We Suspected This All Along: CDC and Vaccine Mercury- Protecting the Narrative, Not the Populace

The CDC led us all to believe that mercury was perfectly safe.
New CDC Research Debunks Old CDC Assertion That Mercury in Vaccines Is Safe
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Lyn Redwood, RN, MSN | February 16, 2017

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) once again advised pregnant women to curb consumption of fish in order to limit fetal exposures to neurotoxic mercury. This warning raises the baffling query: How can the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) justify its recommendations that pregnant women get flu shots which are laden with far more mercury than what’s found in a can of tuna?

The CDC has long answered that nettlesome question with the controversial claim that ethylmercury in vaccines is not toxic to humans. Now, two CDC scientists have published research decisively debunking that assertion. As it turns out, there is no “good mercury” and “bad mercury.” Both forms are equally poisonous to the brain.

The CDC study, Alkyl Mercury-Induced Toxicity: Multiple Mechanisms of Action, appeared last month in the journal, Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. The 45-page meta-review of relevant science examines the various ways that mercury harms the human body. Its authors, John F. Risher, PhD, and Pamela Tucker, MD, are researchers in the CDC’s Division of Toxicology and Human Health Sciences, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

“This scientific paper is the one of most important pieces of research to come out of the CDC in a decade,” Paul Thomas, M.D., a Dartmouth-trained pediatrician who has been practicing medicine for 30 years, said. “It confirms what so many already suspected: that public health officials have been making a terrible mistake in recommending that we expose babies and pregnant women to this neurotoxin. I regret to say that I gave these shots to children. The CDC led us all to believe that it was perfectly safe.”

Among the findings of the CDC’s new study:

Methylmercury, the highly-regulated neurotoxin found in fish, and ethylmercury (found in medical products, including influenza and tetanus vaccines, ear drops and nasal sprays) are similarly toxic to humans. Methylmercury and ethylmercury share common chemical properties, and both significantly disrupt central nervous system development and function.

Thimerosal is extremely toxic at very low exposures and is more damaging than methylmercury in some studies. For example, ethylmercury is even more destructive to the mitochondria in cells than methylmercury.

The ethylmercury in thimerosal does not leave the body quickly as the CDC once claimed, but is metabolized into highly neurotoxic forms.

Despite this stark rejection of a decade of CDC safety assurances, CDC’s public relations machine is still bucking the new scientific consensus; the article concludes with a telling disclaimer in tiny font:

“The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.”

CDC’s website continues to feature now discredited safety assurances.

[...]

However, the new study makes the opposite conclusion:

“Thimerosal is quickly metabolized in vivo (in a living organism) due to its reactions with protein and non-protein thiols … so the effects of thimerosal reported in numerous articles are very likely the result of exposure to the metabolite ethylmercury.”

Ignoring the agency’s own scientific evidence, the CDC’s webpage stubbornly insists that the “two types of mercury to which people may be exposed—methylmercury and ethylmercury—are very different.” The new CDC study directly contradicts this assertion,

“There are many commonalities/similarities in the mechanisms of toxic action of methylmercury and ethylmercury …”

The study meticulously details identical toxicity pathways shared by both forms of mercury:

Both ethyl and methyl mercury cause DNA damage or impair DNA synthesis (Burke et al. 2006; Sharpe et al. 2012; Wu et al. 2008).

Both cause oxidative stress/creation of reactive oxygen species (Dreiem and Seegal 2007; Garg and Chang 2006; Myhre et al. 2003; Sharpe et al. 2012; Yin et al. 2007).

Both decrease glutathione activity, thus providing less protection from the oxidative stress caused by MeHg and EtHg (Carocci et al. 2014; Ndountse and Chan (2008); Choi et al. 1996; Franco et al. 2006; Mori et al. 2007; Muller et al. 2001; Ndountse and Chan 2008; Wu et al. 2008).

Both cause effects on cell division by damaging the spindle apparatus during mitosis (Burke et al. 2006; Castoldi et al. 2000; Gribble et al. 2005; Kim et al. 2007; Ou et al. 1999b; Machaty et al. 1999; Rodier et al. 1984).

Both MeHg and EtHg bind to the amino acid cysteine (Clarkson 1995; Wu et al. 2008).

Both MeHg and EtHg strongly inhibit the reacylation of arachidonic acid, thus inhibiting the reincorporation of this fatty acid into membrane phospholipids (Shanker et al. 2002; Verity et al. 1994; Zarini et al. 2006).

Both cause an increase in NOS, causing an overproduction of NO (Chen et al. 2003; Chuu et al. 2001; Shinyashiki et al. 1998).

Both disrupt glutamate homeostasis (Farina et al. 2003a, b; Manfroi et al. 2004; Mutkus et al. 2005; Yin et al. 2007).

Both alter intracellular calcium homeostasis (Elferink 1999; Hare et al. 1993;Kang et al. 2006; Limke et al. 2004b; Machaty et al. 1999; Marty and Atchison1997; Minnema et al. 1987; Peng et al. 2002; Sayers et al. 1993; Sirois and Atchison, 2000; Szalai et al. 1999; Tornquist et al. 1999; Zarini et al. 2006).

Both cause effects on receptor binding/neurotransmitter release involving one or more transmitters (Basu et al. 2008; Coccini et al. 2000; Cooper et al. 2003; Fonfria et al. 2001; Ida-Eto et al. 2011; Ndountse and Chan 2008; Yuan and Atchison 2003).

“This study is a nuclear bomb detonating over the CDC,” Boyd Haley, chairman emeritus of the University of Kentucky Chemistry Department, said. “It should be getting international, front page headlines.”

As one of the world’s leading authorities on mercury toxicity, Haley observed, “It’s a momentous rejection of a widely held medical orthodoxy dictating policy changes even more significant than the medical establishment’s reversals on thalidomide, calomel tooth powder, x-rays during pregnancy, or lead exposure to children. In each of these cases, thousands of children were injured or killed before an entrenched medical establishment was finally willing to abandon treatments that were unquestionably causing great harm.”

Ethylmercury vs. Methylmercury in Mass Poisonings

The revolutionary conclusions of the new CDC study actually reflect decades of work by mainstream independent scientists outside the agency. A rich scientific literature that emerged from accidental poisoning events has consistently documented—despite CDC’s official claims—that ethylmercury and methylmercury are equally toxic. In addition to the well-known Minamata and Iraq methylmercury-poisoning, many other large-scale food poisonings have occurred involving ethylmercury fungicides in Iraq in 1956 and 1960, in Pakistan in 1961, and in Russia in the 1960s as well. These episodes resulted in maladies ranging from basic tissue injury to heart and brain injury and even death.
[Emphasis added]

It's Not A Conspiracy If They're Actually Corrupt: Fraud and the CDC

This is big news. An author of a CDC paper admits, in writing, that portions of data damaging to the use of MMR vaccines was purposefully excised from his 2004 report. This amounts to fraud, visited on at least a portion of the American public. How much else has been fraudulently withheld is anybody's guess.

My name is William Thompson. I am a Senior Scientist with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, where I have worked since 1998.

I regret that my coauthors and I omitted statistically significant information in our 2004 article published in the journal Pediatrics. The omitted data suggested that African American males who received the MMR vaccine before age 36 months were at increased risk for autism. Decisions were made regarding which findings to report after the data were collected, and I believe that the final study protocol was not followed.

I want to be absolutely clear that I believe vaccines have saved and continue to save countless lives. I would never suggest that any parent avoid vaccinating children of any race. Vaccines prevent serious diseases, and the risks associated with their administration are vastly outweighed by their individual and societal benefits.

My concern has been the decision to omit relevant findings in a particular study for a particular sub­ group for a particular vaccine. There have always been recognized risks for vaccination and I believe it is the responsibility of the CDC to properly convey the risks associated with receipt of those vaccines.

I have had many discussions with Dr. Brian Hooker over the last 10 months regarding studies the CDC has carried out regarding vaccines and neurodevelopmental outcomes including autism spectrum disorders. I share his beliefthat CDC decision-making and analyses should be transparent. I was not, however, aware that he was recording any of our conversations, nor was I given any choice regarding whether my name would be made public or my voice would be put on the Internet.

I am grateful for the many supportive e-mails that I have received over the last several days.

I will not be answering further questions at this time. I am providing information to Congressman William Posey, and of course will continue to cooperate with Congress. I have also offered to assist with reanalysis of the study data or development of further studies. For the time being, however, I am focused on my job and my family.

Reasonable scientists can and do differ in their interpretation of information. I will do everything I can to assist any unbiased and objective scientists inside or outside the CDC to analyze data collected by the CDC or other public organizations for the purpose of understanding whether vaccines are associated with an increased risk of autism. There are still more questions than answers, and I appreciate that so many families are looking for answers from the scientific community.

My colleagues and supervisors at the CDC have been entirely professional since this matter became public. In fact, I received a performance-based award after this story came out. I have experienced no pressure or retaliation and certainly was not escorted from the building, as some have stated.


Dr. Thompson is represented by Frederick M. Morgan,Jr., Morgan Verkamp, LLC, Cincinnati, Ohio, www.morganverkamp.com.

Another Settled Science bites the dust. The CDC continues to generate scandals. But they still give out awards, regardless.

If someone gives you trouble regarding either vaccine safety or settled science, hit them squarely in the face with a copy of this article, printed on the medium of your choice.

Unethical Science and Vaccines

[Author's Note: The article used for reference here contains several erroneous claims for which I did not do due diligence in checking; I suggest that the reader ignore the article below, and go to the following sites for more accurate information on the vaccine being aggressively marketed to 9 year old girls and up:

http://www.mdnews.com/news/2013_07/national_julyaug13-hpv-a-complicated-vaccine.aspx
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19690307
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5602a1.htm#tab7
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6229a4.htm?s_cid=mm6229a4_e

However, the reader might want to read the comments below the article and in subsequent articles on this subject for entertainment value. Especially interesting are the mass murderer charges against me for challenging the idea of bullying parents into vaccinating children, even when based on available statistics from governmental sources and on professional expert opinion of those familiar with the vaccine.

I am not against the vaccination; I am against the pretense that death almost certainly awaits those who are not vaccinated and the hysteria used to push this invasion of female bodies as early as 9 years old: the probability of death from cervical cancer due to the HPV STD is 0.00002. (two thousandths of a percent). I support the libertarian view that Parent's Choice prevails in this matter, and that bullying is anti-liberty and a sorry spectacle for the Left which indulges in it. There definitely are deaths due to cervical cancer; it requires having the HPV STD, and that STD is widely distributed in the population. Yet the probability of death is low due to the HPV STD slowly disappearing in the vast majority of HPV infections, and the fact that roughly 90% of the strains of HPVf are not even cancer related. The deaths due to cervical cancer are a concern to be considered, yet the probability of that is less than death by meteorite, as is shown in the comments (and ignored by the vaccine hysterics).

Some of the counterclaims of the vaccine pushers are valid; some are not, and charges are hysterically voiced, or in some cases, existing data and issues are silently ignored, such as vaccine recall hazards, actual probability of death, the unknowability of actual adverse affect rates as delineated in the professional paper cited, etc].


Original Article:
********
Called all sorts of names from science deniers to mass murderers by those who push vaccines on preadolescent girls, the parents who choose not to vaccinate their children are now somewhat vindicated in the skepticism of the medical establishment and their pit bulls on the Left. The research and development leader of the team that developed the Gardasil and cervarix vaccines, Dr Diane Harper, has had a conscience attack, and has come clean and at a national convention, no less: "4th International Public Conference on Vaccination, which took place in Reston, Virginia on Oct. 2nd through 4th, 2009".

"Dr. Harper explained in her presentation that the cervical cancer risk in the U.S. is already extremely low, and that vaccinations are unlikely to have any effect upon the rate of cervical cancer in the United States. In fact, 70% of all H.P.V. infections resolve themselves without treatment in a year, and the number rises to well over 90% in two years. Harper also mentioned the safety angle.

"All trials of the vaccines were done on children aged 15 and above, despite them currently being marketed for 9-year-olds. So far, 15,037 girls have reported adverse side effects from Gardasil alone to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (V.A.E.R.S.), and this number only reflects parents who underwent the hurdles required for reporting adverse reactions.

"At the time of writing, 44 girls are officially known to have died from these vaccines. The reported side effects include Guillian Barré Syndrome (paralysis lasting for years, or permanently — sometimes eventually causing suffocation), lupus, seizures, blood clots, and brain inflammation. Parents are usually not made aware of these risks.

"Dr. Harper, the vaccine developer, claimed that she was speaking out, so that she might finally be able to sleep at night.

“About eight in every ten women who have been sexually active will have H.P.V. at some stage of their life. Normally there are no symptoms, and in 98 per cent of cases it clears itself. But in those cases where it doesn’t, and isn’t treated, it can lead to pre-cancerous cells which may develop into cervical cancer.” – Dr. Diane Harper

"One must understand how the establishment’s word games are played to truly understand the meaning of the above quote, and one needs to understand its unique version of “science”.

"When they report that untreated cases “can” lead to something that “may” lead to cervical cancer, it really means that the relationship is merely a hypothetical conjecture that is profitable if people actually believe it. In other words, there is no demonstrated relationship between the condition being vaccinated for and the rare cancers that the vaccine might prevent, but it is marketed to do that nonetheless.

There are two insidious elements at play in the vaccination business. First, of course, is corporate profit and the need to self-perpetuate the researchers' employment. And second is the scientism of the Left: science is the Final Answer; if you are a science denier, you are denying the very basis for Leftism: Scientism. Such denialism is an attack on the Source of All Truth for the AtheoLeft, and it is a moral affront. Such a moral indignity cannot be allowed, and the ridicule and personal attacks become vicious proportionally to the desperation to preserve the sanctity of Science.

Further, anything which can be used to promote promiscuity seems to be something to promote (in the name of making it SAFE, of course); the messiahs can save the promiscuous from being the Victims of their own potential culpability. It's the same thing as being an abstinence-denier: condoms absolutely must be provided so that promiscuity is SAFE and therefore not a moral issue - and therefore sex is just a fun thing which kids do. Here are some condoms: have at it, kids.

In the past few years, science has taken a severe hit to its credibility. Surveys have shown that many published papers actually are neither accurate or valid. These are peer-reviewed papers, and are published without serious vetting, possibly because the journals need fodder for publication, possibly because scientists are valued on the weight in lbs of their publications, not on the validity or accuracy.

"In fact, there is no actual evidence that the vaccine can prevent any cancer. From the manufacturers own admissions, the vaccine only works on 4 strains out of 40 for a specific venereal disease that dies on its own in a relatively short period, so the chance of it actually helping an individual is about about the same as the chance of him being struck by a meteorite.

"Why do nine-year-old girls need vaccinations for extremely rare and symptom-less venereal diseases that the immune system usually kills anyway?"

Let's repeat that: "...the chance of it actually helping an individual is about about the same as the chance of him being struck by a meteorite".

A Science Becomes Un-Settled.

According to an article in huffingtonpost by Robert F. Kennedy Jr, the war on mercury in vaccines is about to heat up.

Poul Thorsen is a leading scientist on the primary team that produced reports of the safety of mercury in vaccinations for the CDC. Apparently rather than do research, Thorsen took the money and now has absconded. He also was illegally taking salaries from two different universities.

Thorsen published a paper claiming that removing the mercury actually increased autism in Denmark by 20 fold. That was refuted when it was revealed that the increase was due to the new requirement to report autism on the national registry, along with the opening of a clinic for autism.

”Thorsen's partner Kreesten Madsen recently came under fierce criticism after damning e-mails surfaced showing Madsen in cahoots with CDC officials intent on fraudulently cherry picking facts to prove vaccine safety.

“Leading independent scientists have accused CDC of concealing the clear link between the dramatic increases in mercury-laced child vaccinations beginning in 1989 and the epidemic of autism, neurological disorders and other illnesses affecting every generation of American children since. Questions about Thorsens's scientific integrity may finally force CDC to rethink the vaccine protocols since most of the other key pro vaccine studies cited by CDC rely on the findings of Thorsen's research group. These include oft referenced research articles published by the Journal of the American Medical Association, the American Journal of Preventive Medicine, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the New England Journal of Medicine and others. The validity of all these studies is now in question.”
[bold emphasis added]

Both Thorsen and Madsen appear to be ethically challenged, and the CDC seems implicated also. It will be interesting to watch this play out.

To my knowledge, none of the AGW supporters such as PZ Meyers has ever admitted to the science of AGW not being settled. The supporters are so rabid that they deny any value to blatant evidence of malfeasence.

In the case of vaccinations, PZ has accused those who decline the vaccinations of being Typhoid Marys and traitors to their kind. Will he recant this type of accusation in the face of cherry picked data? He didn’t recant AGW in the face of cherry picked data. In fact he increased his venom at those who question it.

As Vox Day points out, the potential for big money corruption is easily seen, as in the case of tobacco-funded research on cancer. Pharmaceutical money is hardly different. Scientists who might lose funding due to a finding that is contrary must have extremely firm ethics in order to resist a little data push in the more acceptable direction. Apparently, many scientists and CDC bureaucrats have ethics that are more Consequentialist.