The Truth Behind the Vaccine Cover-up

Russell Blaylock, MD

On June 7-8, 2000 a secret conference was held at the Simpsonwood Conference
Center in Norcross, Georgia to discuss a study examining the link between
increasing doses of Thimerosal and neurodevelopmental disorders. The study
was done using the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) database, an official
governmental data bank collecting patient vaccination information on the
children from the health maintenance organizations (HMOs) being paid to
participate. Attending were 51 scientists, representatives of pharmaceutical
vaccine manufacturing companies and a representative of the World Health
Organization; the public and the media were unlawfully excluded. The
conclusions of this meeting were quite startling, since it confirmed a
dose-response link between Thimerosal and neurodevelopmental disorders that
held up to rigorous statistical analyses. In their discussion, they make
plain why the meeting was held in secret: the conclusions would have
destroyed the public’s confidence in the vaccine program, and more
importantly, their faith in vaccine authorities. When the results of this
study were published three years later in the journal Pediatrics, the
“problem” had been fixed, in that by adding another set of data from a third
HMO, reorganizing the criteria for inclusion and restructuring the patient
groupings, a less than statistically significant link was demonstrated. In
my analysis I discuss the more outrageous statements made during the meeting
and how accepted experts in the field of mercury neurotoxicity were excluded
from the meeting.

_________

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 b) 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.

www.russellblaylockmd.com