|
No Research?
Therefore, what they are admitting is that we have a form of mercury that has been
used in vaccines since the 1930s and no one has bothered to study its effects on
biological systems, especially the brain of infants. Their defense throughout this
conference is "We just don't know the effects of ethylmercury."
As a solution, they resort to studies on methylmercury, because there are thousands
of studies on this form of mercury. The major source of this form is seafood consumption.
It takes them a while to get the two forms of mercury straight, since for several
pages of the report they say methylmercury is in thimerosal rather than ethylmercury.
They can be forgiven for this. On page 16, Dr. Johnson, an immunologist and pediatrician
at the University of Colorado School of Medicine and the National Jewish Center
for Immunology and Respiratory Medicine, notes that he would like to see the incorporation
of wide margins of safety, that is 3 to 10-fold margins of safety to "account
for data uncertainties."
What he means: There are so many things we do not know about this toxin that we
had better use very wide margins of safety. For most substances, the FDA uses a
100-fold margin of safety.
The reason for this, which they do not mention, is that in a society of hundreds
of millions of people, there are groups of people who are much more sensitive to
the toxin than others. For instance:
- The elderly
- Chronically ill
- Nutritionally deficient
- Small babies
- Premature babies
- People on certain medications
- Inborn defects in detoxification
In fact, in this study they excluded premature babies and low birth weight babies
from the main study, some of which had the highest mercury levels, because they
would be hard to study and because they had the most developmental problems related
to the mercury.
Who Are You?
On page 16, Dr. Johnson makes an incredible statement, one that defines the problem
we have in this country with the promoters of these vaccines. "As an aside,
we found a cultural difference between vaccinologist and environmental health people
in that many of us in the vaccine arena have never thought about uncertainty factors
before. We tend to be relatively concrete in our thinking."
Then he says, "One of the big cultural events in that meeting -- was when Dr.
Clarkson repetitively pointed out to us that we just didn't get it about uncertainty,
and he was actually quite right."
This is an incredible admission. First, what is a vaccinologist? Do you go to school
to learn to be one? How many years of residency training are required to be a vaccinologist?
Are there board exams?
It's a stupid term used to describe people who are obsessed with vaccines, not that
they actually study the effects of the vaccines, as we shall see throughout this
meeting.
Most important is the admission by Dr. Johnson that he and his fellow "vaccinologists"
are so blinded by their obsession with forcing vaccines on society that they never
even considered that there might be factors involved that could greatly affect human
health, the so-called "uncertainties."
Further, he and his fellow "vaccinologists" like to think in concrete
terms. That is, they are very narrow in their thinking and wear blinders that prevent
them from seeing the numerous problems occurring with large numbers of vaccination
in infants and children. Their goal in life is to vaccinate as many people as possible
with an ever-growing number of vaccines.
On page 17, his "concrete thinking" once again takes over. He refers
to the Bethesda meeting on thimerosal safety issues and says, "There was no
evidence of a problem, only a theoretical concern that young infants' developing
brains were being exposed to an organomercurial." Of course, as I shall
point out later, it is a lot more than a "theoretical concern."
He then continues by saying, "We agree that while there was no evidence of a
problem the increasing number of vaccine injections given to infants was increasing
the theoretical mercury exposure risk."
The Ultimate Irony
It's hard to conceive of a true scientist not seeing the incredible irony of these
statements.
Medical literature is abound with studies on the deleterious effects of mercury
on numerous enzymes, mitochondrial energy production, synaptic function, dendritic
retraction, neurotubule dissolution and excitotoxicity. Yet, he sees only a "theoretical
risk" associated with an ever increasing addition of thimerosal-containing
vaccines.
It is also important to note that these geniuses never even saw a problem in the
first place. It was pressure from outside scientists, parents of affected children
and groups representing them that pointed out the problem. They were, in essence,
reacting to pressure from outside the "vaccinologist club" and not discovering
internally that a problem "might" exist.
In fact, if these outside groups had not become involved, these "vaccinologists"
would have continued to add more and more mercury-containing vaccines to the list
of required vaccines. Only when the problem became so obvious -- that is of epidemic
proportion (close to that now) and the legal profession became involved -- would
they have even noticed there was a problem. This is a recurring theme in the government's
regulatory agencies, as witnessed with fluoride, aspartame, MSG, dioxin and pesticides
issues.
It is also interesting that Dr. Johnson did admit that the greatest risk was among
low birth weight infants and premature infants. Now why would that be if there existed
such a large margin of safety with mercury used in vaccines? Could just a few pounds
of body weight make such a dramatic difference?
In fact, it does but it also means that normal birth weight children, especially
those near the low range of normal birth weight, are also in greater danger. It
also would mean that children receiving doses of mercury higher than the 72 ug in
this study would be at high risk as well because their dose, based on body weight,
would be comparable to that of the low birth weight child receiving the lower dose.
This was never even considered by these "vaccinologist experts" who decide
policy for your children.
Continued on Page 3
|
