“The 1986 Report… makes clear that ‘side effects that were unavoidable’ refers to side effects stemming from a vaccine’s design that were unavoidable. By explaining what Congress meant by the term ‘unavoidable,’ moreover, the Report also confirms that whether a side effect is ‘unavoidable’ involves a specific inquiry in each case as to whether the vaccine ‘in the present state of human skill and knowledge cannot be made safe…. without compromising its cost and utility.”Cherry-picked from the United States Supreme Court explaining in it’s decision in the 2010/2011 case Bruesewitz -vs- Wyeth LLC why vaccines are inherently “unavoidably unsafe products“.
CS Lewis (1898-1963) is unarguably one of the greatest intellects of the 20th Century. On faculty at both Oxford and Cambridge, Lewis is today best known for his Chronicles of Narnia series. However, if you follow Lewis’ body of work, you already know that he believed something I have warned my readers about for years — that science is easily manipulated for profit and power.
Nowhere is this seen more clearly than in our nation’s forced vaccination policies. I recently showed you from peer-review (Lancet) that HONEST SCIENTISTS AND DOCTORS were forced to admit decades ago that it was improved sanitation and not vaccines that largely lead to our nation’s dramatic reductions in infectious illness. Was Lewis’ premise correct?
Is science over-stepping it’s boundaries and authority when it comes to touting “science” as the be-all, end-all, cure-all, and can this phenomenon be extrapolated out to our nation’s ONGOING VACCINE WARS? Who could argue otherwise excepting than those who feel that science provides all the answers?
Earlier this year, my brother showed you a microcosm of this debate by taking on the annual flu vaccine, and showing that it is neither effective nor scientific (HERE). This would not be a big deal except for the fact that he is an MD practicing mainstream medicine as an ER doc at a large Midwestern hospital. Fortunately for the American public, the list of those in his camp is growing rapidly.
Earlier this month, Dr Nicola Luigi Bragazzi (a medical doctor with a Ph.D in nanochemistry and nanobiotechnology) of Italy’s University of Genoa, along with a group of researchers from the Zabludowicz Center for Autoimmune Diseases at Israel’s Tel-Aviv University, published a study in the journal Vaccine called Debate on Vaccines and Autoimmunity: Do Not Attack the Author, Yet Discuss it Methodologically.
As you might imagine from the study’s title, Bragazzi and company are tired of taking it on the chin for publishing legitimate research findings that are not in lockstep with standard vaccine propaganda. Below is the entire abstract, word-for-word.
“Since Jenner, vaccines and vaccinations have stirred a hot, highly polarized debate, leading to contrasting positions and feelings, ranging from acritical enthusiasm to blind denial. On the one hand, we find anti-vaccination movements which divulge and disseminate misleading information, myths, prejudices, and even frauds, with the main aim of denying that vaccination practices represent a major public health measure, being effective in controlling infectious diseases and safeguarding the wellbeing of entire communities.
Recently, the authors of many vaccine safety investigations are being personally criticized rather than the actual science being methodologically assessed and critiqued. Unfortunately, this could result in making vaccine safety science a “hazardous occupation”. Critiques should focus on the science and not on the authors and on the scientists that publish reasonably high-quality science suggesting a problem with a given vaccine. These scientists require adequate professional protection so there are not disincentives to publish and to carry out researches in the field. The issues for vaccine safety are not dissimilar to other areas such as medical errors and drug safety.”
It’s quite clear what Dr. Bragazzi is saying here. It’s obvious that many (that would be many as in a whole lot) of those in the field of vaccine research are being blasted (and in many cases, BLACKLISTED) for reporting findings that don’t toe the line concerning industry’s standardized vaccine talking points. Dr. Bragazzi is happy to discuss his scientific findings, but the attacks on he and others like him have gotten personal. It’s obvious that he has been given a label that for someone in the scientific research community is akin to being called a racist homophobic Satanist. He’s been called an anti-vaxxer.
With a large portion of the media driven by Big Pharma to increasingly push the forced vaccination agenda (HERE), people need to realize that vaccines — especially in the manner they are currently being given, and especially in light of the fact that every year there are more and more of them — are proving increasingly dangerous. In other words, if you value your career and reputation, it’s dangerous to be a researcher looking into the link between AUTOIMMUNITY and VACCINES. Enter the debate between Robert Kennedy Jr. and Doctor Paul Offit.
I was a year old when Bobby Kennedy was assassinated by Palestinian, Sirhan Sirhan. Robert Junior was fourteen. After attending Harvard, young Kennedy got his law degree at the University of Virginia, crusading for the past three decades against POLLUTION, particularly in the form of metals, and particularly against MERCURY and ALUMINUM, which are, one or the other or both, found in virtually all vaccines (aluminum as an ADJUVANT and mercury as a preservative).
Paul Offit is an MD — a pediatrician to be precise — who would characterize himself as the anti-Kennedy. He is a hardcore advocate of stringently enforced government-mandated vaccine policies, who has not only written several books on the topic, but belongs to several organizations, some in the capacity of board member, that not only promote vaccination “education,” but various ways of forcing parents to have their children vaccinated.
He also happens to have been the co-inventor of the rotovirus vaccine, which is why his detractors (there are many) have nicknamed him PAUL “FOR PROFIT” OFFIT. Not only did he make tens of millions off this patent, but publicly stated that the average person COULD HANDLE 100,000 INJECTIONS OF VACCINES without a problem / reaction.
I bring all of this up because two months ago the medical daily STAT interviewed Kennedy about a potential appointment by President Trump (who is himself a freedom-to-choose kind of guy when it comes to vaccines) to a yet-to-be created National Vaccine Safety Commission (An Interview with Robert Kennedy Jr. on Vaccines). Of course Kennedy mentioned the lack of vaccine safety in the article.
Not surprisingly, three weeks ago Offit fired back in an article titled Correcting Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s Vaccine ‘Facts’. I was going to do a critique of Offit’s “facts,” but it seemed that Dr. Dr. James Lyons-Weiler already did this with an article of his own titled Bertrand Russell on the Importance of Facts: Offit vs. Kennedy.
Lyons-Weiler’s bio page is amazing (HERE) as is his current book (An Environmental and Genetic Cause of Autism — HERE), but what I want to talk about for a moment is a study that was mentioned in his article called Comparison of Blood and Brain Mercury Levels in Infant Monkeys Exposed to Methyl-Mercury or Vaccines Containing Thimerosal. This study’s premise is rather amazing. After discussing the fact that the way most vaccine studies are done allows the data to be easily manipulated (HERE), Lyons-Weiler mentioned a study by a group of six researchers, scientists and physicians from the University of Washington, who came to some conclusions many of you may not be aware of.
“Public perception of the safety and efficacy of childhood vaccines has a direct impact on immunization rates. The current debate linking the use of thimerosal in vaccines to autism and other developmental disorders has led many families to question whether the potential risks associated with early childhood immunizations may outweigh the benefits.
Thimerosal is an effective preservative that has been used in the manufacturing of vaccines since the 1930s, and consists of 49.6% mercury by weight and breaks down in the body to ethyl-mercury and thiosalicylate. Recent reports have indicated that some infants can receive ethylmercury (in the form of thimerosal) at or above the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) guidelines for methylmercury exposure, depending on the exact vaccinations, schedule, and size of the infant calculated that children receive 187.5 μg of ethylmercury from thimerosal-containing vaccines given over the first 14 weeks of life.
According to the authors, this amount approaches or, in some cases, exceeds the U.S. EPA guidelines for MeHg exposure during pregnancy. Other estimates have indicated that the schedule could provide repeated doses of ethylmercury from approximately 5 to 20 μg/kg over the first 6 months of life. Studies in preterm infants indicate that blood levels of Hg after just one vaccination (hepatitis B) increase by > 10-fold to levels above the U.S. EPA guidelines.”
Not only is this scary stuff from mainstream scientists working at a mainstream institution, it actually gets worse. The authors went on to show how our government, as well as the industry it is supposed to be policing, are calculating mercury exposure to infants and children. Suffice it to say that it is extremely misleading (the half-life to clear inorganic mercury from the human body could not be estimated by the short term studies previously used because it’s over four months).
Furthermore, this team determined that ethyl mercury’s perceived faster clearance times from the blood is because the mercury is not really being cleared, but is instead being stored — largely in the brain (the BBB is not fully developed in infants). Read the study (HERE) as it’s free online in its entirety.
METALS: IS THERE A DIFFERENCE WHETHER INJECTED OR INJESTED?
All of this leads us to ask the question, is there a difference whether metals are ingested (they enter the body via the digestive tract) or injected (they enter the body via a needle)? After all, whether true or not, this was the basis one of Dr. Offit’s major arguments to Kennedy; that people consume (ingest) far more mercury and aluminum than are injected into their bodies, that it’s all essentially the same stuff no matter what form it comes in, and that it has been proven safe time and time again by scientists (probably some of the very same that CS Lewis warned us of).
Firstly, all you need to do is go back and look at some of my previous links to see what most of you already know — you can’t trust our government and you can’t trust big pharma. What you can trust is that when there is big money at stake, corporations and the people running them (including their government accomplices) will do whatever it takes to separate you from your hard-earned dollars — the ultimate definition of cronyism.
Just remember that when it comes to mercury, you need to realize there are two kinds — ethyl-mercury (etHg) and methyl-mercury (meHg). What’s the difference? In 2013, the Journal of Applied Toxicology published a study on the topic called Toxicity of Ethylmercury (and Thimerosal): A Comparison with Methylmercury. Pay attention to their conclusions.
“Ethylmercury is derived from the metabolism of thimerosal, which is the most widely used form of organic mercury. Because of its application as a vaccine preservative, almost every human and animal (domestic and farmed) that has been immunized with thimerosal-containing vaccines has been exposed to etHg.
Although methylmercury is considered a hazardous substance that is to be avoided even at small levels when consumed in foods such as seafood and rice, the World Health Organization considers small doses of thimerosal safe regardless of multiple/repetitive exposures to vaccines that are predominantly taken during pregnancy or infancy. In vitro studies comparing etHg with meHg demonstrate equivalent measured outcomes for cardiovascular, neural and immune cells.
However, under in vivo conditions, evidence indicates a distinct toxicokinetic profile between meHg and etHg, favoring a shorter blood half-life, attendant compartment distribution and the elimination of etHg compared with meHg. EtHg’s toxicity profile is different from that of meHg, leading to different exposure and toxicity risks. Therefore, in real-life scenarios, a simultaneous exposure to both etHg and meHg might result in enhanced neurotoxic effects in developing mammals.“
This is a big deal for several reasons. Because mercury is the most toxic non-radioactive element on the planet, it’s highly toxic even in small doses — very small doses. Furthermore, many of the “mercury free” vaccines are not free of mercury at all. They contain trace amounts because they were originally made with mercury, later having it chemically removed.
So, when a propaganda piece on the FDA’s website (Vaccines and Thimerosal) tells you something like the following, you now understand why it’s comparing apples to oranges (the mercury is of two very different kinds). In fact, most vaccine toxicity studies have been done with meHg instead of etHg; not the kind of mercury found in vaccines — thimerosal.
“Thimerosal meets the requirements for a preservative as set forth by the United States Pharmacopeia; that is, it kills the specified challenge organisms and is able to prevent the growth of the challenge fungi. Thimerosal in concentrations of .001% to .01% has been shown to be effective in clearing a broad spectrum of pathogens. A vaccine containing 0.01% thimerosal as a preservative contains 50 micrograms of thimerosal per 0.5 mL dose or approximately 25 micrograms of mercury per 0.5 mL dose. For comparison, this is roughly the same amount of elemental mercury contained in a 3 ounce can of tuna fish.”
When it comes to mercury in tuna (methyl mercury), most is cleared via the feces. This is generally true of all ingested mercury. What is absorbed via the gut, is run through the liver, where it is dealt with by the most powerful antioxidant in the body — GLUTATHIONE, before then being excreted via the feces. However, when the mercury is injected, it bypasses the first part of this process, making its way to various organs and tissues before finally making its way to the liver to be dealt with.
Because mercury accumulates in certain bodily tissues (it has a high affinity for brain and nerve tissues, probably due to their high fat content), its effects are accumulative. So even if there is no immediate reaction other than fever and the swelling, redness, and pain so common at the injection site — all of which are purposeful functions of the adjuvant — it does not mean you are out of the woods yet. Not by a long shot.
One of the areas of vaccine study that has barely been touched upon is the synergistic adverse effects of the various metals found in vaccines. We already know that there are any number of metals that when exposed to each other, multiply their toxicity by many orders of magnitude. A perfect example is lead and mercury. Both highly toxic in their own right, a 1978 study called Combined Effects in Toxicology–A Rapid Systematic Testing Procedure: Cadmium, Mercury, and Lead showed something truly mind-bending.
When the authors took the average amount of mercury that would kill one in 100 mice and added it to the average amount of lead that would kill one in 2,000 mice, the mixture killed 100% of the mice it was given to. This phenomenon was noted in the last sentence of the first red quote in this section. Lest you think I’m being ticky tacky here, take a look at the conclusions of similar studies.
In 2002, Chinese authors published a study in Aquatic Toxicology (Synergistic Toxicity of Multiple Heavy Metals is Revealed by a Biological Assay…) that concluded….
“Based on these data, we conducted pairwise and triple metal combination testing and demonstrated that these heavy metals displayed synergistic killing effects on C. elegans larvae. Drastic increases in mortality rate up to 100% could be observed at low metal concentrations. The results illustrate the complexity of toxicity tests in biological systems and show that physical-chemical monitoring of toxicants may underestimate biohazards in environmental samples.“
In 2004, our own CDC published a scientific article called Mixed Exposures Research Agenda – A Report by the NORA Mixed Exposures Team that stated…
“Each stressor has the potential to cause a physiological effect….. Mixed exposures may produce acute or chronic effects or a combination of acute and chronic effects, with or without latency. Other exposures in combination with certain stressors may produce increased or unexpected deleterious health effects, or they may combine or interact in the environment to create a new exposure risk. Exposures to mixed stressors can produce health consequences that are additive, synergistic, antagonistic, or can potentiate the response expected from individual component exposures.“
Seven years later a 2011 issue of the journal Human and Experimental Toxicology (Infant Mortality Rates Regressed Against Number of Vaccine Doses Routinely Given: Is There a Biochemical or Synergistic Toxicity?) concluded…
“The infant mortality rate (IMR) is one of the most important indicators of the socio-economic well-being and public health conditions of a country. The US childhood immunization schedule specifies 26 vaccine doses for infants aged less than 1 year—the most in the world—yet 33 nations have lower IMRs. Using linear regression, the immunization schedules of these 34 nations were examined and a correlation was found between IMRs and the number of vaccine doses routinely given to infants. Nations were also grouped into five different vaccine dose ranges: 12–14, 15–17, 18–20, 21–23, and 24–26. Statistically significant differences in mean IMRs were found between nations giving 12–14 vaccine doses and those giving 21–23, and 24–26 doses. A closer inspection of correlations between vaccine doses, biochemical or synergistic toxicity, and IMRs is essential.”
Note that this is only talking about mortality and not morbidity, which is a far greater problem (can anyone say AUTISM or ALZHEIMER’S?).
Two years later the same journal carried a study called Comparison of VAERS Fetal-Loss Reports During Three Consecutive Influenza Seasons, where the authors, “compared the number of inactivated-influenza vaccine–related spontaneous abortion and stillbirth (SB) reports in the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) database during three consecutive flu seasons beginning 2008/2009 and assessed the relative fetal death reports associated with the two-vaccine 2009/2010 season.”
What did this author discover? “The observed reporting bias was too low to explain the magnitude increase in fetal-demise reporting rates in the VAERS database relative to the reported annual trends. Thus, a synergistic fetal toxicity likely resulted from the administration of both the pandemic (A-H1N1) and seasonal influenza vaccines during the 2009/2010 season.“
In 2015, researchers from the University of Brazil published a study (Exposure to Mercury and Aluminum in Early Life: Developmental Vulnerability as a Modifying Factor in Neurologic and Immunologic Effects) in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health that concluded…
“Currently, ethylmercury (EtHg) and adjuvant-Al (aluminum) are the dominating interventional exposures encountered by fetuses, newborns, and infants due to immunization with Thimerosal-containing vaccines (TCVs). Despite their long use as active agents of medicines and fungicides, the safety levels of these substances have never been determined, either for animals or for adult humans—much less for fetuses, newborns, infants, and children.
Immunological and neurobehavioral effects of Thimerosal-EtHg and Al-adjuvants are not extraordinary; rather, these effects are easily detected in high and low income countries, with co-exposure to methylmercury (MeHg) or other neurotoxicants. Rigorous and replicable studies (in different animal species) have shown evidence of EtHg and Al toxicities.
More research attention has been given to EtHg and findings have showed a solid link with neurotoxic effects in humans; however, the potential synergistic effect of both toxic agents has not been properly studied. Therefore, early life exposure to both EtHg and Al deserves due consideration.”
Later in 2015 a dozen Chinese researchers looked at combinations of various toxic metals in a study (Toxicity Assessment Due to Sub-Chronic Exposure to Individual and Mixtures of Four Toxic Heavy Metals) published in the Journal of Hazardous Materials.
“Humans are exposed to a cocktail of heavy metal toxicants in the environment. Though heavy metals are deleterious, there is a paucity of information on toxicity of low dose mixtures. In this study, lead (Pb), mercury (Hg), cadmium (Cd) and arsenic (As) were administered individually and as mixtures to 10 groups of 40 three-week old mice (20 males and 20 females), for 120 days.
The study established that low dose exposures induced toxicity to the brain, liver, and kidney of mice. Metal mixtures showed higher toxicities compared to individual metals, as exposure to low dose Pb+Hg+Cd reduced brain weight and induced structural lesions, such as neuronal degeneration in 30-days. Interactions in metal mixtures were basically synergistic in nature and exposure to Pb+Hg+As+Cd induced renal tubular necrosis in kidneys of mice.”
The point here is not that vaccines contain lead, but that science is only starting to scratch the surface of the synergistic reactivity / toxicity of heavy metals. There were numerous other health-related issues in this study as well.
Which brings us to another question; where do metals like aluminum and mercury most commonly end up if the body cannot excrete them via it’s BIOTRANSOFRMATION (DETOX) PATHWAYS? The April 2013 issue of BMC Medicine (Slow CCL2-Dependent Translocation of Biopersistent Particles from Muscle to Brain) showed us. A dozen French researchers, scientists, and physicians concluded that…..
“Long-term biodistribution of nanomaterials used in medicine is largely unknown. This is the case for alum, the most widely used vaccine adjuvant, which is a nanocrystalline compound spontaneously forming micron/submicron-sized agglomerates. Although generally well tolerated, alum is occasionally detected within monocyte-lineage cells long after immunization in presumably susceptible individuals with systemic/neurologic manifestations or autoimmune (inflammatory) syndrome induced by adjuvants (ASIA).
Intramuscular injection of alum-containing vaccine was associated with the appearance of aluminum deposits in distant organs, such as spleen and brain where they were still detected one year after injection. mice with chronically altered blood-brain-barrier. Stereotactic particle injection pointed out brain retention as a factor of progressive particle accumulation.
Continuously escalating doses of this poorly biodegradable adjuvant in the population may become insidiously unsafe, especially in the case of overimmunization or immature/altered blood brain barrier or high constitutive CCL-2 production.”
Here’s the problem. Although these authors admit that many people (maybe even most people) tolerate low-does of aluminum just fine — at least at first and at least at first glance — they also revealed that there are many who do not. What groups do not?
Those with a BBB (blood brain barrier) that is either immature (think infants and young children here — the individuals in our society who are hardest hit by increasing numbers of vaccines) or altered (think LEAKY BRAIN SYNDROME here — exceedingly common in our ULTRA-INFLAMED society), it’s easy to see how aluminum could be adversely affecting far more people than originally estimated.
Rather than me continuing (there is so much info on this topic I could write a book), I’m going to let people far smarter than I am speak.
A few final thoughts on this debate between Drs Offit and Lyons-Weiler. Firstly, it’s important to be aware that mercury is not the only toxic substance in vaccines — not by a long shot (HERE is the CDC’s list), and that this milieu of substances has been likewise shown to have synergistic toxicity to metals. Secondly, realize that the rotovirus vaccine that Offit made a fortune off is rendered ineffective (or at least less effective) by mother’s milk.
A 2010 study by our own “trust us” government (this time the CDC — Inhibitory Effect of Breast Milk on Infectivity of Live Oral Rotavirus Vaccines) revealed that as insinuated by the title, BREAST MILK rendered this vaccine significantly less effective. The government’s solution? Instead of saying, ‘hey, we might be onto something cool here,’ they suggested that…
“A short delay of breast-feeding at the time of immunization might be the least complicated intervention to improve the efficacy of these vaccines. Our findings suggest that the neutralizing activity of breast milk could substantially reduce the potency and effectiveness of live oral rotavirus vaccines among infants in resource-poor countries where mothers often breast-feed in clinic at the very time that a vaccine is orally administered.“
And thirdly, before Offit released his criticism of Kennedy, the honest thing to do would have been to point readers to the fact that the debate between these two is not a new thing. You see; two years ago Lyons-Weiler wrote a telling article called PAGING DR. OFFIT; YOUR ALUMINUM NEURO-TOXICITY READING ASSIGNMENTS ARE READY! Unfortunately, this is an issue that to some degree we all must face — both personally and via our children. For those of you who are struggling with issues caused by any sort of toxicity, a visit to a specialist in FUNCTIONAL MEDICINE might be needed. However, I have left some general suggestions for those of you dealing with chronic illness and or chronic pain (HERE).
