mention this vital fact throughout the entire conference. Not once. Moreover, they do so for a good reason, it gives the unwary, those not trained in neuroscience, assurance that all that matters here is blood levels.

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

On page 21 Dr. Thomas Clarkson makes the incredible statement implying that he knows of no studies that shows exposure to mercury after birth or at six months would have deleterious effects. Dr. Isabelle Rapin, a neurologist for children at Albert Einstein College of Medicine, follows up by saying that "I am not an expert on mercury in infancy" but she knows it can affect the nerves (peripheral nervous system). So, here is one of our experts admitting that she knows little about the effects of mercury on the infant. My question is-Why is she here? Dr. Rapin is a neurologist for children at Albert Einstein College of Medicine who stated that she has a keen interest in developmental disorders, in particular those involving language and autism, yet she knows little about the effects of mercury on the infant brain.

This conference is concerned with the effects of mercury in the form of thimerosal on infant brain development, yet throughout this conference our experts, especially the "vaccinologists" seem to know little about mercury except limited literature that shows no toxic effects except at very high levels. None of the well known experts were invited, such as Dr. Aschner from Bowman Grey School of Medicine or Dr. Haley Boyd, who has done extensive work on the toxic effects of low concentrations on the CNS. They were not invited because they would be harmful to the true objective of this meeting, and that was to exonerate mercury in vaccines.

Several times throughout this conference, Dr. Brent reminds everyone that the most sensitive period for the developing brain is during the early stages of pregnancy. In fact, he pinpoints the 8th to 18th week as the period of neuromaturation. In fact, the most rapid period of brain maturation, synaptic development and brain pathway development is during the last three months of pregnancy continuing until two years after birth. This is often referred to as the "brain growth spurt." This is also not mentioned once in this conference, again because if mothers knew that their child's brain was busy developing for up to two years after birth they would be less likely to accept this safety of mercury nonsense these "vaccinologists" proclaim.

The brain develops over 100 trillion synaptic connections and tens of trillions of dendritic connections during this highly sensitive period. Both dendrites and synapses are very sensitive, even to very low doses of mercury and other toxins. It has also been shown that subtoxic doses of mercury can block the glutamate transport proteins that play such a vital role in protecting the brain against excitotoxicity. Compelling studies indicate that damage to this protective system plays a major role in most of the neurodegenerative diseases and abnormal brain development as well.

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

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

On page 164 Dr. Robert Davis, Associate Professor of Pediatrics and Epidemiology at the University of Washington, makes a very important observation. He points out that in a population like the United States you have individuals with varying levels of mercury from other causes (diet, living near coal burning facilities, etc.) and by vaccinating everyone you raise those with the highest levels even higher and bring those with median levels into a category of higher levels. The "vaccinologists" with their problem of "concrete thinking" cannot seem to appreciate the fact that not everyone is the same. That is, they fail to see these "uncertainties."

To further emphasize this point lets take a farming family who lives within three miles of a coal-burning electrical plant. Since they also live near the ocean they eat seafood daily. The fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides used on the crops contain appreciable levels of mercury. The coal-burning electrical plant emits high levels of mercury in the air they breathe daily and the seafood they consume has levels of mercury higher than EPA safety standards. This means that any babies born to these people will have very high mercury levels.

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

Recent studies by neurotoxicologists have observed that as our ability to detect subtle toxic effects improves, especially on behavior and other neurological functions, we lower the level of acceptable exposure. In fact, Dr, Sinks brings up that exact point, using lead as an example. He notes that as our neurobehavioral testing improved, we lowered the acceptable dose considerably and continue to do so. Dr. Johnson had the audacity to add, "The smarter we get, the lower the threshold." Yet, neither he, nor the other participants seem to be getting any smarter concerning this issue.

Dr. Robert Chen, Chief of Vaccine Safety and Development at the National Immunization Program at the CDC, then reveals why they refuse to act on this issue, he says, "the issue is that it is impossible, unethical to leave kids unimmunized, so you will never, ever resolve that issue. So then we have to refer back from that." (page 169) In essence, immunization of the kids takes precedence over safety concerns with the vaccines themselves. If the problem of vaccine toxicity cannot be solved, he seems to be saying, then we must accept that some kids will be harmed by the vaccines.

Dr. Brent makes the statement that he knows of no known genetic susceptibility data on mercury and therefore assumes there is a fixed threshold of toxicity. That is, that everyone is susceptible to the same dose of mercury and there are no genetically hypersensitive groups of people. In fact, a recent study found just such a genetic susceptibility in mice. In this study they found that mice susceptible to autoimmunity developed neurotoxic effects to their hippocampus, including excitotoxicity, not seen in other strains of mice. They even hypothesize that the same may be true in humans, since familial autoimmunity increases the likelihood of autism in offspring. (Hornig M, Chian D, Lipkin WI. Neurotoxic effects of postnatal thimerosal are mouse strain dependent. Mol Psychiatry 2004; (in press).

For the next quotation you need a little discussion to be able to appreciate the meaning. They are discussing the fact that in Dr. Verstraeten study frightening correlations were found between the higher doses of thimerosal and problems with neurodevelopment, including ADD and autism. The problem with the study was that there were so few children who had received no thimerosal-containing vaccines that a true control group could not be used. Instead they had to use children getting 12.5ug of mercury as the control and some even wanted to use the control dose as 37.5ug. So the controls had mercury levels that could indeed cause neurodevelopmental problems. Even with this basic flaw, a strong positive correlation was found between the dose of mercury given and these neurodevelopmental problems.

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

So, now to the quote. Dr. Braun responds to the idea of starting a new study using such thimerosal-free controls by saying, "Sure we will have the answer in five years. The question is what can we do now with the data we have?" (page 170). Well, we have the answer to that, they simply covered this study up, declare that thimerosal is of no concern and continued the unaltered policy. That is, they can suggest the pharmaceutical manufacturers of vaccines remove the thimerosal but not make it mandatory or examining the vaccine to make sure they have removed it.

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

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

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

Conclusions by the study group

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

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

Dr. Loren Koller, Pathologist and Immunotoxicologist at the College of Veterinary Medicine, Oregon State University, is to be congratulated in that he recognized that more is involved in the vaccine effects than just ethylmercury. (page 192). He mentions aluminum and even the viral agents beings used as other possibilities. This is especially important in the face of Dr. RK Gherardi's identification of macrophagic myofascitis, a condition causing profound weakness and multiple neurological syndromes, one of which closely resembled multiple sclerosis. Both human studies and animal studies have shown a strong causal relationship to the aluminum hydroxide or aluminum phosphate used as a vaccine adjuvants. More than 200 cases have been identified in European countries and the United States and has been described as an "emerging condition."

Here are some of the neurological problems seen with the use of aluminum hydroxide and aluminum phosphate in vaccines. In two children aged 3 and 5, doctors at the All Children's Hospital in St. Petersburg, Florida described chronic intestinal pseudo-obstruction, urinary retention and other findings indicative of a generalized loss of autonomic nervous system function (diffuse dysautonomia). The 3-year old had developmental delay and hypotonia (loss of muscle tone). A biopsy of the children's vaccine injection site disclosed elevated aluminum levels.

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

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

The reason this is so important is that there is overwhelming evidence that chronic immune activation in the brain (activation of microglial cells in the brain) is a major cause of damage in numerous degenerative brain disorders, from multiple sclerosis to the classic neurodegenerative diseases (Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's and ALS). In fact, I have presented evidence that chronic immune activation of CNS microglia is a major cause of autism, attention deficit disorder and Gulf War Syndrome.

Dr. Gherardi emphasizes that once the aluminum is injected into the muscle, the immune activation persists for years. In addition, we must consider the effect of the aluminum that travels to the brain itself. Numerous studies have shown harmful effects when aluminum accumulates in the brain. A growing amount of evidence points to high brain aluminum levels as a major contributor to Alzheimer's disease and possibly Parkinson's disease and ALS (Lou Geherig's disease). This may also explain the 10X increase in Alzheimer's disease in those receiving the flu vaccine 5 years in a row. (Dr. Hugh Fudenberg, in press, Journal of Clinical Investigation). It is also interesting to note that a recent study found that aluminum phosphate produced 3X the blood level of aluminum, as did aluminum hydroxide. (Flarend RE, hem SL, et al. In vivo absorption of aluminum-containing vaccine adjuvants using 26 Al. Vaccine 1997; 15: 1314-1318.)

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

Dr. Rapin expressed her concern over public opinion when this information eventually gets out. She says (page 197), they are going to be captured by the public and we had better make sure that a) "We council them carefully and that we pursue this because of the very important public health and public implications of the data." Dr. Johnson adds. "the stakes are very high..." From this, how can one conclude anything than the fact that at least these scientists were extremely concerned by what was discovered by this study examining the vaccine safety datalink material? They were obviously terrified that the information would leak out to the public. Stamped in bold letters at the top of each page of the study was the words-"DO NOT COPY OR RELEASE" and "CONFIDENTIAL."

This is not the wording one would expect on a clinical study of vaccine safety; rather you would expect it on top-secret NSA or CIA files. Why was this information being secreted? The answer is obvious-it might endanger the vaccine program and indict the federal regulatory agencies for ignoring this danger for so many years. Our society is littered with millions of children who have been harmed in one degree or another by this vaccine policy. In addition, let us not forget the millions of parents who have had to watch helplessly as their children have been destroyed by this devastating vaccine program.

Dr. Bernier on page 198 says, "the negative findings need to be pinned down and published." Why was he so insistent that the "negative findings" be published? Because he said, "other less responsible parties will treat this as a signal." By that he means, a signal of a problem with thimerosal-containing vaccines. From this, I assume he wants a paper that says only that nothing was found by the study. As we shall see, he gets his wish.

In addition, on page 198, Dr. Rapin notes that a study in California found a 300X increase in autism following the introduction of certain vaccines. She quickly attributes this to better physician recognition. Two things are critical to note at this point. She makes this assertion on better physician recognition without any data at all, just her wishful thinking. If someone pointing out the dangers of vaccines were to do that, she would scream "junk science"

Second, Dr. Weil on page 207, attacks this reasoning when he says, "the number of dose related relationships are linear and statistically significant. You can play with this all you want. They are linear. They are statistically significant." In other words, how can you argue with results that show a strong dose/response relationship between the dose of mercury and neurodevelopmental outcomes? The higher the mercury levels in the children the greater the number of neurological problems.

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

Dr. Johnson seems to be impressed by the findings as well. He says on page 199, "This association leads me to favor a recommendation that infants up to two years old not be immunized with thimerosal containing vaccines if suitable alternative preparations are available." In credibly, he quickly adds "I do not believe the diagnosis justified compensation in the Vaccine Compensation Program at this point." It is interesting to note that one of our experts in attendance is Dr. Vito Caserta, the Chief Officer for the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.

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

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

It is also interesting to note that he feels the answers will be a long time coming, but in the mean time, his grandson will be protected. The American Academy of Pediatrics, The American Academy of Family Practice, the AMA, CDC and every other organization will endorse these vaccines and proclaim them to be safe as spring water, but Dr, Johnson and some of the others will keep their silence.

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

Dr. Stein adds that in fact the average age for diagnosis of ADHD was 4 years and 1 month. A very difficult diagnosis to make and that the guidelines published by the American Academy of Pediatrics limits diagnosis to 6 to 12 year olds. Of course, he was implying that too many were diagnosed as ADHD. Yet, a recent study found that the famous Denmark study that led to the announcement by the Institute of Medicine that there was no relationship between autism and the MMR vaccine, used the same tactic. They cut off the age of follow-up at age six.

It is known that many cases appear after this age group, especially with ADD and ADHD. In fact, most learning problems appear as the child is called on to handle more involved intellectual material. Therefore, the chances are they failed to diagnose a number of cases by stopping the study too early.

Several of the participants tried to imply that autism was a genetic disorder and therefore could have nothing to do with vaccines. Dr. Weil put that to rest with this comment, "We don't see that kind of genetic change in 30 years." In other words, how can we suddenly see a 300% increase in a genetically related disorder over such a short period? It is also known that there are two forms of autism, one that is apparent at birth and one that develops later in childhood. The former has not changed in incidence since statistics have been kept; the other is epidemic.

In one interesting exchange, which ends up being their justification for the view that mercury is of no danger in children vaccinated with vaccines containing thimerosal, involves two studies in children born to mothers consuming high intakes of mercury contaminated fish. One study reported in the journal Neurotoxicology, examined children living in the Republic of Seychelles. In this study, they examined the effect of prenatal exposure to mercury through the mother's consumption of fish high in methylmercury.

A battery of developmental milestone tests were done and no adverse effects were reported in the study reported by Dr. Clarkson and co-workers, the very same person in this conference. He never mentions that a follow-up study of these same children did find a positive correlation between methylmercury exposure and poor performance on a memory test. In a subsequent study of children living on the Faroe Islands exposed to methylmercury, researchers did find impairments of neurodevelopment. This experiment was done by scientists from Japan.

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

Dr. Clarkson keeps referring to the Seychelles study, which demonstrated that the children reached normal neurodevelopmental milestones as shown by a number of tests. Dr Weil points out on page 216 that this tells us little about these children's future brain function. He says, "I have taken a lot of histories of kids who are in trouble in school. The history is that developmental milestones were normal or advanced and they can't read at second grade, they can't write at third grade, they can't do math in the fourth grade and it has no relationship as far as I can tell to the history we get of the developmental milestones. So I think this is a very crude measure of neurodevelopment."

In other words, both of these studies tell us nothing about the actual development of these children's brain function except that they reached the most basic of milestones. To put this another way, your child may be able to stack blocks, recognize shapes and have basic language skills but later in life they could be significantly impaired when it came to higher math, more advanced language skills (comprehension) and ability to compete in a very competitive intellectual environment, like college or advanced schooling. Their future would be limited to the more mundane and intellectually limited jobs.

Post-natal brain development, that is from birth to age six or seven, involves the fine tuning of synaptic connections, dendritic development and pathway refinement, all of which prepare the brain for more complex thinking. These brain elements are very sensitive to toxins and excessive immune stimulation during this period. This is never mentioned in this conference.

In addition, it must be remembered that the children in these two studies were exposed only to methylmercury and not the combined neurotoxic effect of mercury, aluminum and excessive and chronic activation of the brain's immune system (microgia). This is what makes it so incredible, that several of these "vaccinologists" and so-called experts would express doubt about the "biological plausibility" of thimerosal or any vaccine component causing neurodevelopmental problems. The medical literature is exploding with such studies. The biological plausibility is very powerful.

Mercury, for example, even in low concentrations, is known to impair energy production by mitochondrial enzymes. The brain has one of the highest metabolic rates of any organ and impairment of its energy supply, especially during development, can have devastating consequences. In addition, mercury, even in lower concentrations, is known to damage DNA and impair DNA repair enzymes, which again, plays a vital role in brain development. Mercury is known to impair neurotubule stability, even in very low concentrations. Neurotubules are absolutely essential to normal brain cell function. Mercury activates microglial cells, which increases excitotoxicity and brain free radical production as well as lipid peroxidation, central mechanisms in brain injury. In addition, even in doses below that which can cause obvious cell injury, mercury impairs the glutamate transport system, which in turn triggers excitotoxicity, a central mechanism in autism and other neurological disorders. Ironically, aluminum also paralyzes this system.

On page 228, we see another admission that the government has had no interest in demonstrating the safety of thimerosal-containing vaccines despite over 2000 articles showing harmful effects of mercury. Here we see a reference to the fact that the FDA "has a wonderful facility in Arkansas with hundreds of thousands of animals" available for any study needed to supply these answers on safety. The big question to be asked is -So, why has the government ignored the need for research to answer these questions concerning thimerosal safety? You will recall in the beginning the participants of this conference complained that there were just so few studies or no studies concerning this "problem."

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

Knowing that what they have found can cause them a great deal of problems he adds, "The medical/legal findings in this study, causal or not, are horrendous... If an allegation was made that a child's neurobehavioral findings were caused by thimerosal-containing vaccines, you could readily find a junk scientist who will support the claim with 'a reasonable degree of certainty." On page 229 he then admits that they are in a bad position because they have no data for their defense. Now, who are the junk scientists?

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

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

Dr. Caserta tells the group that he attended the aluminum conference the previous year and learned that often metals could act differently in biological systems than as an ion. This is interesting in the face of the finding that fluoride when combined to aluminum forms a compound that can destroy numerous hippocampal neurons at a concentration of 0.5 ppm in drinking water. It seems that aluminum readily combines with fluoride to form this toxic compound. With over 60% of communities having fluoridated drinking water this becomes a major concern.

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

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

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

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

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

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

On page 253, we again see that these scientists have a double standard when it comes to their children and grandchildren. Dr. Rapin raises the point about a loss of an IQ point caused by thimerosal exposure. She says,"an we measure the IQ that accurately, that this one little point is relevant? Then she answers her own question by saying, "Even in my grandchildren, one IQ point I am going to fight about." Yet, they are saying in unison, in essence-TO HELL WITH YOUR CHILDREN- to the rest of America.

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

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

That they knew the implications of what they had discovered was illustrated by Dr. Chen's statement on page 258. He says, "I think overall there was this aura that we were engaged in something as important as anything else we have ever done. So I think that this was another element to this that made this a special meeting." You may remember, Dr. Weil emphasized that the data analysis left no doubt that there was a strong correlation between neurodevelopmental problems and exposure to thimerosal-containing vaccines. So if they understood the importance of this finding and this was the most important thing they have ever dealt with-why was this being kept from the public? In fact, it gets even worse.

Just so you will not doubt my statement that this audience of experts was not objective, I give you the words of Dr. Walter Orenstein, Director of the National Immunization Program at the CDC, on page 259. He tells the group, "I have seen him (Verstraeten) in audience after audience deal with exceedingly skeptical individuals..." "Exceedingly skeptical individuals" does that sound like objective scientists who wanted to look at the data with a clear mind or were they scient

Edited December 2, 2006 by crystal sage

[The Skeptic Eric Raven]

Too long. Summarize.

[crystal sage]

Too long. Summarize.

thimerosal-containing vaccines. Has caused some concern over the reputed potential neurological damage.

"

On page 228, we see another admission that the government has had no interest in demonstrating the safety of thimerosal-containing vaccines despite over 2000 articles showing harmful effects of mercury. Here we see a reference to the fact that the FDA "has a wonderful facility in Arkansas with hundreds of thousands of animals" available for any study needed to supply these answers on safety. The big question to be asked is -So, why has the government ignored the need for research to answer these questions concerning thimerosal safety? You will recall in the beginning the participants of this conference complained that there were just so few studies or no studies concerning this "problem."

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

Knowing that what they have found can cause them a great deal of problems he adds, "The medical/legal findings in this study, causal or not, are horrendous... If an allegation was made that a child's neurobehavioral findings were caused by thimerosal-containing vaccines, you could readily find a junk scientist who will support the claim with 'a reasonable degree of certainty." On page 229 he then admits that they are in a bad position because they"

. extensive tests show that these vaccinations do not consistantly cause neurological defects... in other words...don't 'always' cause neurological defects... but enough doctors and scientists etc..who've heard about this...think it's safer not to inoculate their kids and grandchildren until more research has been done....

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

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

It is also interesting to note that he feels the answers will be a long time coming, but in the mean time, his grandson will be protected. The American Academy of Pediatrics, The American Academy of Family Practice, the AMA, CDC and every other organization will endorse these vaccines and proclaim them to be safe as spring water, but Dr, Johnson and some of the others will keep their silence.

..So until perhaps they are faced with absolute proof

that there is a huge chance of each innoculated child getting neural damage.... they can use semantics...and say legally that there is no conclusive proof... that that is so...

which then get's quoted out of context as ...studies show that there is no conclusive evidence that vaccines cause harm...

Just like saying that just because not everyone who smokes will catch lung cancer...so therefore it isn't dangerous to your health.... and the benefits of smoking...appetite suppression...stress releif etc..outweighs the 'potential' dangers....

http://www.google.com/search?q=thimerosal-...art=40&sa=N

[crystal sage]

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...c=74080&hl=

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...te=vaccinations

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...p;#entry1292321

Edited December 3, 2006 by crystal sage

[frogfish]

There were some other vaccination threads that hold a lot of information from Sympa Sheri and me. Search for that.

Vaccinations HAVE eradicated Smallpox, almost Polio, and several strains of meningitis.

[recon_soldier]

It may be true that vaccines have helped many in the past, but they better be damn sure this is safe- This is going to be mandatory for all Female Students 11+ in Australia next year.

If this ends up having some sort of serious side affect - It literally could stop the next generation of Citizens being born. Bills are now being past in the US to Mass vaccinate the young females of the US also.

If this ends up being completely safe, and no side affects, it is a great accomplishment on there part and for the future of our race- I Personally know someone who has died from HPV, and i would of done anything for a cure or preventative vaccine. But for some reason this just feels so wrong.

My girlfriend(17), and my little sister(15) are both being forced to have this 'vaccine' - And i do not trust my own government enough to accept the fact - I have searched the net high and wide looking for the chemical make up, compound of this vaccine - but to no suprise, came up empty handed...

[frogfish]

Just remeber, ANYTHING can cause side-effects, even natural medicine.

[crystal sage]

No just saying it's an idea to be informed...aware...before making your choices...

There are many good sincere people in this world...also many hounds who only see profit...power....

I'm sure they could rework some of the vaccinations to make them less toxic...but it would take more work...more time...and more money... often as said in the above threads.,..it's about making deadlines...the profit and loss sheets at the end of the day.... and the next big money spinner....

Maybe With the Gardasil trials...I wouldn't be a bit surprised if the control experiments used the very young for the controlled doses of the innoculation...and the older hornier subjucts for the placebo... there are many ways to fix and experiment to hasten the result you need to get your product thru.....

http://www.topix.net/forum/sf/TR1NT6RAC0M8Q6LI0

"I was so excited when I heard about this vaccine. I am a survivor of Type III cervical cancer due to HPV. I neglected to get a pap smear for a few years and by the time I was examined my doctor told me if I had waited six more months I would have been beyond help and would have died.

However, after following the issue closely I have realized that what Merck has created is NOT the great cure and hope I longed for. It is important for parents and young women to know ALL THE FACTS.

This vaccine does NOT replace the need for young women to have regular pap smears. Althought thalidomide is not a vaccine, Sparkay raises a valid point. This vaccine is being rushed to the market and it's just a FACT that severe side effects take time to show up and not everyone is the same or reacts the same to medicine and vaccines.

Should we trust a company that stands to gain over $3 billion dollars off this vaccine? I bet there are a lot of Vioxx users who would advise us otherwise.

Everyone who is interested in this topic and vaccine should hear the other side of the story (Merck's Gardasil Vaccine Not Proven Safe for Little Girls - National Vaccine Information): Merck's Gardasil Vaccine Not Proven Safe for Little Girls - http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?... =

There is also an article that suggests that condoms can protect women against cervical cancer as well:

http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/...

Again, I was so hopeful about this because I didn't want other young women to endure what I did - the prospect of death and leaving behind my child at such an early age, two surgeries, and over a year of pain. My husband gave me HPV...it's not about having sex early or multiple partners necessarily, and it's also not about people putting blind faith into a company with financial interest and a government that is acting rash about the health of young women. Educate yourself on the issue COMPLETELY. That's all I'm saying."

******

http://www.topix.net/forum/sf/TR1NT6RAC0M8Q6LI0

dontgetit.gif ....then why not innoculate the boys as well as they too are in the equation for transmission....???

unsure.gif ..A vaccine should be developed that spands across the sexes, not just to the girls, ie. polio vaccines etc.. This girl-only vaccine is rather scary in my mind, and causes a knee-jerk reaction in me to think this vaccine places young girls entire biological beings in the hands of pharmaceutical companies. Do not give your girls away as test subjects too quickly, instead, teach them, educate them. And while you're at it, educate the sons, the potential carriers of not just this virus but numerous STD's. I also ask, where are the young girls rights to refuse such a vaccine?

*************************8

"yes - the only issue surrounding this vaccine should be safety - not religion, not sex. 5 woman in the trials gave birth to babies with birth defects. 19 people developed arthritis. Are you certain this was coincidence?

Yes, DES was a disaster. No, it was not a vaccine. Which makes the potential devastation of Gardasil even greater. DES was only given to some pregnant women. We are talking about vaccinating every 9 year girl in America with Gardasil. Every one - and anyone who doesn't realize this vaccine isn't going to be mandatory for school entrance - doesn't understand how vaccines become required.

Demand long term studies!

And also realize that cervical cancer is a RARE disease in the United States. This is why the studies all site 'world' statistics. The women most likely to 'benefit' from this vaccine are the women that need the protection least. How soon do you think this expensive vaccine will reach third world countries? It about money from any angle.

Protect your daughters. Do your research. When Merckk PROVES this vaccine is safe - then run out and get it. Until then, homeschool if you need to."

Edited December 3, 2006 by crystal sage

[The Skeptic Eric Raven]

No need to post the same thing in two threads. The first time was enough.

[frogfish]

If would be stupid to refuse all vaccinations

[crystal sage]

True but... you want to know that the ingredients of the vaccine aren't harmful

http://www.webhealthcentre.com/general/im_types.asp

http://whale.to/v/cantwell.html

Althogh the public has heard about side effects of vaccines, most people are clueless about the manufacture of vaccines. Few people know that viruses used in vaccine production need to be grown on animal parts like monkey kidneys, or in chicken embryos, or in human and fetal "cell lines." Harvesting viruses in human cell-lines can be perilous because some human cell lines are derived from cancer cells.

In AIDS & The Doctors of Death I wrote about the development of the first human "HeLa" cell line - an "immortal" cell line used extensively in cancer and vaccine research for decades. Henrietta Lacks was a young black woman from Baltimore who died from a highly malignant cervical cancer in 1951. Small pieces of her tumor were donated to a laboratory specializing in tissue cell culture. In those days most attempts to grow human cells outside the body failed. But for some unknown reason Henrietta's cancer cells grew vigorously and became known as the first successful human tissue cell line in history - the now famous HeLa cell line commemorating the legendary HEnrietta LAcks.

Henrietta's cells were kept alive by feeding them a witches' brew of beef embryo extract (the ground-up remains of a three-week-old, unborn cattle embryo); fresh chicken plasma obtained from the blood of a live chicken heart; and blood from human placentas (the placenta is the sac that nurtures the developing fetus and contains powerful hormones).

It is now suspected that a sexually-transmitted papilloma virus is the cause of cervical cancer. And it is anybody's guess how many other chicken, cattle, and human viruses are incorporated into the HeLa cell line, but none of this possible viral contamination seems to bother scientists who have extensively used the cells in cancer research. What laboratory scientists did eventually discover was that HeLa cells proved so hardy that they frequently contaminated other tissue cell lines used in cancer and cancer virus research.

In the late 1960s when widespread HeLa cell contamination problems were uncovered, scientists were shocked and embarrassed to learn that millions of dollars worth of published cancer experiments were ruined. "Liver cells" and "monkey cells" that were used in cancer experiments turned out to be Henrietta's cancer cells in disguise. Benign cells which supposedly "spontaneously transformed" into malignant cells were found to be cells contaminated with cancerous HeLa cells.

The serious problem of HeLa cell contamination in cancer and vaccine research is revealed in Michael Gold's A Conspiracy of Cells: One Woman's Immortal Legacy and the Medical Scandal It Caused. Even Jonas Salk, who developed the legendary Salk polio vaccine, was fooled when HeLa cells contaminated his animal cell lines. He admitted this years later in 1978 before a stunned audience of cell biologists and vaccine makers. In experiments performed in the late 1950s on dying cancer patients, Salk tried injecting them with a cell line of monkey heart tissue - the same cell line he used to harvest polio virus for his famous vaccine. He hoped the monkey cell injections would stimulate the immune system to fight cancer. However, when abcesses developed at the site of injections Salk began to suspect that he might be injecting HeLa cells rather than monkey cells, and

he stopped the experiment.

Mark Nelson-Rees, a HeLa cell expert and one of the 1978 conference attendees, offered to test Salk's line if it was still available. Salk graciously agreed and the monkey cells indeed proved to be HeLa cells which had invaded and taken over the monkey cell line. According to author Gold, Salk thought there were adequate ways to separate viruses from the tissue cell lines they were harvested in, so that it really didn't matter what kind of cells were used. Even if vaccines weren't filtered, and even if whole cancer cells were injected directly into a human, Salk believed they would be rejected by the body and cause no harm. In those days doctors didn't much believe in cancer-causing viruses. Nowadays, no researcher would dare try injecting cancer cells into a human being. But in the 1950s Salk had done it accidently. He had injected HeLa cells into a few dozen patients and it hadn't bothered him a bit.

[crystal sage]

Never mind that Merck only tested its HPV vaccine on a few hundred nine year old girls but is now lobbying for all little girls AND boys to be required to get three shots of HPV vaccine - at a cost of $120 per shot - in order to attend school.

http://vaccineawakening.blogspot.com/2006_...ng_archive.html

If Merck can pull the wool over enough eyes of the dumb sheep we have become, then Merck will rake in more than $3 billion a year worldwide in Gardasil sales alone. That would pay off a good number of the more than 11,000 Vioxx victims and their families now suing Merck in court.

HPV Vaccine: it's unnecessary, it's expensive, it's never been tested for the ability to cause immune system disorders over time, particularly in genetically vulnerable individuals. And yet, almost no one is standing up to ask the question: why are the wheels being greased to make HPV vaccine mandatory for every man, woman and child in the world?

Because like hepatitis B vaccine, which the CDC told pediatricians in 1991 to give to all babies at birth for an adult disease that is sexually transmitted, HPV vaccine is a vaccine the CDC is telling doctors in 2006 to give to all little girls and boys for a disease that is sexually transmitted. And what is the ultimate sexually transmitted disease now plaguing mankind? That's right: HIV. AIDS. The big one. The one that drug companies are using billions of dollars of U.S. taxpayer money to develop an HIV vaccine that governments of the world will pay more money to force every citizen to use.

Every year the Vaccine Machine grows stronger while educated citizens in developed nations, who should know better, are led like ignorant sheep to slaughter, barely uttering a wimper. When the experimental AIDS vaccine is trotted out in the not to distant future and rushed to market with calls for world mandates, we will have been softened up to accept our fate without too much fuss by the masterful marketing of hepatitis B vaccination at birth and HPV vaccination in pre-adolescence.

And when we or our husbands, wives, brothers, sisters, sons or daughters get sick after being injected with just a little bit of the HIV virus, we will have been carefully taught to believe it is all just a coincidence: the vaccine had nothing to do with it. No one, including Merck and other HIV vaccine marketeers, or the government will take responsibility for what happens. We allowed ourselves to be victimized a long time ago when we let our politicians weaken the FDA's regulatory authority and take away our right to seek justice in the civil court system for vaccine injuries.

[crystal sage]

Wouldn't it be wise to check out the bennefits of the seaweed exctract first before vaccinating all our children with something the promoters agree still may not work????

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=e...GGL:en%26sa%3DX

Edited December 10, 2006 by crystal sage

[when.i.am.queen.]

Oh well fingers crossed that it does what it is supposed to...

because otherwise I am a goner

YOu wouldnt think though that the gov would fund it unless they were apsolul certain that side effects were minimal.

At like $170 a pop (and you need three), it would be a rather expensive stuff up.

I had little or no immediate side effects - i had a headache that day, but i was also moshing with friends so that might have something to do with it..

Not all people cope well with vaccinations. However, the amount gained by vaccinating millions of girls against cervical cancer et al will outweigh three peoples migraines...if that is all it will cause.

Otherwise we are screwed.

[crystal sage]

http://www.fda.gov/cber/products/hpvmer060806qa.htm

You must ask...how many 9 year olds are sexually active??? and how sexually active were those test subjects??

Did they not use condoms... or was it forbidden for the experiment???

"It only protects you from 4 of the (The results of the studies show that the vaccine only works when given prior to infection with HPV types 6, 11, 16 and 18.)100 types of HPV...

(HPV is the name of a group of viruses that includes more than 100 different types. More than 30 of these viruses can be passed from one person to another through sexual contact. For most women, the body's own defense system will clear the virus and they don't develop health problems. However, some types can cause cervical cancer or abnormal cells in the lining of the cervix that can sometimes progress to cancer. Other types are a major cause of genital warts.)

Gardasil is expected to prevent up to 70% of cervical cancers, because they are due to HPV types against which the vaccine is directed. However, it does not protect against the types of HPV that are not included in the vaccine, which can also cause some cancers. Furthermore, women aren't protected if they have already been infected with the HPV types(s) that are covered by the vaccine prior to vaccination."

# Are Pap tests still needed?

"Yes. Since no vaccine is 100% effective and Gardasil won't provide protection against the HPV types not in the vaccine, or against existing HPV infections, routine Pap screening remains critically important to detect precancerous changes in the cervix to allow treatment before cervical cancer develops."

...AND!!! to top it off.. it is only effective for 3 1/2 years!!!!!!!

"Jesse Goodman, director of FDA's Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said the vaccine is known to be effective for at least 3 1/2 years and may need a booster after that. He said Merck and the FDA will be monitoring its continued effectiveness as well as possible side effects that might not have been detected during clinical testing. Studies to date have shown the vaccine to be largely without side effects, he said."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...ml?nav=hcmodule

Edited December 11, 2006 by crystal sage

[crystal sage]

"Carrageenan Is a Potent Inhibitor of Papillomavirus Infection

Christopher B. Buck1, Cynthia D. Thompson1, Jeffrey N. Roberts1, Martin Müller2, Douglas R. Lowy1, John T. Schiller1*

1 Laboratory of Cellular Oncology, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland, United States of America, 2 Forschungsschwerpunkt für Angewandte Tumorvirologie, Deutsches Krebsforschungszentrum, Heidelberg, Germany

Certain sexually transmitted human papillomavirus (HPV) types are causally associated with the development of cervical cancer. Our recent development of high-titer HPV pseudoviruses has made it possible to perform high-throughput in vitro screens to identify HPV infection inhibitors. Comparison of a variety of compounds revealed that carrageenan, a type of sulfated polysaccharide extracted from red algae, is an extremely potent infection inhibitor for a broad range of sexually transmitted HPVs. Although carrageenan can inhibit herpes simplex viruses and some strains of HIV in vitro, genital HPVs are about a thousand-fold more susceptible, with 50% inhibitory doses in the low ng/ml range. Carrageenan acts primarily by preventing the binding of HPV virions to cells. This finding is consistent with the fact that carrageenan resembles heparan sulfate, an HPV cell-attachment factor. However, carrageenan is three orders of magnitude more potent than heparin, a form of cell-free heparan sulfate that has been regarded as a highly effective model HPV inhibitor. Carrageenan can also block HPV infection through a second, postattachment heparan sulfate–independent effect. Carrageenan is in widespread commercial use as a thickener in a variety of cosmetic and food products, ranging from sexual lubricants to infant feeding formulas. Some of these products block HPV infectivity in vitro, even when diluted a million-fold. Clinical trials are needed to determine whether carrageenan-based products are effective as topical microbicides against genital HPVs.

Funding. This research was supported by the Intramural Research Program of the National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute, Center for Cancer Research.

Competing interests. The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Editor: Paul Lambert, University of Wisconsin, United States of America"

http://pathogens.plosjournals.org/perlserv...al.ppat.0020069