THE TRUTH BEHIND THE VACCINE COVER-UP

[Guest guest]

THE TRUTH BEHIND THE VACCINE COVER-UPBy Russell Blaylock, M.D.© 2004Web Site: http://www.russellblaylockmd.com

 

Posted: 04 Spetember 2004

 

I was asked to write a paper on some of the newer mechanisms ofvaccine damage to the nervous system, but in the interim I came acrossan incredible document that should blow the lid off the cover-up beingengineered by the pharmaceutical companies in conjunction withpowerful governmental agencies.

 

It all started when a friend of mind sent me a copy of a letter fromCongressman David Weldon, M.D. to the director of the CDC, Dr Julie L.Gerberding, in which he alludes to a study by a Doctor ThomasVerstraeten, then representing the CDC, on the connection betweeninfant exposure to thimerosal-containing vaccines andneurodevelopmental injury. In this shocking letter Congressman Weldonreferrers to Dr. Verstraeten's study which looked at the data from theVaccine Safety Datalink and found a significant correlation betweenthimerosal exposure via vaccines and several neurodevelopmentaldisorders including tics, speech and language delays, and possibly to ADD.

 

Congressman Weldon questions the CDC director as to why, followingthis meeting, Dr. Verstraeten published his results, almost four yearslater, in the journal Pediatrics to show just the opposite, that is,that there was no correlation to any neurodevelopmental problemsrelated to thimerosal exposure in infants. In this letter, CongressmanWeldon refers to a report of the minutes of this meeting held inGeorgia, which exposes some incredible statements by the "experts"making up this study group. The group's purpose was to evaluate anddiscuss Dr. Verstraeten's results and data and make recommendationthat would eventually lead to possible alterations in the existingvaccine policy.

 

I contacted Congressman Weldon's legislative assistant and he kindlysent me a complete copy of this report. Now, as usual in these cases,the government did not give up this report willingly, it required aFreedom of Information Act lawsuit to pry it loose. Having read thereport twice and carefully analyzed it; I can see why they did notwant any outsiders to see it. It is a bombshell, as you shall see. Inthis analysis, I will not only describe and discuss this report, butalso will frequently quote their words directly and supply the exactpage number so others can see for themselves.

 

The official title of the meeting was the "Scientific Review ofVaccine Safety Datalink Information." This conference, held on June7-8, 2000 at Simpsonwood Retreat Center, Norcross, Georgia, assembled51 scientists and physicians of which five represented vaccinemanufacturers. These included Smith Kline Beecham, Merck, Wyeth, NorthAmerican Vaccine and Aventis Pasteur.

 

During this conference, these scientists focused on the study of theDatalink material, whose main author was Dr. Thomas Verstraesten whoidentified himself as working at the National Immunization Program ofthe CDC. It was discovered by Congressman Weldon that Dr. Verstraetenleft the CDC shortly after this conference to work for GlaxoSmithKlinein Belgium which manufacturers vaccines, a recurring pattern that hasbeen given the name a "revolving door" It is also interesting to notethat GlaxoSmithKline was involved in several lawsuits overcomplications secondary to their vaccines.

 

To start off the meeting Dr. Roger Bernier, Associate Director forScience in the National Immunization Program (CDC), related somepertinent history. He stated that Congressional action in 1977required that the FDA review mercury being used in drugs and biologics(vaccines). In meeting this order, the FDA called for information fromthe manufacturers of vaccines and drugs. He notes that a group ofEuropean regulators and manufacturers met on April 1999 and noted thesituation but made no recommendations of changes. In other words itwas all for show.

 

At this point Dr. Bernier made an incredible statement (page 12). Hesaid, "In the United States there was a growing recognition thatcumulative exposure may exceed some of the guidelines." By guidelines,he is referring to guidelines for mercury exposure safety levels setby several regulatory agencies. The three guidelines were set by theATSDR, the FDA and the EPA. The most consistently violated safetyguideline was that set by the EPA. He further explains that he isreferring to children being exposed to thimerosal in vaccines.

 

Based on this realization that they were violating safety guidelineshe says, this then "resulted in a joint statement of the Public HealthService (PHS) and the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) in July oflast year (1999), which stated that as a long term goal, it wasdesirable to remove mercury from vaccines because it was a potentiallypreventable source of exposure."(Page 12)

 

As an aside, one has to wonder, where was the Public Health Serviceand American Academy of Pediatrics during all the years of mercury usein vaccines and why didn't they know that, number one, they wereexceeding regulatory safety levels and second, why weren't they awareof the extensive literature showing deleterious effects on thedeveloping 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 atBethesda in the Lister Auditorium by the National Vaccine AdvisoryGroup and the Interagency Working Group on Vaccines to considerthimerosal risk in vaccine use. And based on what was discussed inthat conference, thimerosal was removed from the hepatitis B vaccine(HepB). It is interesting to note that the media took very littleinterest in what was learned at that meeting and it may have been asecret meeting as well. As we shall see, there is a reason why theystruggle to keep the contents of all these meetings secret from thepublic.

 

He then notes on page 13 that on October 1999 the Advisory Committeeon Immunization Practices (ACIP) "looked this situation over again anddid not express a preference for any of the vaccines that werethimerosal free." In this discussion he further notes that the ACIPconcluded that the thimerosal-containing vaccines could be used butthe "long-term goal" is to try to remove thimerosal as soon as possible.

 

Now, we need to stop and thinks about what has transpired here. Wehave an important group here; the ACIP that essential plays a role invaccine policy that affects tens of millions of children every year.And, we have evidence from the Thimerosal meeting in 1999 that thepotential for serious injury to the infant's brain is so serious thata recommendation for removal becomes policy. In addition, they are allfully aware that tiny babies are receiving mercury doses that exceedeven EPA safety limits, yet all they can say is that we must "try toremove thimerosal as soon as possible". Do they not worry about thetens of millions of babies that will continue receivingthimerosal-containing vaccines until they can get around to stoppingthe use of thimerosal?

 

It should also be noted that it is a misnomer to say "removal ofthimerosal" since they are not removing anything. They just plan tostop adding it to future vaccines once they use up existing stocks,which entails millions of doses. And, incredibly, the governmentallows them to do it. Even more incredibly, the American Academy ofPediatrics and the American Academy of Family Practice similarlyendorse this insane policy. In fact, they specifically state thatchildren should continue to receive the thimerosal-containing vaccinesuntil new thimerosal-free vaccine can be manufactured at the will ofthe manufacturers. Are they afraid that there will be a suddendiphtheria epidemic in America or tetanus epidemic?

 

The most obvious solution was to use only single-dose vials, whichrequires no preservative. So, why don't they use them? Oh, theyexclaim, it would add to the cost of the vaccine. Of course, we areonly talking about a few dollars per vaccine at most, certainly worththe health of your child's brain and future. They could use some ofthe hundreds of millions of dollars they waste on vaccine promotionevery year to cover these cost for the poor. Then, that would cut intosome 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 tolearn that the greatest problem with the meeting is that, they knowvirtually nothing about what they are doing. On page 15, for example,they admit that there is very little pharmacokinetic data onethylmercury, the form of mercury in thimerosal. In fact they saythere is no data on excretion, the data on toxicity is sparse, yet itis recognized to cause hypersensitivity, it can cause neurologicalproblems and even death, and it is known to easily pass theblood-brain barrier and the placental barrier.

 

Therefore, what they are admitting is that we have a form of mercurythat has been used in vaccines since the 1930s and no one has botheredto study the effects on biological systems, especially the brain ofinfants. Their defense throughout this conference is "we just don'tknow the effects of ethylmercury." As a solution, they resort tostudies on methylmercury, because there are thousands of studies onthis form of mercury. The major source of this form is seafoodconsumption.

 

It takes them awhile to get the two forms of mercury straight, sincefor several pages of the report they say methylmercury is inthimerosal rather than ethylmercury. They can be forgiven for this. Onpage 16, Dr. Johnson, an immunologist and pediatrician at theUniversity of Colorado School of Medicine and the National JewishCenter for Immunology and Respiratory Medicine, notes that he wouldlike to see the incorporation of wide margins of safety, that is 3 to10-fold margins of safety to "account for data uncertainties." What hemeans is that there are so many things we do not know about this toxinthat we had better use very wide margins of safety. For mostsubstances the FDA uses a 100-fold margin of safety.

 

The reason for this, which they do not mention, is that in a societyof hundreds of millions of people there are groups of people who aremuch more sensitive to the toxin than others. For instance, theelderly, the chronically ill, the nutritionally deficient, smallbabies, premature babies, those on certain medications and inborndefects in detoxification, just to name a few. In fact, in this studythey excluded premature babies and low birth weight babies from themain study, some of which had the highest mercury levels, because theywould be hard to study and because they had the most developmentalproblems related to the mercury.

 

On page 16 as well Dr. Johnson make an incredible statement, one thatdefines the problem we have in this country with the promoters ofthese vaccines. He states, "As an aside, we found a culturaldifference between vaccinologist and environmental health people inthat many of us in the vaccine arena have never thought aboutuncertainty factors before. We tend to be relatively concrete in ourthinking." Then he says, "One of the big cultural events in thatmeeting ---was when Dr. Clarkson repetitively pointed out to us thatwe just didn't get it about uncertainty, and he was actually quiteright." This is an incredible admission. First, what is avaccinologist? Do you go to school to learn to be one? How many yearsof residency training are required to be a vaccinologist? Are thereboard exams? It's a stupid term used to describe people who areobsessed with vaccines, not that they actually study the effects ofthe vaccines, as we shall see throughout this meeting. Most importantis the admission by Dr. Johnson that he and his fellow "vaccinologist"are so blinded by their obsession with forcing vaccines on societythat they never even considered that there might be factors involvedthat could greatly affect human health, the so-called "uncertainties."Further, that he and his fellow "vaccinologist" like to think inconcrete terms-that is, they are very narrow in their thinking andwear blinders that prevent them from seeing the numerous problemsoccurring with large numbers of vaccination in infants and children.Their goal in life is to vaccinate as many people as possible with anever-growing number of vaccines.

 

On page 17 his "concrete thinking" once again takes over. He refers tothe Bethesda meeting on Thimerosal safety issues and says, "there wasno evidence of a problem, only a theoretical concern that younginfants' 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 thatwhile there was no evidence of a problem the increasing number ofvaccine injections given to infants was increasing the theoreticalmercury exposure risk."

 

It's hard to conceive of a true scientist not seeing the incredibleirony of these statements. The medical literature is abound withstudies on the deleterious effects of mercury on numerous enzymes,mitochondrial energy production, synaptic function, dendriticretraction, neurotubule dissolution and excitotoxicity, yet, he seesonly a "theoretical risk" associated with an ever increasing additionof thimerosal-containing vaccines. It is also important to note thatthese geniuses never even saw a problem in the first place, it waspressure from outside scientists, parents of affected children andgroups representing them that pointed out the problem. They were, inessence, 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 moremercury-containing vaccines to the list of required vaccines. Onlywhen the problem became so obvious, that is of epidemic proportion(close to that now) and the legal profession became involved wouldthey have even noticed there was a problem. This is a recurring themein 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 greatestrisk was among low birth weight infants and premature infants. Now whywould that be if there existed such a large margin of safety withmercury used in vaccines? Could just a few pounds of body weight makesuch a dramatic difference? In fact, it does but it also means thatnormal birth weight children, especially those near the low range ofnormal birth weight, are also in greater danger. It also would meanthat children receiving doses of mercury higher than the 72 ug in thisstudy would be at high risk as well because their dose, based on bodyweight, would be comparable to that of the low birth weight childreceiving 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 poorwho in any way think that these "vaccinologists" experts have theirbest interest in mind. Dr. Johnson says on page 17, "We agree that itwould be desirable to remove mercury from U.S. licensed vaccines, butwe did not agree that this was a universal recommendation that wewould make because of the issue concerning preservatives fordelivering vaccines to other countries, particularly developingcountries, in the absence of hard data that implied that there was infact a problem."

 

So, here you have it. The data is convincing enough that the AmericanAcademy of Pediatrics and the American Academy of Family Practice, aswell as the regulatory agencies and the CDC along with theseorganization all recommend its removal as quickly as possible becauseof concerns of adverse effects of mercury on brain development, butnot for the children in the developing countries. I thought the wholeidea of child health programs in the United States directed toward thedeveloping world was to give poor children a better chance in anincreasingly competitive world. This policy being advocated wouldincrease the neurodevelopmental problems seen in poor children (alsoin this country) of developing countries, impairing their ability tolearn and develop competitive minds. Remember, there was arepresentative of the World Health Organization (WHO), Dr. JohnClements, serving on this panel of "experts". He never challenged thisstatement made by Dr. Johnson.

 

It also needs to be appreciated that children in developing countriesare at a much greater risk of complications from vaccinations and frommercury toxicity than children in developed countries. This is becauseof poor nutrition, concomitant parasitic and bacterial infections anda high incidence of low birth weight in these children. We are nowwitnessing a disaster in African countries caused by the use of olderlive virus polio vaccines that has now produced an epidemic of vaccinerelated polio, that is, polio caused by the vaccine itself. In, fact,in some African countries, polio was not seen until the vaccine wasintroduced.

 

The WHO and the "vaccinologist experts" from this country now justifya continued polio vaccination program with this dangerous vaccine onthe basis that now that they have created the epidemic of polio, theycannot stop the program. In a recent article it was pointed out thatthis is the most deranged reasoning, since more vaccines will meanmore vaccine-related cases of polio. But then, "vaccinologist" havedifficulty with these "uncertainties". (Jacob JT. A developing countryperspective on vaccine-associated paralytic poliomyelitis. BulletinWHO 2004; 82: 53-58. See commentary by D.M. Salisbury at the end ofthe article.)

 

Then he again emphasizes the philosophy that the health of children issecondary to "the program" when he says, "We saw some compelling datathat delaying the birth dose of HepB vaccine would lead to significantdisease burden as a consequence of missed opportunity to immunize."This implies that our children would be endangered from the risk ofhepatitis B should the vaccine program stop vaccinating newborns withthe HepB vaccine.

 

In fact, this statement is not based on any risk to U.S. children atall and he makes that plain when he states, "that the potential impacton countries that have 10% to 15% newborn hepatitis B exposure riskwas very distressing to consider." (page 18) In other words the riskis not to normal U.S. children but to children in developingcountries. In fact, hepatitis B is not a risk until the teenage yearsand after in this country. The only at-risk group among children iswith children born to drug using parents; mothers infected withhepatitis B or HIV infected parents. The reason for vaccinating thenewborns is to capture them before they can escape the"vaccinologist's" vaccine program.

 

This is a tactic often used to scare mothers into having theirchildren vaccinated. For example, they say that if children are notvaccinated against measles millions of children could die during ameasles epidemic. They know this is nonsense. What they are using isexamples taken from developing countries with poor nutrition and poorimmune function in which such epidemic death can occur. In the UnitedStates we would not see this because of better nutrition, betterhealth facilities and better sanitation. In fact, most deaths seenwhen measles outbreaks occur in the United States occur either inchildren in which vaccination was contraindicated, the vaccine did notwork or in children with chronic, immune-suppressing diseases.

 

In fact, in most studies these children catching the measles or otherchildhood diseases have been either fully immunized or partiallyimmunized. The big secret among "vaccinologists" is that anywhere from20 to 50% of children are not resistant to the diseases for which theyhave been immunized.

 

Also on page 18, Dr. Johnson tells the committee that it was Dr. WaltOrenstein who "asked the most provocative question which introduced agreat deal of discussion. That was, should we try to seekneurodevelopmental outcomes fro children exposed to varying doses ofmercury by utilizing the Vaccine Safety Datalink data from one or moresites." (page 18)

 

I take from this no one had ever even thought of looking at the datathat had just been sitting there all these years un-reviewed. Childrencould have been dropping like flies or suffering from terribleneurodevelopmental defects caused by the vaccine program and no one inthe government would have known. In fact, that is exactly what thedata suggested was happening, at least as regards neurodevelopmentaldelays.

 

We should also appreciate that the government sponsored twoconferences on the possible role of metals, aluminum and mercury,being use in vaccines without any change in vaccine policy occurringafter the meetings. These meetings were held a year before thismeeting and before any examination of the data which was being heldtightly by the CDC, (which was denied to other independent, highlyqualified researchers). I will talk more about what was discussed inthe aluminum conference later. It is very important and is onlybriefly referred to in this conference for a very good reason. If thepublic knew what was discussed at the aluminum meeting no one wouldever get a vaccination using the presently manufactured types ofvaccines again.

 

Despite what was discussed in the aluminum meeting and the scientificliterature on the neurotoxicity of aluminum, Dr. Johnson makes thefollowing 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, hestates, "However, we also learned that there is absolutely no data,including animal data, about the potential for synergy, additively orantagonism, all of which can occur in binary metal mixtures..."

 

It is important her to appreciate a frequently used deception by thosewho are trying to defend an indefensible practice. They use the verysame 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 beenlooked at and studied thoroughly and no toxicity was found. In truth,it means that no one has looked at this possibility and there havebeen 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 itshares many common mechanisms with mercury as a neurotoxin. Forexample, they are both toxic to neuronal neurotubules, interfere withantioxidant enzymes, poison DNA repair enzymes, interfere withmitochondrial energy production, block the glutamate reuptake proteins(GLT-1 and GLAST), bind to DNA, and interfere with neuronal membranefunction. Toxins that share toxic mechanisms are almost alwaysadditive 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 metalsplay a significant role in all of the neurodegenerative disorders. Itis also important to remember, both of these metals accumulate in thebrain and spinal cord. This makes them accumulative toxins andtherefore much more dangerous than rapidly excreted toxins.

 

To jump ahead, on page 23 Dr, Tom Sinks, Associate Director forScience at the National Center for Environmental Health at the CDC andthe Acting Division Director for Division of Birth Defects,Developmental Disabilities and Health, ask, "I wonder is there aparticular health outcome that is related to aluminum salts that mayhave anything that we are looking at today?" Dr. Martin Meyers, ActingDirector of the National Vaccine Program Office, answers, "No, I don'tbelieve there are any particular health concerns that was raised."This is after an aluminum conference held the previous year that didindeed find significant health concerns and an extensive scientificliterature showing aluminum to be of great concern.

 

On page 24 Dr. William Weil, a pediatrician representing the Committeeon Environmental Health of the American Academy of Pediatrics, bringssome sense to the discussion by reminding them that, "there are just ahost of neurodevelopmental data that would suggest that we've got aserious problem. The earlier we go, the more serious the problem."Here he means that the further back you go during the child's braindevelopment, the more likely the damage to the infant. I must give himcredit; at least he briefly recognized that a significant amount ofbrain development does take place later. He also reminds his colloguesthat aluminum produced severe dementia and death in dialysis cases. Heconcludes by saying, "To think there isn't some possible problem hereis unreal." (page 25)

 

Not to let it end there, Dr. Meyers adds, "We held the aluminummeeting in conjunction with the metal ions in biology and medicinemeeting, we were quick to point out that in the absence of data wedidn't know about additive or inhibitory activities." Once again wesee the "no data" ploy. There is abundant data on the deleteriouseffects of aluminum on the brain, a significant portion of which cameout in that very meeting.

 

Dr. Johnson also quotes Dr. Thomas Clarkson, who identifies himself asassociated with the mercury program at the University of Rochester, assaying that delaying the HepB vaccine for 6 months or so would notaffect the mercury burden. (page 20). He makes the correct conclusionwhen he says, "I would have thought that the difference was in thetiming. That is you are protecting the first six months of thedeveloping central nervous system."

 

Hallelujah, for a brief moment I thought that they had stumbled on oneof the most basic concepts in neurotoxicology. Then Dr. Meyers dashedmy hopes by saying that single, separated doses would not affect bloodlevels at all. At this juncture, we need a little enlightenment. It isimportant to appreciate that mercury is a fat soluble metal. That is,it is stored in the body's fat. The brain contains 60% fat andtherefore is a common site for mercury storage. Now, they establish inthis discussion that about half of methylmercury is excreted overseveral months when ingested. A recent study found that ethylmercuryhas 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 thesevaccines, another increment is added to the brain storage depot. Thisis why we call mercury an accumulative poison. They never once, notonce, mention this vital fact throughout the entire conference. Notonce. Moreover, they do so for a good reason, it gives the unwary,those not trained in neuroscience, assurance that all that mattershere is blood levels.

 

In fact, on page 163, Dr. Robert Brent, A developmental biologist andpediatrician at the Thomas Jefferson University and Dupont Hospitalfor Children, says that we don't have data showing accumulation and"that with the multiple exposures you get an increasing level, and wedon't know whether that is true or not." He redeems himself somewhatby pointing out that some of the damage is irreversible and with eachdose more irreversible damage occurs and in that way it is accumulative.

 

On page 21 Dr. Thomas Clarkson makes the incredible statement implyingthat he knows of no studies that shows exposure to mercury after birthor at six months would have deleterious effects. Dr. Isabelle Rapin, aneurologist 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 aboutthe effects of mercury on the infant. My question is-Why is she here?Dr. Rapin is a neurologist for children at Albert Einstein College ofMedicine who stated that she has a keen interest in developmentaldisorders, in particular those involving language and autism, yet sheknows little about the effects on mercury on the infant brain.

 

This conference is concerned with the effects of mercury in the formof thimerosal on infant brain development, yet throughout thisconference our experts, especially the "vaccinologists" seem to knowlittle about mercury except limited literature that shows no toxiceffects except at very high levels. None of the well known expertswere invited, such as Dr. Ascher from Bowman Grey School of Medicineor Dr. Haley Boyd, who has done extensive work on the toxic effects oflow concentrations on the CNS. They were not invited because theywould be harmful to the true objective of this meeting, and that wasto exonerate mercury in vaccines.

 

Several times throughout this conference, Dr. Brent reminds everyonethat the most sensitive period for the developing brain is during theearly stages of pregnancy. In fact, he pinpoints the 8th to 18th weekas the period of neuromaturation. In fact, the most rapid period ofbrain maturation, synaptic development and brain pathway developmentis during the last three months of pregnancy continuing until twoyears after birth. This is often referred to as the "brain growthspurt." This is also not mentioned once in this conference, againbecause if mothers knew that their child's brain was busy developingfor up to two years after birth they would be less likely to acceptthis safety of mercury nonsense these "vaccinologists" proclaim.

 

The brain develops over 100 trillion synaptic connections and tens oftrillions of dendritic connections during this highly sensitiveperiod. Both dendrites and synapses are very sensitive, even to verylow doses of mercury and other toxins. It has also been shown thatsubtoxic doses of mercury can block the glutamate transport proteinsthat play such a vital role in protecting the brain againstexcitotoxicity. Compelling studies indicate that damage to thisprotective system plays a major role in most of the neurodegenerativediseases and abnormal brain development as well.

 

Recent studies have shown that glutamate accumulates in the brains ofautistic children, yet these experts seem to be unconcerned about asubstance (mercury) that is very powerful in triggering brainexcitotoxicity.

 

It is also interesting to see how many times Dr. Brent emphasizes thatwe do not know the threshold for mercury toxicity for the developingbrain. Again, that is not true-we do know and the Journal ofNeurotoxicology states that anything above 10ug is neurotoxic. The WHOin fact states that there is no safe level of mercury.

 

On page 164 Dr. Robert Davis, Associate Professor of Pediatrics andEpidemiology at the University of Washington, makes a very importantobservation. He points out that in a population like the United Statesyou have individuals with varying levels of mercury from other causes(diet, living near coal burning facilities, etc.) and by vaccinatingeveryone you raise those with the highest levels even higher and bringthose with median levels into a category of higher levels. The"vaccinologists" with their problem of "concrete thinking" cannot seemto appreciate the fact that not everyone is the same. That is, theyfail to see these "uncertainties".

 

To further emphasize this point lets take a farming family who liveswithin three miles of a coal-burning electrical plant. Since they alsolive near the ocean they eat seafood daily. The fertilizers,pesticides and herbicides used on the crops contain appreciable levelsof mercury. The coal-burning electrical plant emits high levels ofmercury in the air they breathe daily and the seafood they consume haslevels of mercury higher than EPA safety standards. This means thatany babies born to these people will have very high mercury levels.

 

Once born, they are given numerous vaccines containing even moremercury, thereby adding significantly to their already high mercuryburden. Are these "vaccinologists" trying to convince us that thesechildren don't matter and that they are to be sacrificed at the alterof the "vaccine policy"?

 

Recent studies by neurotoxicologists have observed that as our abilityto detect subtle toxic effects improves, especially on behavior andother neurological functions, we lower the level of acceptableexposure. In fact, Dr, Sinks brings up that exact point, using lead asan example. He notes that as our neurobehavioral testing improved, welowered the acceptable dose considerably and continues to do so. Dr.Johnson had the audacity to add, " The smarter we get, the lower thethreshold." Yet, neither he, nor the other participants seem to begetting any smarter concerning this issue.

 

Dr. Robert Chen, Chief of Vaccine Safety and Development at theNational Immunization Program at the CDC, then reveals why they refuseto act on this issue, he says, "the issue is that it is impossible,unethical to leave kids unimmunized, so you will never, ever resolvethat issue. So then we have to refer back from that." (page 169) Inessence, immunization of the kids takes precedence over safetyconcerns with the vaccines themselves. If the problem of vaccinetoxicity cannot be solved, he seems to be saying, then we must acceptthat some kids will be harmed by the vaccines.

 

Dr. Brent makes the statement that he knows of no known geneticsusceptibility data on mercury and therefore assumes there is a fixedthreshold of toxicity. That is, that everyone is susceptible to thesame dose of mercury and there are no genetically hypersensitiv of people. In fact, a recent study found just such a geneticsusceptibility in mice. In this study they found that mice susceptibleto autoimmunity developed neurotoxic effects to their hippocampus,including excitotoxicity, not seen in other strains of mice. They evenhypothesize that the same may be true in humans, since familialautoimmunity increases the likelihood of autism in offspring. (HornigM, Chian D, Lipkin WI. Neurotoxic effects of postnatal thimerosal aremouse strain dependent. Mol Psychiatry 2004; (in press).

 

For the next quotation you need a little discussion to be able toappreciate the meaning. They are discussing the fact that in Dr.Verstraeten study frightening correlations were found between thehigher doses of thimerosal and problems with neurodevelopment,including ADD and autism. The problem with the study was that therewere so few children who had received no thimerosal-containingvaccines that a true control group could not be used. Instead they hadto use children getting 12.5ug of mercury as the control and some evenwanted to use the control dose as 37.5ug. So the controls had mercurylevels that could indeed cause neurodevelopmental problems. Even withthis basic flaw, a strong positive correlation was found between thedose of mercury given and these neurodevelopmental problems.

 

It was proposed that they compare a group of children receivingnon-thimerosal vaccines to those who had. In fact, we later lean thatthey had a large group of children who could have been used as athimerosal-free control. It seems that for two years before thisconference the Bethesda Naval Hospital had been using onlythimerosal-free vaccines to immunize the children. They knew this andI would assume someone would have told Dr. Verstraeten of thisimportant fact before he did his study.

 

So, now to the quote. Dr. Braun responds to the idea of starting a newstudy using such thimerosal-free controls by saying, "Sure we willhave the answer in five years. The question is what can we do now withthe data we have?" (page 170). Well, we have the answer to that, theysimply covered this study up, declare that thimerosal is of no concernand continue the unaltered policy. That is, they can suggest thepharmaceutical manufacturers of vaccines remove the thimerosal but notmaking it mandatory or examining the vaccine to make sure they haveremoved it.

 

Lets us take a small peak at just how much we can trust thepharmaceutical manufacturers to do the right thing. Several reports ofmajor violations of vaccine manufacturing policy have been cited bythe regulatory agencies have surfaced. This includes obtaining plasmadonations without taking adequate histories on donors as to diseaseexposures and previous health problems, poor record keeping on thesedonors, improper procedures and improper handing of specimens.

 

That these are not minor violations is emphasized by the discoverythat a woman with variant Mad Cow Disease was allowed to given plasmato be used in vaccines in England. In fact, it was learned only afterthe contaminated plasma was pooled and used to make millions of dosesof vaccines that her disease was discovered. British health officialstold the millions of vaccinated not to worry, since we have no idea ifit 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 tonote 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 causalconnection between the use of thimerosal-containing vaccines andneurodevelopmental delays? Second, do you think further study iscalled for based on this study?

 

First, let us see some of the comments on the question of doingfurther studies. Dr. Paul Stehr-Green, Associate Professor ofEpidemiology at the University of Washington School of Public Healthand Community Medicine, who voted yes, gave as his reason, "Theimplications are so profound these should be examined further." (page180) Meanwhile, Dr. Brent interjects his concern that the lawyers willget hold of this information and begin filing lawsuits. He says, "Theywant business and this could potentially be a lot of business." (Page 191)

 

Dr. Loren Koller, Pathologist and Immunotoxicologist at the College ofVeterinary Medicine, Oregon State University, is to be congratulatedin that he recognized that more is involved in the vaccine effectsthan just ethylmercury. (page 192). He mentions aluminum and even theviral agents beings used as other possibilities. This is especiallyimportant in the face of Dr. RK Gherardi's identification ofmacrophagic myofascitis, a condition causing profound weakness andmultiple neurological syndromes, one of which closely resembledmultiple sclerosis. Both human studies and animal studies have shown astrong causal relationship to the aluminum hydroxide or aluminumphosphate used as a vaccine adjuvants. More than 200 cases have beenidentified in European countries and the United States and has beendescribed as an "emerging condition".

 

Here are some of the neurological problems seen with the use ofaluminum hydroxide and aluminum phosphate in vaccines. In two childrenaged 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 lossof autonomic nervous system function (diffuse dysautonomia). The3-year old had developmental delay and hypotonia (loss of muscletone). A biopsy of the children's vaccine injection site disclosedelevated aluminum levels.

 

In a study of some 92 patients suffering from this emerging syndrome,eight developed a full-blown demyelinating CNS disorder (multiplesclerosis). [Authier FJ, Cherin P, et al. Central nervous systemdisease 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 andcoordination) and cognitive (thinking) and behavioral disorders.

 

Dr. Gherardi, the French physician who first described the conditionin 1998, has collected over 200 proven cases, One third of thesedevelop an autoimmune disease, such as multiple sclerosis. Of criticalimportance is his finding that even in the absence of obviousautoimmune disease there is evidence of chronic immune stimulationcaused by the injected aluminum, known to be a very powerful immuneadjuvant.

 

The reason this is so important is that there is overwhelming evidencethat chronic immune activation in the brain (activation of microglialcells in the brain) is a major cause of damage in numerousdegenerative brain disorders, from multiple sclerosis to the classicneurodegenerative diseases (Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's and ALS).In fact, I have presented evidence that chronic immune activation ofCNS microglia is a major cause of autism, attention deficit disorderand Gulf War Syndrome.

 

Dr. Gherardi emphasizes that once the aluminum is injected into themuscle, the immune activation persists for years. In addition, we mustconsider the effect of the aluminum that travels to the brain itself.Numerous studies have shown harmful effects when aluminum accumulatesin the brain. A growing amount of evidence points to high brainaluminum levels as a major contributor to Alzheimer's disease andpossibly Parkinson's disease and ALS (Lou Geherig's disease). This mayalso explain the 10X increase in Alzheimer's disease in thosereceiving the flu vaccine 5 years in a row. (Dr. Hugh Fudenberg, inpress, Journal of Clinical Investigation). It is also interesting tonote that a recent study found that aluminum phosphate produced 3X theblood level of aluminum, as did aluminum hydroxide. (Flarend RE, hemSL, et al. In vivo absorption of aluminum-containing vaccine adjuvantsusing 26 Al. Vaccine 1997; 15: 1314-1318.)

 

Of course, in this conference, our illustrious experts tell us thatthere is "no data showing an additive or synergistic effect betweenmercury and aluminum."

 

Dr. Rapin expressed her concern over public opinion when thisinformation eventually gets out. She says (page 197), they are goingto be captured by the public and we had better make sure that a) "Wecouncil them carefully and b) that we pursue this because of the veryimportant public health and public implications of the data." Dr.Johnson adds. "the stakes are very high...". From this how can oneconclude anything than the fact that at least these scientists wereextremely concerned by what was discovered by this study examining thevaccine safety datalink material? They were obviously terrified thatthe information would leak out to the public. Stamped in bold lettersat the top of each page of the study was the words-"DO NOT COPY ORRELEASE" and "CONFIDENTIAL."

 

This is not the wording one would expect on a clinical study ofvaccine safety; rather you would expect it on top-secret NSA or CIAfiles. Why was this information being secreted? The answer isobvious-it might endanger the vaccine program and indict the federalregulatory agencies for ignoring this danger for so many years. Oursociety is littered with millions of children who have been harmed inone degree or another by this vaccine policy. In addition, let us notforget the millions of parents who have had to watch helplessly astheir children have been destroyed by this devastating vaccine program.

 

Dr. Bernier on page 198 says, "the negative findings need to be pinneddown and published." Why was he so insistent that the "negativefindings" be published? Because he said, "other less responsibleparties will treat this as a signal." By that he means, a signal of aproblem with thimerosal-containing vaccines. From this, I assume hewants a paper that says only that nothing was found by the study. Aswe shall see, he gets his wish.

 

In addition, on page 198, Dr. Rapin notes that a study in Californiafound a 300X increase in autism following the introduction of certainvaccines. She quickly attributes this to better physician recognition.Two things are critical to note at this point. She makes thisassertion or better physician recognition without any data at all,just her wishful thinking. If someone pointing out the dangers ofvaccines 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 statisticallysignificant. You can play with this all you want. They are linear.They are statistically significant." In other words, how can you arguewith results that show a strong dose/response relationship between thedose of mercury and neurodevelopmental outcomes? The higher themercury levels in the children the greater the number of neurologicalproblems.

 

He continues by saying that the increase in neurobehavioral problemsis probably real. He tells them that he works in a school system withspecial education programs and "I have to say the number of kidsgetting help in special education is growing nationally and state bystate at a rate not seen before. So there is some kind of increase. Wecan argue about what it is due to." (page 207)

 

Dr. Johnson seems to be impressed by the findings as well. He says onpage 199, "This association leads me to favor a recommendation thatinfants up to two years old not be immunized with thimerosalcontaining vaccines if suitable alternative preparations areavailable." In credibly, he quickly adds "I do not believe thediagnosis justified compensation in the Vaccine Compensation Programat this point." It is interesting to note that one of our experts inattendance is Dr. Vito Caserta, the Chief Officer for the VaccineInjury Compensation Program.

 

At this point Dr. Johnson tells the group of his concerns for his owngrandchild. He says, (page 200) "Forgive this personal comment, but Igot called out at eight o'clock for an emergency call and mydaughter-in-law delivered a son by c-section. Our first male in theline of the next generation and I do not want that grandson to get aThimerosal containing vaccine until we know better what is going on.It will probably take a long time. In the meantime, and I know thereare probably implications for this internationally, but in themeanwhile I think I want that grandson to only be givenThimerosal-free vaccines."

 

So, we have a scientist sitting on this panel which will eventuallymake policy concerning all of the children in this country, as well asother countries, who is terrified about his new grandson getting athimerosal-containing vaccine but he is not concerned enough aboutyour child to speak out and try to stop this insanity. He allows acover-up to take place after this meeting adjourns and remains silent.

 

It is also interesting to note that he feels the answers will be along time coming, but in the mean time, his grandson will beprotected. The American Academy of Pediatrics, The American Academy ofFamily Practice, the AMA, CDC and every other organization willendorse 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 thatmost of the objections concerning the positive relationship betweenthimerosal-containing vaccines and ADD and ADHA were bogus. Forexample, Dr. Rapin on page 200 notes that all children in the studywere below age 6 and that ADD and ADHD are very difficult to diagnosein pre-schoolers. She also notes that some children were followed foronly a short period.

 

Dr. Stein adds that in fact the average age for diagnosis of ADHD was4 years and 1 month. A very difficult diagnosis to make and that theguidelines published by the American Academy of Pediatrics limitsdiagnosis to 6 to 12 year olds. Of course, he was implying that toomany were diagnosed as ADHD. Yet, a recent study found that the famousDenmark study that led to the announcement by the Institute ofMedicine that there was no relationship between autism and the MMRvaccine, used the same tactic. They cut off the age of follow-up atage six.

 

It is known that many cases appear after this age group, especiallywith ADD and ADHD. In fact, most learning problems appear as the childis called on to handle more involved intellectual material. Therefore,the chances are they failed to diagnose a number of cases by stoppingthe study too early.

 

Several of the participants tried to imply that autism was a geneticdisorder and therefore could have nothing to do with vaccines. Dr.Weil put that to rest with this comment, "We don't see that kind ofgenetic change in 30 years." In other words, how can we suddenly see a300% increase in a genetically related disorder over such a shortperiod? It is also known that there are two forms of autism, one thatis apparent at birth and one that develops later in childhood. Theformer has not changed in incidence since statistics have been kept;the other is epidemic.

 

In one interesting exchange, which ends up being their justificationfor the view that mercury is of no danger in children vaccinated withvaccines containing thimerosal, involves two studies in children bornto mothers consuming high intakes of mercury contaminated fish. Onestudy reported in the journal Neurotoxicology, examined childrenliving in the Republic of Seychelles. In this study, they examined theeffect of prenatal exposure to mercury through the mother'sconsumption of fish high in methylmercury.

 

A battery of developmental milestone tests were done and no adverseeffects were reported in the study reported by Dr. Clarkson andco-workers, the very same person in this conference. He never mentionsthat a follow-up study of these same children did find a positivecorrelation between methylmercury exposure and poor performance on amemory test. In a subsequent study of children living on the FaroeIslands exposed to methylmercury, researchers did find impairments ofneurodevelopment. This experiment was done by scientist from Japan.

 

Throughout the remainder of this discussion, Dr. Clarkson and othersrefer to these two studies. When they are reminded that the Faroestudy did find neurological injury to the children, they counter bysaying that this was prenatal exposure to mercury and not after birthas would be seen with vaccination. The idea being that prenatally thebrain is undergoing neural formation and development making it morevulnerable. As I have mentioned this rapid brain growth anddevelopment continues for two years after birth and even at age 6years the brain is only 80% formed.

 

Dr. Clarkson keeps referring to the Seychelles study, whichdemonstrated that the children reached normal neurodevelopmentalmilestones as shown by a number of tests. Dr Weil points out on page216 that this tells us little about these children's future brainfunction. He says, "I have taken a lot of histories of kids who are introuble in school. The history is that developmental milestones werenormal or advanced and they can't read at second grade, they can'twrite at third grade, they can't do math in the fourth grade and ithas no relationship as far as I can tell to the history we get of thedevelopmental milestones. So I think this is a very crude measure ofneurodevelopment."

 

In other words, both of these studies tell us nothing about the actualdevelopment of these children's brain function except that theyreached the most basic of milestones. To put this another way, yourchild may be able to stack blocks, recognize shapes and have basiclanguage skills but later in life they could be significantly impairedwhen it came to higher math, more advanced language skills(comprehension) and ability to compete in a very competitiveintellectual environment, like college or advanced schooling. Theirfuture would be limited to the more mundane and intellectually limitedjobs.

 

Post-natal brain development, that is from birth to age six or seven,involves the fine tuning of synaptic connections, dendriticdevelopment and pathway refinement, all of which prepare the brain formore complex thinking. These brain elements are very sensitive totoxins and excessive immune stimulation during this period. This isnever mentioned in this conference.

 

In addition, it must be remembered that the children in these twostudies were exposed only to methylmercury and not the combinedneurotoxic effect of mercury, aluminum and excessive and chronicactivation of the brain's immune system (microgia). This is what makesit so incredible, that several of these "vaccinologists" and so-calledexperts would express doubt about the "biological plausibility" ofthimerosal or any vaccine component causing neurodevelopmentalproblems. The medical literature is exploding with such studies. Thebiological plausibility is very powerful.

 

Mercury, for example, even in low concentrations, is known to impairenergy production by mitochondrial enzymes. The brain has one of thehighest metabolic rates of any organ and impairment of its energysupply, especially during development, can have devastatingconsequences. In addition, mercury, even o\in lower concentrations, isknown to damage DNA and impair DNA repair enzymes, which again, playsa vital role in brain development. Mercury is known to impairneurotubule stability, even in very low concentrations. Neurotubulesare absolutely essential to normal brain cell function. Mercuryactivates microglial cells, which increases excitotoxicity and brainfree radical production as well as lipid peroxidation, centralmechanisms in brain injury. In addition, even in doses below thatwhich can cause obvious cell injury, mercury impairs the glutamatetransport system, which in turn triggers excitotoxicity, a centralmechanism in autism and other neurological disorders. Ironically,aluminum also paralyzes this system.

 

On page 228, we see another admission that the government has had nointerest in demonstrating the safety of thimerosal-containing vaccinesdespite over 2000 articles showing harmful effects of mercury. Here wesee a reference to the fact that the FDA "has a wonderful facility inArkansas with hundreds of thousands of animals" available for anystudy needed to supply these answers on safety. The big question to beasked is -So, why has the government ignored the need for research toanswer these questions concerning thimerosal safety. You will recallin the beginning the participants of this conference complained thatthere were just so few studies or no studies concerning this "problem."

 

Again, on page 229 Dr, Brent rails about the lawsuit problem. He tellsthe others that he has been involved in three lawsuits related tovaccine injuries leading to birth defects and concluded "If you wantto see junk science, look at those cases...". He then complains aboutthe type of scientists testifying in these cases. He adds, "But thefact is those scientist are out there in the United States." Inessence, he labels anyone who opposes the "official policy" onvaccines 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 ofproblems he adds, "The medical/legal findings in this study, causal ornot, are horrendous...If an allegation was made that a child'sneurobehavioral findings were caused by thimerosal-containingvaccines, you could readily fins a junk scientist who will support theclaim with a reasonable degree of certainty." On page 229 he thenadmits that they are in a bad position because they have no data fortheir 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 theones who omit recognized experts on the problem in question during aconference because it might endanger the "program"? Or are they theones who make statements that they don't want their grandson to getthimerosal-containing vaccines until the problem is worked out, butthen tell millions of parents that the vaccines are perfectly safe fortheir children and grandchildren?

 

Dr. Meyers on page 231 put it this way, "My own concern, and a coupleof you said it, there is an association between vaccines and outcomesthat worries both parents and pediatricians." He sites other possibleconnections to vaccine-related neurobehavioral and neurodevelopmentalproblems including the number of vaccines being given, the types ofantigens being used and other vaccine additives.

 

Dr. Caserta tells the group that he attended the aluminum conferencethe previous years and learned that often metals could act differentlyin biological systems than as an ion. This is interesting in the faceof the finding that fluoride when combined to aluminum forms acompound that can destroy numerous hippocampal neurons at aconcentration of 0.5 ppm in drinking water. It seems that aluminumreadily combines with fluoride to form this toxic compound. With over60% of communities having fluoridated drinking water this becomes amajor concern.

 

It has also been learned that fluroaluminum compounds mimic thephosphate compound and can activate G-proteins. G-proteins play amajor role in numerous biological systems, including endocrine,neurotransmitters, and as cellular second messengers. Some of theglutamate receptors are operated by a G-protein mechanism.

 

Over the next ten to fifteen pages, they discuss how to control thisinformation so that it will not get out and if it does how to controlthe damage. On page 248 Dr. Clements has this to say:

 

"But there is now the point at which the research results have to behandled, and even if this committee decides that there is noassociation and that information gets out, the work has been done andthrough the freedom of information that will be taken by others andwill be used in other ways beyond the control of this group. And I amvery concerned about that as I suspect that it is already too late todo anything regardless of any professional body and what they say."

 

In other words, he wants this information kept not only from thepublic but also from other scientists and pediatricians until they canbe properly counseled. In the next statement he spills the beans as towhy he is determined that no outsider get hold of this damaginginformation. He says,

 

"My mandate as I sit here in this group is to make sure at the end ofthe day that 100,000,000 are immunized with DTP, Hepatitis B and ifpossible Hib, this year, next year and for many years to come, andthat will have to be with thimerosal containing vaccines unless amiracle occurs and an alternative is found quickly and is tried andfound to be safe."

 

This is one of the most shocking statements I have ever heard. Inessence, he is saying, I don't care if the vaccines are found to beharmful and destroying the development of children's brains, thesevaccines will be given now and forever. His only concern by his ownadmission is to protect the vaccine program even if it is not safe.Dr. Brent refers to this as an "eloquent statement."On page 253, we again see that these scientists have a double standardwhen it comes to their children and grandchildren. Dr. Rapin raisesthe point about a loss of an IQ point caused by thimerosal exposure.She says, "Can we measure the IQ that accurately, that this one littlepoint is relevant?" Then she answers her own question by saying, "Evenin my grandchildren, one IQ point I am going to fight about." Yet,they are saying in unison, in essence-TO HELL WITH YOUR CHILDREN- tothe rest of America.

 

It is also interesting that they bring up the history of lead as aneurobehavioral toxin. Dr. Weil noted that the neurotoxicologists andregulatory agencies have lowered the acceptable level from 10 to 5 ug.In fact, some feel that even lower levels are neurotoxic to thedeveloping brain. Before the toxicologists began to look at lead as abrain toxin in children most "experts" assumed it was not toxic evenat very high levels. Again, it shows that "experts" can be wrong andit is the public who pays the price.

 

Dr. Chen on page 256 expresses his concern about this informationreaching the public. He remarks, "We have been privileged so far thatgiven the sensitivity of information, we have been able to manage tokeep it out of, lets say, less responsible hands..." Dr. Bernieragrees and notes, "This information has been held fairly tightly."Later he calls it "embargoed information" and "very highly protectedinformation."

 

That they knew the implications of what they had discovered wasillustrated by Dr. Chen's statement on page 258. He says, "I thinkoverall there was this aura that we were engaged in something asimportant as anything else we have ever done. So I think that this wasanother element to this that made this a special meeting." You mayremember, Dr. Weil emphasized that the data analysis left no doubtthat there was a strong correlation between neurodevelopmentalproblems and exposure to thimerosal-containing vaccines. So if theyunderstood the importance of this finding and this was the mostimportant thing they have ever dealt with-why was this being kept fromthe public? In fact, it gets even worse.

 

Just so you will not doubt my statement that this audience of expertswas not objective, I give you the words of Dr. Walter Orenstein,Director of the National Immunization Program at the CDC, on page 259.He tells the group, "I have seen him (Verstraeten) in audience afteraudience deal with exceedingly skeptical individuals...Exceedinglyskeptical individuals" does that sound like objective scientists whowanted to look at the data with a clear mind or were they scientistswho were convinced before the meeting was held that there was nodanger to children from thimerosal or any other vaccine component?

 

In one of the closing remarks by Dr. Bernier (page 257) says, "theother thing I was struck by was the science," meaning the scienceexpressed by the attendees of the meeting. Then Dr, Orenstein adds, "Iwould also like to thank Roger Bernier who pulled off this meeting inrather short notice..." Here is a meeting that has been called one ofthe most important they have ever dealt with and we learn that it waspulled off on short notice. In addition, we were told that the resultsof this meeting would lead to eventual vaccine policy.

 

He then has the nerve to add:

 

"In a sense this meeting addresses some of the concerns we had lastsummer when we were trying to make policy in the absence of a carefulscientific review. I think this time we have gotten it straight."

 

Well, I hate to be the one to break the news, but he didn't get itstraight. There was little or no science in this meeting; rather itwas composed of a lot of haggling and nit picking over epidemiologicalmethodology and statistical minutia in an effort to discredit the datawithout success. In fact, the so-called mercury experts admitted theyhad to do some quick homework to refresh their memories and learnsomething about the subject.Conclusions

 

This top secret meeting was held to discuss a study done by Dr. ThomasVerstraeten and his co-workers using Vaccine Safety Datalink data as aproject collaboration between the CDC's National Immunization Program(NIP) and four HMOs. The study examined the records of 110,000children. Within the limits of the data, they did a very through studyand found the following:

 

Exposure to thimerosal-containing vaccines at one month was associatedsignificantly with the misery and unhappiness disorder that was doserelated. That is, the higher the child's exposure to thimerosal thehigher the incidence of the disorder. This disorder is characterizedby a baby that cries uncontrollably and is fretful more so than thatsee in normal babies.

 

Found a nearly significant increased risk of ADD with 12.5ug exposureat one month.

 

With exposure at 3 months, they found an increasing risk ofneurodevelopmental disorder with increasing exposure to thimerosal.This was statistically significant. This included speech disorders.

 

It is important to remember that the control group was not childrenwithout thimerosal exposure, but rather those at 12.5ug exposure. Thismeans that there is a significant likelihood that even moreneurodevelopmental problems would have been seen had they used a realcontrol population. No one disagreed that these findings weresignificant and troubling. Yet when the final study was published inthe journal Pediatrics Dr. Verstraeten and co-workers reported noconsistent associations were found between thimerosal-containingvaccine exposure and neurodevelopmental problems. In addition, he listhimself as an employee of the CDC, not disclosing the fact that at thetime the article was accepted, he worked for GlaxoSmithKline, avaccine manufacturing company.So how did they do this bit of prestidigitation? They simply addedanother HMO to the data, the Harvard Pilgrimage. Congressman DaveWeldon noted in his letter to the CDC Director that this HMO had beenin receivership by the state of Massachusetts because its records werein shambles. Yet, this study was able to make the embarrassing datafrom his previous study disappear. Attempts by Congressman Weldon toforce the CDC to release the data to an independent researcher, Dr.Mark Geier, a researcher with impeccable credentials and widelypublished in peer-reviewed journals, have failed repeatedly.

 

It is obvious that a massive cover-up is in progress, as we have seenwith so many other scandals-fluoride, food-based excitotoxins,pesticides, aluminum and now vaccines. I would caution those criticalof the present vaccine policy not to put all their eggs in one basket,that is, with thimerosal as being the main culprit. There is noquestion that it plays a major role, but there are other factors thatare also critical, including aluminum, fluoroaluminum complexes, andchronic immune activation of brain microglia.

 

In fact, excessive, chronic microglial activation can explain many ofthe effects of excessive vaccine exposure as I point out in tworecently published articles. One property of both aluminum and mercuryis microglial activation. With chronic microglial activation largeconcentrations of excitotoxins are released as well as neurotoxiccytokines. These have been shown to destroy synaptic connections,dendrites and cause abnormal pathway development in the developingbrain as well as adult brain.

 

In essence, too many vaccines are being given to children during thebrain's most rapid growth period. Known toxic metals are beings usedin the vaccines that interfere with brain metabolism, antioxidantenzymes, damage DNA and DNA repair enzymes and trigger excitotoxicity.Removing the mercury will help but will not solve the problem becauseoveractivation of the brain's immune system will cause varying degreesof neurological damage to the highly-vulnerable developing brain.

 

References For This Article

 

Lorscheider,FL; Vimy,MJ; Pendergrass,JC; Haley,BE. Mercury vaporexposure inhibits tubulin binding to GTP in rat brain: A molecularlesion also present in human Alzheimer brain FASEB J. 9(4):A-3845. FASEB Annual Meeting, Atlanta, Georgia, 10 March 1995.

 

Grandjean P, Budtz-Jorgensen E, White RF, Jorgensen PJ, Weihe P, DebesF, Keiding N Methylmercury exposure biomarkers as indicators ofneurotoxicity in children aged 7 years. Am J Epidemiol 1999 Aug1;150(3):301-5.

 

Albers JW, Kallenbach LR, Fine LJ, Langolf GD, Wolfe RA, Donofrio PD,Alessi AG, Stolp-Smith KA, Bromberg MB Neurological abnormalitiesassociated with remote occupational elemental mercury exposure. AnnNeurol 1988 Nov;24(5):651-9.

 

Aschner M, Lorscheider FL, Cowan KS, Conklin DR, Vimy MJ, Lash LHMetallothionein induction in fetal rat brain and neonatal primaryastrocyte cultures by in utero exposure to elemental mercury vapor(Hg0). Brain Res 1997 Dec 5;778(1):222-32.

 

Soederstroem S, Fredriksson A, Dencker L & Ebendal T The effect ofmercury vapour on cholinergic neurons in the fetal brain: studies onthe expression of nerve growth factor and its low- and high-affinityreceptors. Developmental Brain Research 85(1):96-108 (1995).

 

Drasch G, Schupp I, Hofl H, Reinke R & Roider G. Mercury burden ofhuman fetal and infant tissues. Eur J Pediatr 153:607-610 (1994).

 

Szucs A, Angiello C, Salanki J, Carpenter DO Effects of inorganicmercury and methylmercury on the ionic currents of cultured rathippocampal neurons. Cell Mol Neurobiol 1997 Jun;17(3):273-88.

 

Low-Level Exposure to Methylmercury Modifies Muscarinic CholinergicReceptor Binding Characteristics in Rat Brain and Lymphocytes:Physiologic Implications and New Opportunities in Biologic MonitoringTeresa Coccini,1 Giovanna Randine,2 Stefano M. Candura,1,3 Rossella E.Nappi,2,3 Leon D. Prockop,4 and Luigi Manzo.

 

Sorg O, Schilter B, Honegger P, Monnet-Tschudi F Increasedvulnerability of neurones and glial cells to low concentrations ofmethylmercury in a prooxidant situation. Acta Neuropathol (Berl) 1998Dec;96(6):621-7.

 

Liang YX, Sun RK, Sun Y, Chen ZQ, Li LH Psychological effects of lowexposure to mercury vapor: application of a computer-administeredneurobehavioral evaluation system. Environ Res 1993 Feb;60(2):320-7.

 

Sundberg J, Jonsson S, Karlsson MO, Oskarsson A Lactational exposureand neonatal kinetics of methylmercury and inorganic mercury in mice.Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 1999 Jan 15;154(2):160-9.

 

Inouye M., Murao K., Kajiwara Y., Behavorial and neuropathologicaleffects of prenatal methyl Mercury exposure in mice..Neurobehav.Toxicol Teratol. ,1985:7;227-232.

 

Koos et al., Mercury toxicity in pregnant women, fetus and newborninfant. Am J Obstet And Gynecol., 1976:126;390-409.

 

Khera et al., Teratogenic and genetic effects of Mercury toxicity. Thebiochemistry of Mercury in the environment. Nriagu, J.O.Ed AmsterdamElsevier, 503-18,1979.

 

Drasch G, Schupp I, Hofl H, Reinke R, Roider G Mercury burden of humanfetal and infant tissues. Eur J Pediatr 1994 Aug;153(8):607-10.

 

Yoshida M, Yamamura Y, Satoh H Distribution of mercury in guinea pigoffspring after in utero exposure to mercury vapor during lategestation Arch Toxicol 1986 Apr;58(4):225-8.

 

Yuan,Y; Atchison,WD. Comparative effects of inorganic divalentmercury, methylmercury and phenylmercury on membrance excitability andsynaptic transmission of CA1 neurons in hippocampal slices of the ratNeurotoxicology. 14(2):403-411, 1994.

 

Desi I, Nagymajtenyi L, Schulz H Effect of subchronic mercury exposureon electrocorticogram of rats. Neurotoxicology 1996Fall-Winter;17(3-4):719-23.

 

Bucio L, Garcia C, Souza V, Hernandez E, Gonzalez C, Betancourt M,Gutierrez-Ruiz MC Uptake, cellular distribution and DNA damageproduced by mercuric chloride. Mutat Res 1999 Jan 25;423(1-2):65-72.

 

Hua MS, Huang CC, Yang YJ Chronic elemental mercury intoxication:neuropsychological follow-up case study. Brain Inj 1996 May;10(5):377-84.

 

Grandjean P, Weihe P, White RF, Debes F Cognitive performance ofchildren prenatally exposed to "safe" levels of methylmercury. EnvironRes 1998 May;77(2):165-72.

 

Hock C, Drasch G, Golombowski S, Muller-Spahn F,Willershausen-Zonnchen B, Schwarz P, Hock U, Growdon JH, Nitsch RMIncreased blood mercury levels in patients with Alzheimer's disease. JNeural Transm 1998;105(1):59-68.

 

Oskarsson A, Palminger Hallen I & Sundberg J. Exposure to toxicelements via breast milk. Analyst 120(3):765-770 (1995).

 

Hock C, Drasch G, Golombowski S, Muller-Spahn F,Willershausen-Zonnchen B, Schwarz P, Hock U, Growdon JH, Nitsch RMIncreased blood mercury levels in patients with Alzheimer's disease. JNeural Transm 1998;105(1):59-68.

 

Wenstrup D, Ehmann WD, Markesbery WR Trace element imbalances inisolated subcellular fractions of Alzheimer's disease brains. BrainRes 1990 Nov 12;533(1):125-31

 

Basun H, Forssell LG, Wetterberg L, Winblad B Metals and traceelements in plasma and cerebrospinal fluid in normal aging andAlzheimer's disease. J Neural Transm Park Dis Dement Sect1991;3(4):231-58.

 

Hock C, Drasch G, Golombowski S, Muller-Spahn F,Willershausen-Zonnchen B, Schwarz P, Hock U, Growdon JH, Nitsch RMIncreased blood mercury levels in patients with Alzheimer's disease. JNeural Transm 1998;105(1):59-68.

 

Pendergrass JC, Haley BE, Vimy MJ, Winfield SA, Lorscheider FL Mercuryvapor inhalation inhibits binding of GTP to tubulin in rat brain:similarity to a molecular lesion in Alzheimer diseased brain.Neurotoxicology 1997;18(2):315-24.

 

Opitz H, Schweinsberg F, Grossmann T, Wendt-Gallitelli MF, Meyermann RDemonstration of mercury in the human brain and other organs 17 yearsafter metallic mercury exposure. Clin Neuropathol 1996May-Jun;15(3):139-44.

 

Sanfeliu C, Sebastia J, Cristofol R, Rodriguez-Farre E. Neurotoxicityof organomercurial compounds. Neurotox Res. 2003;5(4):283-305.

 

el-Fawal HA, Gong Z, Little AR, Evans HL Exposure to methylmercuryresults in serum autoantibodies to neurotypic and gliotypicproteins.Neurotoxicology 1996 Summer;17(2):531-9.

 

Faustman EM, Ponce RA, Ou YC, Mendoza MA, Lewandowski T, Kavanagh T.Investigations of methylmercury-induced alterations in neurogenesis.Environ Health Perspect. 2002 Oct;110 Suppl 5:859-64.

 

Reading R. Thimerosal and the occurrence of autism: negativeecological evidence from Danish population-based data. Child CareHealth Dev. 2004 Jan;30(1):90-1.

 

Qvarnstrom J, Lambertsson L, Havarinasab S, Hultman P, Frech W.Determination of methylmercury, ethylmercury, and inorganic mercury inmouse tissues, following administration of thimerosal, byspecies-specific isotope dilution GC-inductively coupled plasma-MS.Anal Chem. 2003 Aug 15;75(16):4120-4.

 

Shanker G, Syversen T, Aschner M. Astrocyte-mediated methylmercuryneurotoxicity. Biol Trace Elem Res. 2003 Oct;95(1):1-10.

 

Zheng W, Aschner M, Ghersi-Egea JF. Brain barrier systems: a newfrontier in metal neurotoxicological research. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol.2003 Oct 1;192(1):1-11.

 

Kawase T, Ishikawa I, Orikasa M, Suzuki A. An assessment of the impactof thimerosal on childhood neurodevelopmental disorders. Geier DA,Geier MR. J Biochem (Tokyo). 1989 Jul; 106(1): 8-10. Aluminum enhancesthe stimulatory effect of NaF on prostaglandin E2 synthesis in aclonal osteoblast-like cell line, MOB 3-4, in vitro. Pediatr Rehabil.2003 Apr-Jun;6(2):97-102.

 

Geier MR, Geier DA. Thimerosal in childhood vaccines,neurodevelopmental disorders, and heart disease in the United States.J Amer Physc Surg 8: 6-11, 2003.

 

Allen JW, Shanker G, Tan KH, Aschner M. The consequences ofmethylmercury exposure on interactive functions between astrocytes andneurons. Neurotoxicology 23: 755-759, 2002.

 

Hansen JC, Reske-Nielsen E, et al. Distribution of dietary mercury ina dog. Quantitation and localization of total mercury in organs andcentral nervous system. Sci Total Environ 78: 23-43, 1989.

 

Zanoli P, Cannazza G, Baraldi M. Prenatal exposure to methyl mercuryin rats: focus on changes in kyrenine pathway. Brain Res Bull 55:235-238, 2001.

 

Olivieri G, Brack C, et al. Mercury induces cell cytotoxicity andoxidative stress and increases beta-amyloid secretion and tauphosphorylation in SHY5Y neuroblastoma cells. J Neurochem 74: 231-236,2000.

 

Juarez BI, Mattinez M, et al. Methylmercury increases glutamateextracellular levels in frontal cortex of awake rats. Neurotoxicologyand Teratology 24: 767-771, 2002.

 

Geier DA, Geier MR. An assessment of the impact of thimerosal onchildhood neurodevelopmental disorders. Pediatric Rehabil 6: 97-102, 2003.

 

Geier DA, Geier MR. A comparative evaluation of the effects of MMRimmunization and mercury doses from thimerosal-containing childhoodvaccines on the population prevalence of autism. Med Sci Monit 10:P133-139, 2004.

 

Baskin DS, Ngo H, Didenko VV. Thimerosal indices DNA breaks, caspase-3activation, membrane damage, and cell death in cultured human neuronsand fibroblast. Toxicol Sci 74: 361-368, 2003.

 

Pichichero ME, et al. Mercury concentrations and metabolism in infantsreceiving vaccines containing thimerosal: a descriptive study. Lancet360: 1737-1741, 2002.

 

Murata K, Dakeishi M. Impact of prenatal methylmercury exposure onchild neurodevelopment in the Faroe Islands. Nippon Eiseigaku Zasshi57: 564-570, 2002.

 

Davidson PW, Myers GJ, et al (Clarkson TW-member of panel) Effects ofprenatal and postnatal exposure from fish consumption onneurodevelopment: outcomes at 66 months of age in the Seychelles ChildDevelopment Study. JAMA 280: 701-707, 1998.

 

Palumbo DR, Cox C, et al. (ClarksonTW) Association between prenatalexposure to methylmercury and cognitive functioning in Seychelloischildren: a reanalysis of the McCarthy Scales of Children's Abilityfrom the main cohort study. Environ Res 84: 81-88, 2000.

 

Hornig M, Chian D, Lipkin WI. Neurotoxic effects of postnatalthimerosal are mouse strain dependent. Mol Psychiatry (In press).

 

Ueha-Ishibashi T, et al. Property of thimerosal-induced decrease incellular content of gluatathione in rat thymocytes: a flow cytometricstudy with 5-chloromethylfluorescein. Toxicol in Vitro 18: 563-569, 2004.

 

Ueha-Ishibaschi T, et al. Effect of thimerosal, a preservative invaccines, on intracellular Ca+2 concentration of ra cerebellarneurons. Toxicology 195: 77-84, 2004.

 

Havarinasab S, Lambertsson L, et al. Dose-response study ofthimerosal-induced murine systemic autoimmunity. Toxicol ApplPharmacol 194: 169-179, 2004.

 

Verstraeten T, Davis RL, DeStefano F, et al. Safety ofthimerosal-containing vaccines: a two-phase study of computerizedhealth maintenance organization databases. Pediatrics 112: 1039-1048,2003. (This is the published study that was discussed in theconference. Her the damaging data is erased and the public is told thethimerosal-containing vaccines are perfectly safe. In this paper Dr.Verstraeten identified himself as working for the CDC, but in fact heis working for GlaxoSmithKline. The editors of the journal Pediatricsshould have been willing to disclose this information once it wasbrought to their attention but they would not.).

 

Aluminum References

 

Murayama H, Shin RW, Higuchi J, Shibuya S, Muramoto T, Kitamoto T.Interaction of aluminum with PHFtau in Alzheimer's diseaseneurofibrillary degeneration evidenced by desferrioxamine-assistedchelating autoclave method.Am J Pathol. 1999 Sep;155(3):877-85.

 

Shin RW, Kruck TP, Murayama H, Kitamoto T. A novel trivalent cationchelator Feralex dissociates binding of aluminum and iron associatedwith hyperphosphorylated tau of Alzheimer's disease. Brain Res. 2003Jan 24;961(1):139-46.

 

Li W, Ma KK, Sun W, Paudel HK. Phosphorylation sensitizesmicrotubule-associated protein tau to Al(3+)-induced aggregation.Neurochem Res. 1998 Dec;23(12):1467-76.

 

Singer SM, Chambers CB, Newfry GA, Norlund MA, Muma NA. Tau inaluminum-induced neurofibrillary tangles. Neurotoxicology.1997;18(1):63-76.

 

Toda S, Yase Y. Effect of aluminum on iron-induced lipid peroxidationand protein oxidative modification of mouse brain homogenate. BiolTrace Elem Res. 1998 Feb;61(2):207-17.

 

Sayre LM, Perry G, Harris PL, Liu Y, Schubert KA, Smith MA. In situoxidative catalysis by neurofibrillary tangles and senile plaques inAlzheimer's disease: a central role for bound transition metals. JNeurochem. 2000 Jan;74(1):270-9.

 

Xie CX, Yokel RA. Aluminum facilitation of iron-mediated lipidperoxidation is dependent on substrate, pH and aluminum and ironconcentrations. Arch Biochem Biophys. 1996 Mar 15;327(2):222-6.

 

Kawase T, Ishikawa I, Orikasa M, Suzuki A. Aluminum enhances thestimulatory effect of NaF on prostaglandin E2 synthesis in a clonalosteoblast-like cell line, MOB 3-4, in vitro. J Biochem (Tokyo). 1989Jul; 106(1): 8-10.

 

Jope RS. Modulation of phosphoinositide hydrolysis by NaF and aluminumin rat cortical slices. J Neurochem. 1988 Dec; 51(6): 1731-6.

 

Blair HC, Finch JL, Avioli R, Crouch EC, Slatopolsky E, Teitelbaum SL.Micromolar aluminum levels reduce 3H-thymidine incorporation by cellline UMR 106-01. Kidney Int. 1989 May; 35(5): 1119-25.

 

Shainkin-Kestenbaum R, Adler AJ, Berlyne GM, Caruso C. Effect ofaluminium on superoxide dismutase. Clin Sci (Lond). 1989 Nov; 77(5):463-6.

 

Kawase T, Orikasa M, Suzuki A. Aluminofluoride- and epidermal growthfactor-stimulated DNA synthesis in MOB 3-4-F2 cells. PharmacolToxicol. 1991 Nov; 69(5): 330-7.

 

Gomes MG, Moreira CA, Mill JG, Massaroni L, Oliveira EM, Stefanon I,Vassallo DV. Effects of aluminum on the mechanical and electricalactivity of the Langendorff-perfused rat heart. Braz J Med Biol Res.1994 Jan; 27(1): 95-100.

 

Jope RS. Modulation of phosphoinositide hydrolysis by NaF and aluminumin rat cortical slices. J Neurochem. 1988 Dec; 51(6): 1731-6.

 

Husaini Y, Rai LC, Mallick N. Impact of aluminium, fluoride andfluoroaluminate complex on ATPase activity of Nostoc linckia andChlorella vulgaris. Biometals. 1996 Jul; 9(3): 277-83.

 

Blair HC, Finch JL, Avioli R, Crouch EC, Slatopolsky E, Teitelbaum SL.Micromolar aluminum levels reduce 3H-thymidine incorporation by cellline UMR 106-01. Kidney Int. 1989 May; 35(5): 1119-25.

 

Lai JC, Lim L, Davison AN. Effects of Cd2+, Mn2+, and Al3+ on ratbrain synaptosomal uptake of noradrenaline and serotonin. J InorgBiochem. 1982 Nov; 17(3): 215-25.

 

Shainkin-Kestenbaum R, Adler AJ, Berlyne GM, Caruso C. Effect ofaluminium on superoxide dismutase. Clin Sci (Lond). 1989 Nov; 77(5):463-6.

 

Department of Health and Human Services National Vaccine ProgramOffice Presents: Workshop on Aluminum in Vaccines. Caribe HiltonInternational Hotel, San Juan, Puerto Rico: Jointly sponsored by: taskForce for Child Survival and Development. May 12, 200.

 

Varner JA, Jenson KF, Harvath W, Isaacson RL. Chronic administrationof aliminum-fluoride or sodium-fluoride to rats in drinking water:alterations in neuronal and cerebrovascular integrity. Brain Res 784:284-298, 1998.

 

Strunecka A, Pataocka J. Aluminofluoride complexes: new phosphateanalogues for laboratory investigations and potential danger forliving organisms. http://www.fluoridation.com/brain3.htm

 

Candura SM, Castildi AF, et al. Interaction of aluminum ions withphosphoinositide metabolism in rat cerebral cortical membranes. LifeSci 49: 1245-1252, 1991.

 

Publicover SJ. Brief exposure to the G-protein activator NaF/ AlCl3induces prolonged enhancement of synaptic transmission in area of rathippocampal slices. Expl Brain Res 84: 680-684, 1991.

 

Brenner A. Macrophagic myofascitiitis: a summery of Dr. Gherardi'spresentations. Vaccine 20 & #61516;Supp 3): S5-6, 2002.

 

Lacson AG, D'Cruz CA, et al. Aluminum phagocytosis in quadricepsmuscle following vaccination in children: relationship to macrophagicmyofasciitis. Pediatr Dev Pathol 5: 151-158, 2002.

 

Flarend RE, Hem SL, et al. In vivo absorption of aluminum-containingvaccine adjuvants using 26 Al. Vaccine 15: 131401318, 1997.

 

Authier FJ Cherin P, et al. Central nervous system disease in patientswith macrophagic myofasciitis. Brain 124: 974-983, 2001.

 

Gherardi RK. Lessons from macrophagic myofasciitis: towards definitionof a vaccine adjuvant-related syndrome. Rev Neurol (Paris) 159:162-164, 2003.

 

Bergfors E, Trollfors B, Inerot A. Unexpectantly high incidence ofpersistent itching and delayed hypersensitivity to aluminum inchildren after the used of absorbed vaccines from a singlemanufacturer. Vaccine 22: 64-69, 2003.

 

Deloncle R, Fauconneau B, et al. Aluminum L-glutamate complexes in ratbrain cortex: in vivo prevention of aluminum deposit by magnesiumD-aspartate. Brain Res 946: 247-252, 2002.

 

Mundy WR, Freudenrich TM, Kodavanti PR. Aluminum potentatesglutamate-induced calcium accumulation and iron-induced oxygen freeradical formation in primary neuronal cultures. Mol Chem Neuropathol32: 41-57, 1997.

 

References Concerning Lead

 

Naatala JT, Loikkanen JJ, et al. Lead amplifies glutamate-inducedoxidative stress. Free Radical Biology Medicine 19: 689-693, 1995.

 

Morgan RE, Garavan H, et al. Early lead exposure produces lastingchanges in sustained attention, response initiation, and reactivity toerrors. Neurotoxicology and Teratology 23: 519-531, 2001.

 

Needleman HL, McFarland C, et al. Bone lead levels in adjudicateddelinquents: A case control study. Neurotoxicology and Teratology 24:711-717, 2002.

 

Dietrich KN, Ris MD, et al. Early exposure to lead and juveniledelinquency. Neurotoxicology and Teratology 23: 511-518, 2001.

 

My References

 

Blaylock R. Interaction of cytokines, excitotoxins, and reactivenitrogen and oxygen species in autism spectrum disorders. J. Amer NutrAssoc 6: 21-35, 2003.

 

Blaylock RL. The central role of excitotoxicity in autism spectrumdisorders. J Amer Nutra Assoc 6: 7-19, 2003.

 

Blaylock RL. Chronic microglial activation and excitotoxicitysecondary to excessive immune stimulation: possible factors in GulfWar Syndrome and autism. J Amer Phys Surg 9: 46-51, 2004.

 

Russell Blaylock MD- Homepage: http://www.wnho.net/vaccine_coverup.htm