By Russell L. Blaylock, M.D.

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 organization 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

The Real Purpose of Child Health Programs

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. The 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.

How does the WHO and the "vaccinologist experts" from this country now justify a continued polio vaccination program with this dangerous vaccine? 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, "vaccinologists" 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 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 percent to 15 percent newborn hepatitis B exposure risk was very distressing to consider." (page 18)

Scare Tactics

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 immune function in which such epidemic death can occur. In the United States, we would not see this because of better nutrition, health facilities and sanitation. In fact, most deaths seen when measles outbreaks occur in the United States happen in these situations:

• Vaccination was contraindicated.
• The vaccine did not work.
• With children who have 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 percent 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 for 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 unreviewed. 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 in regard to neurodevelopmental delays.

We should also appreciate the government sponsored two conferences on the possible role of metals, aluminum and mercury being used 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.)

>> Continue to Part 3

[Part 1, Part 2 , Part 3, Part 4, Part 5]