mercury, vaccines, autism etc.Ethylmercury Shmethylmercury
I just finished reading David Kirby's thoughtful, well-written and
compelling book, Evidence of Harm. Anyone who hasn't gotten their
hands on this book should order the updated paperback version as soon
as it is published, sometime this month.
Unless you have been on Mars for the past few years, you are aware of
a huge controversy surrounding the use of thimerosal in vaccines and
the possibility that it has been a cause of autism. In his book,
Kirby provides a detailed and riveting account of the controversy.
Mercury is a known neurotoxin, often said to be the second most toxic
substance on the planet.
One of the weirdest aspects of this battle has been the fact that the
"experts" have put themselves in the ridiculous position of saying
pregnant women and children should not eat certain mercury-tainted
fish or use mercury thermometers, but it is okay to inject mercury
directly into the bodies of babies.
All this because ethylmercury (the form of mercury found in
thimerosal) and methylmercury are different.
Of course taking this position is absurd. In the absence of proof
that ethylmercury is safe, the assumption should be that it might be
unsafe. One could go so far as to say that in all likelihood, merely
because it is mercury, it probably IS unsafe and should be treated as
In fact, "mercury in any form is toxic". So why was any mercury in
any form ever allowed in vaccines?
The FDA, as reported in the Federal Register, even declared thimerosal
to be unsafe in 1982, calling for its removal in over-the-counter
products. Why didn't they do the same for vaccines, which unlike the
topical products removed are injected directly into the body?
Meanwhile, more recently (2004), the Institute of Medicine (IOM)
attempted to close the book on this issue, in spite of compelling
biological evidence that thimerosal is likely involved. Why would
they use epidemiological data which in the case of their autism data
did not include any comparisons to children exposed to zero mercury in
vaccines? Why did they do this when it contradicted their own earlier
worrisome (and until recently secret) data that did include such
comparisons? And why did they use this suspect epidemiological data
to trump solid biological evidence?
How could they so cavalierly dismiss evidence that not only implicated
thimerosal in autism, but explained how thimerosal could damage some
children and not others?
Moreover, if they were so enamored with epidemiological studies, why
didn't the "experts" insist that studies comparing the vaccinated to
the never vaccinated be conducted? (Instead they lumped those with
allegedly zero exposure to thimerosal with those with as much as 37.5
Even if the evidence against there being a relationship, however, was
as strong as the IOM contended, there was still no reason to
discourage research into this area, as the IOM so callously did.
After all, little is ever "proved" in science. Evidence, more or less
strong or weak, is usually simply presented which supports or
contradicts a hypothesis. Even under the best of circumstances, one
might never be able to say with absolute certainty that the mercury in
thimerosal causes autism. That doesn't mean, however, that evidence
does not exist.
Or that it doesn't cause autism.
But there is evidence. And plenty of it.
Aside from Kirby's outstanding book outlining the evidence both for
and against thimerosal being linked to vaccines, among the growing
number of studies and reports confirming a possible link are the
Children with autism appear to be unable to rid their bodies of the
mercury that they are exposed to. (Deth et al, Holmes et al)
Some populations that have not been exposed to vaccines experience
little, if any, autism. (Olmsted 1, 2)
Thimerosal has been shown to be toxic to brain cells. (Haley)
Mice injected with thimerosal develop autism-like symptoms. (Hornig)
Some children who have mercury chelated (chemically bound and removed)
from their bodies show a reduction in autism symptoms. (Rimland)
"Children with autism excrete more mercury than controls." (Bradstreet
via Congressman Dave Weldon)
Coincident with the decline in thimerosal use in vaccinations for
infants and children, the incidence of autism appears to be declining
as well, at least in California. (safeMinds)
One of the most frustrating aspects to all this is how often an
"instant" study is published purporting to vindicate thimerosal. Any
such "study", coming right on the heels of a study demonstrating an
adverse thimerosal effect, should be met with skepticism. In an
earlier column I examined one of them and found the arguments to be
There is something mercury-contaminated fishy about all this.
A lot is riding on the so-called experts convincing the public that
the mercury in thimerosal is safe. Little things like "confidence" in
the immunization program and liability for damage caused.
Beyond the clamor, though, about vaccines and autism lies a broader,
even more ominous question. When something this obvious is fought so
hard by the "experts", what does it say about the other
vaccine-associated side effects they fight so hard to discredit, like
the relationship between vaccines and SIDS, to name just one?* What
does it say about their credibility in these other crucial areas?
Whether or not other vaccine-associated adverse effects are similarly
being ignored and dismissed, with the autism issue at least, there are
just too many parents convinced that vaccines played a role. And they
simply cannot be made to go away.
More and more, the science is suggesting they may be right. No matter
what the "experts" say.
by Sandy Gottstein (Mintz)
"Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty." - Wendell Phillips
(1811-1884), paraphrasing John Philpot Curran (1808)
Sandy Gottstein (aka Mintz) is the publisher of the website
"Vaccination News", and writer of the columns "Scandals" and "Out of
Astra2012 on 2006-02-07
The Belief in Vaccines
Dr. Sherri Tenpenny, DO
I always find it interesting that a discussion over the topic of vaccination can become "heated" and "volatile". Why is that?....would the same debate rage over an antibiotic or an antihypertensive medicine if there was evidence that it was causing harm? Highly doubtful. It would be removed promptly from the market if deaths resulted from its use. Even if
deaths were suspected to be caused by a medication, we stop using it until we prove it is safe. Not so with a vaccine. We keep using it until we can "prove" it is causing harm.
Why the double standard?
The doublespeak occurs because vaccination is built around a "belief" system, and challenging the validity of vaccines challenges long-held foundational beliefs. We BELIEVE that vaccines are safe; we BELIEVE that vaccines are important for our health; we BELIEVE that vaccines will protect us from infection; we BELIEVE that vaccines were the reason
infectious diseases decreased around the world. And we really want to BELIEVE that our doctor has read all the available information on vaccines--pro and con--and that s/he is telling us the complete truth about vaccines......
However, belief is based on faith; not necessarily on fact. With only a cursory review of the literature and CDC documents, one will find the following facts:
1. No vaccine has ever been proven to be completely safe. Safety studies are small and only include "healthy" children. However, after a study is completed, vaccines are given to ALL children, regardless of underlying health conditions or genetic predispositions. We have a "one size fits all"
national vaccination policy; one that does not allow for personal choice or individualized options; and one that has caused a myriad of health problems for many.
2. Observations for side effects continue for a maximum of 14 days during a "safety study". Complex problems involving the immune system can take weeks or even months to appear. This arbitrary 14 day cut off set by the FDA and the pharmaceutical industry stops the observation long before complications
are likely to appear. This is the basis for their "vaccines are safe" mantra but the long term and relatively unknown complications from vaccines reveal that no vaccine is safe.
3. A vaccine "safety" study compares a new vaccine to a "placebo" to determine the safety of the new vaccine. When we examine the study a little more closely, we discover that the "placebo" is NOT a benign, inert substance, such as saline or water. The "placebo" is another vaccine with a "known safety profile." So if the new vaccine has the same side effects as
the "placebo", the new vaccine is called "safe."
4. Vaccines are said to confer protection by causing the development of antibodies. However, there are many references in CDC documents (the Highest Authority in the land regarding vaccines) which reveal that antibodies don't necessarily protect us from infection. Here are a few examples from medical journals and CDC documents:
Pertussis: "The findings of efficacy studies have not demonstrated a direct correlation between antibody response and protection against pertussis disease." MMWR March 28, 1997/Vol.46/No. RR-7, p.4
H. Flu (HiB): "The antibody contribution to clinical protection is unknown." ---HibTITER package insert
"The precise level of antibody required for protection against HiB invasive disease is not clearly established."
Smallpox: "Neutralizing antibodies are reported to reflect levels of protection, although this has not been validated in the field." JAMA June 9,1999, Vol. 281, No. 22, p.3132
5. We want to "believe" that if we receive a vaccine, we will be protected from the infection. Several medical journal articles document that this is not necessarily so. Here are a few examples:
Pertussis Infection in Fully Vaccinated Children in Day-Care Centers, Israel (Emerging Infectious Diseases Vol. 6, No. 5; Sep-Oct 2000)
Pertussis in the Highly Vaccinated Population, The Netherlands (EmergingInfectious Diseases Vol. 6, No. 4 July-Aug 2000)
Pertussis in North-West Western Australia in 1999; all vaccinated. (Communicable Diseases Intelligence 2000 Vol 2 4 No 12)
The debate surrounding the use of vaccines goes back and forth with "data" and "studies" used to support both sides. But the bottom line is this:
Vaccination has been "accepted" as safe, effective and protective for nearly 200 years. It is a "sacred cow" and with all "sacred cows", people react with a visceral response when someone suggests that the "cow" should be "sacrificed". There are many examples of this over the centuries:
Copernicus who insisted that the Sun is the Center of the solar system and Semmelweiss who showed that doctors performing hand washing saved women's lives. Both men were ridiculed in their day. It is heresy to suggest that
the "status quo" is wrong.
Statistics have shown that when presented with a new, different, challenging idea, 96% of people will spend their time and energy defending their current beliefs and only 4% will embrace the idea as something to seriously consider.
When you research vaccinations and the vaccine industry, you will find that your "foundational beliefs" regarding vaccines will be seriously challenged. When you begin to study the negative effects--both actual and theoretical--that vaccines have on the immune system, you will likely
become part of the 4% who understand that "truth" about vaccines is not
really "The Truth" and that the mandatory vaccination policies currently being enforced must be changed.
Dr. Sherri Tenpenny
New Medical Awareness Seminars
walkin last decade
autism.about.com/library/weekly/aa110400a.htm?rnk==r13&terms==thimerosal" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://autism.about.com/library/weekly/aa110400a.htm?rnk==r1...
©2006 About, Inc., A part of The New York Times Company. All rights reserved.
Whether a parent chooses to vaccinate a child is an issue for the parent and the physician involved to decide upon. It is not the province of government to make that decision.Following your physician's advice is a wise act, however following the advice of a government bureaucrat, sometimes on the payroll of a pharmaceutical company, may not be the best course of action to follow, especially when the lives of our children are involved. -- Association of American Physicians and Surgeons.
While researchers look for links between autism, pervasive developmental disorders, and the mercury content of the vaccines which are mandated by law, some physicians are convinced that the dangers of mandatory vaccinations and the vaccines themselves potentially cause more harm than good. As a result, the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) passed a resolution at their 57th Annual Meeting that calls for the elimination of laws which require vaccinations for children.
According to Dr. Jane M. Orient, MD, the association's Executive Director, "Our children face the possibility of death or serious long-term adverse effects from mandated vaccines that arent necessary or that have very limited benefits."
According to the Association, the mandatory vaccine controversy is fueled by the influence of the pharmaceutical companies in the legislative process and the fact that their influence extends into the depths of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health, and the Food and Drug Administration. These groups have the authority to approve vaccines and other medical treatments for use in the United States, and their research is flawed because of the influence of the manufacturers.
According to the AAPS, "Rampant conflicts of interest in the approval process has been the subject of several Congressional hearings, and a recent Congressional report concluded that the pharmaceutical industry has indeed exerted undue influence on mandatory vaccine legislation toward its own financial interests." They go on to say, "The vaccine approval process has also been contaminated by flawed or incomplete clinical trials, and government officials have chosen to ignore negative results."
While the mass media and the federal government continue to defend their position that vaccinations are perfectly safe and that there is no research to indicate any danger, the facts are clear. Congressman Burton's House Committee on Government Reform heard case after case of permanent disability and deaths which the parents have attributed to vaccinations. The scientific research shows that there are dangers, and the continued denial of any danger is totally in conflict with the evidence.
In fact, as a result of the information which was brought to light by the Congressional Hearings earlier this year, Congressman Burton took the unprecedented step of writing Secretary of Health and Human Services Donna Shalala, asking that all vaccines which contain Thimerosal (Mercury) be banned from the American market.
Please read the entire artice at;
"Our ideal is not the spirituality that withdraws from life but the conquest of life by the power of the spirit." - Aurobindo.
Astra2012 last decade
Different people respond in different ways to the direct toxic challenge from vaccinations.
Download this PDF and read for more info.
For first hand accounts from parents, research scientists and statisticians follow the "Media Center" link on this site.
Video interviews with "David Kirby" and many more.
In connection with mercury, also look at:-
It is most saddening to see how money and power can corrupt those in positions of authority.
TimCam last decade
A central lesson of science is that to understand complex issues (or even simple ones), we must try to free our minds of dogma and to guarantee the freedom to publish, to contradict, and to experiment. Arguments from authority are unacceptable.
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Our species needs, and deserves, a citizenry with minds wide awake and a basic understanding of how the world works.
Science is a way of thinking much more than it is a body of knowledge.
There are many hypotheses in science which are wrong. That's perfectly all right; they're the aperture to finding out what's right. Science is a self-correcting process. To be accepted, new ideas must survive the most rigorous standards of evidence and scrutiny.
We are prodding, challenging, seeking contradictions or small, persistent residual errors, proposing alternative explanations, encouraging heresy. We give our highest rewards to those who convincingly disprove established beliefs.
We have also arranged things so that almost no one understands science and technology. This is a prescription for disaster. We might get away with it for a while, but sooner or later this combustible mixture of ignorance and power is going to blow up in our faces.
Skeptical scrutiny is the means, in both science and religion, by which deep thoughts can be winnowed from deep nonsense.
The universe is not required to be in perfect harmony with human ambition.
Widespread intellectual and moral docility may be convenient for leaders in the short term, but it is suicidal for nations in the long term. One of the criteria for national leadership should therefore be a talent for understanding, encouraging, and making constructive use of vigorous criticism.
Anyone who's ever significantly changed the course of humanity has either been a Crackpot, a Heretic, or a Dissident. In the case of Albert Einstein, he was all three!
And I can't find it now, but I read it before:
The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.
WNCGirl last decade
TimCam last decade
TimCam last decade
I brought my son to his doc when he was ill. He told me that my son was due for his shot's. I said, 'is that a good idea when he's sick?' He then told me that it wouldn't bother him either way. I'll admit I was extremely leary, but I trusted his doctor and let him give the shots. The next day, my son was so sick and was struggling to breath. We had never had any asthma type problems with him until that day. I knew right then I had made a grave mistake. I brought him in again and his regular doc was out that day. They sent him home with a nebulizer and being 2 at the time, he fought that treatment. He is now 4 and at this point, his behavior is out of control in the many ways that you are already aware of. I regret trusting and believing his pediatrician, as I went against my own motherly instinct. I'm discovering allot about this and have a friend who is dealing with two children that are struggling with this autism. At this point we are sharing our information and trying to fix what has happened to our children to the degree that we can.
What a shame and I'm so sorry for the mom's and dad's that are faced with even worse problems than I. There is a great need for public awareness and the angrier I get, the more I want to find a way to get this information out there.
Thanks to people like you, we're starting to get somewhere. Thank you so much for the investigating and posting that each one of you take the time to do. You are true heroes in our societies. God bless you all!
lily white last decade
To post a reply, you must first LOG ON or Register
Information given in this forum is given by way of exchange of views only, and those views are not necessarily those of ABC Homeopathy. It is not to be treated as a medical diagnosis or prescription, and should not be used as a substitute for a consultation with a qualified homeopath or physician. It is possible that advice given here may be dangerous, and you should make your own checks that it is safe. If symptoms persist, seek professional medical attention. Bear in mind that even minor symptoms can be a sign of a more serious underlying condition, and a timely diagnosis by your doctor could save your life.