Your Favourite Brand of Orange Just Tested Positive For High Amounts of Glyphosate Herbicide

(Posted with permission from the Children’s Health Defence team). In August, news broke that Cheerios, Quaker Oats, and other breakfast cereals were contaminated with glyphosate weed killer. Just this week, more news of glyphosate in snack bars. Parents across the nation became concerned about their family’s breakfast foods and snacks. Now we learn we must also be looking at the most popular breakfast beverage, orange juice, as well.

The sample from (Florida’s Natural) showed results almost 3 times higher than the previous year’s test results provide to another organization, showing an increase, rather than a decrease of the use of glyphosate herbidies.

Over one year after initial tests, Moms Across America sent America’s most popular orange juice brands to be tested again for the carcinogenic chemical glyphosate. The new test results, ranging from 2.99 ppb to 17.16 ppb, are not promising. Although the different brands, Tropicana, Minute Maid, Costco’s Kirkland Signature, and Stater Bros. had slightly lower levels of glyphosate weed killer than the first tests conducted a year ago, all still had detectable levels of glyphosate. In addition, Moms Across America added another sample, Florida’s Natural, and the results were not only among the highest of all the brands tested for glyphosate residues, the sample from the brand showed results almost 3 times higher than the previous year’s test results provided to another organization, showing an increase, rather than a decrease of the use of glyphosate herbicides.

Florida’s Natural glyphosate testing in 2017 showed the following results: glyphosate amount detected: 2.14 ppb; AMPA amount detected: 1.98 ppb, the effective glyphosate level was 5.11 ppb. In 2018 the test results showed an effective level of glyphosate at 14.42.

Recently plaintiff Alexandra Axon, represented by Richman Law Group, sued Florida’s Natural for misleading the public by claiming their product is natural when in fact it contains glyphosate. The lawsuit is still pending.

The use of glyphosate in orange production and in Florida is controversial for many reasons. Moms Across America founding executive director states, “Orange growers have known for over 3 years now that the World Health Organization branch of the International Agency for Research on Cancer classified glyphosate a definite animal carcinogen and a probable human carcinogen, and yet they continue to use this harmful herbicide in the growing of oranges. We do not want harmful chemicals in the beverages we give our children and families every day. We have asked these brands to make changes and received no favourable response. We are releasing these test results and we are publicly asking again. Please, stop sourcing oranges from farmers who use glyphosate, and be a part of reducing the exposure of glyphosate to children.”

Glyphosate, Citrus Greening and Poor Crop Health

Many orange growers will insist they need glyphosate herbicides to prevent weed growth. They also complain of citrus greening, a plight impacting their livelihood. According to Frank Dean, crop consultant with a BS Biological and Physical Sciences from the University of Houston, who works with orange growers in Florida, commented for this article,” I can say every visual symptom of citrus greening can be induced with an application of glyphosate; that includes asymmetric chlorosis, short internodes, tiny leaves, abnormal flowers and flowering events. When a grove reduces, or, eliminates the use of glyphosate and the organic substances and minerals blocked by glyphosate are applied, the sick trees begin to recover. Over time, the soil has the sub-lethal dose of glyphosate reduced with organic amendments and the indicator of the disease cannot be found with CT Scans for 16S rDNA.”

In other words, the use of glyphosate contributes to citrus greening and reduction of soil quality.Dr. Don Huber, 50 year plant pathologist has pointed out that lower soil quality also mean lower water retention, resulting in higher water usage, less nutrients in the produce, and decreased quality of the crop. Discontinuing the use of glyphosate herbicides in orange groves, and all farming in Florida, would not only reduce exposure to children, but improve the health, productivity and profits of the crop.

A major denier of this assessment would be the University of Florida, which is funded by Monsanto, and who puts out the majority of the information about citrus greening. They claim it is an insect, and therefore call for more pesticides, likely produced by Monsanto.

Glyphosate and Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma

The use of glyphosate herbicides is also a hot topic due to the recent Johnson v Monsanto Trial verdict, in which a California jury awarded millions to a school groundskeeper stricken with non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma in connection to using Roundup®? and Ranger Pro – both glyphosate herbicides. Monsanto was found responsible for its role in producing and selling the carcinogenic substance when the Judge upheld the jury’s ruling of guilty on all counts.

A new French study showed an 86% lower incidence of non Hodgkin’s Lymphoma when participants ate organic food, which does not allow the use of glyphosate.

Glyphosate and Marine Life Losses

In addition, environmentalists have long been linking glyphosate to toxic green algae, which has plagued Florida for months.  Scientists from many studies are finding that so-called blue-green ‘algae’ are actually not algae but rather a type of primitive bacteria called ‘cyanobacteria.’ They have a special skill that is rare among all species to be able to fully metabolize glyphosate and use its phosphorus atom as a source of phosphorus. So they obtain a competitive advantage against other species in the presence of chronic glyphosate exposure. Phosphorous levels are a serious issue, as documented in the Lake Erie’s cyanobacteria blooms in 2017- “It turns out that many cyanobacteria present in Lake Erie have the genes allowing the uptake of phosphonates, and these cyanobacteria can grow using glyphosate and other phosphonates as a sole source of phosphorus.” stated George Bullerjahn of Bowling Green State University in Ohio.

As shown in this Mercola article, scientists and environmental leaders have long been linking the chemicals (the most widely used chemical is glyphosate herbicide) used in factory farm runoffs in Florida to Red Tide which has devastated millions of marine life. Glyphosate residues are found at very high levels in animal feed and presumably then the animal feces, creating pollution which runs off into the waterways. These same chemicals are used in sugar and orange groves. The blue-green algae (cyanobacteria) are able to convert free nitrogen from the air into nitrates. Thus, they cause an excess of nitrates in the water, in addition to those nitrates that come from excess run-off from nitrate-based fertilizers. The excess nitrates provide essential nutrients for the red algae (Karenia brevis), that then grow to large numbers offshore, which can cause Red Tide.

In other words, glyphosate FEEDS cyanobacteria…or…another perspective is that mother nature’s way of cleaning up glyphosate is with cyanobacteria blooms. These blooms can then encourage the growth of Red Tide…which has devastated marine life, tourism, local restaurants and business along thousands of miles of Florida’s coastline.

Glyphosate Overuse in Florida

The amount of glyphosate that is used in Florida on orange groves, sugar cane fields, and on city streets is enormous. Over 3.5 million lbs per square mile of glyphosate was sprayed in Florida according to the Environmental Working Group (EWG) between 2000-2012.

In addition, glyphosate herbicide AquaMaster was permitted to be sprayed directly in waterways such as Lake Okeechobee and the Everglades, a nature reserve. Local environmentalists are outraged by the lack of action from their governor and local authorities to discontinue the use of glyphosate herbicides and protect marine life.

Glyphosate herbicides are sprayed to prevent weed growth in the Florida Everglades. Glyphosate feeds the growth of cyanobacteria, or “green algae,” and then copper is sprayed to combat the green algae. Copper is a known spermicide.

Glyphosate Test Results in Florida’s Water

Lake Okeechobee water test result:

Moms Across America commissioned the testing of water in Lake Okeechobee and off the coast of Cape Coral. Lake O results, where cyanobacteria was present, showed levels between half the amount and  2 times higher than is allowed in European drinking water. Because cyanobacteria digests glyphosate it would be expected that where cyanobacteria is present the water would sometimes test for lower levels of glyphosate.

ape Coral, FL water test result:

The test results off the coast of Cape Coral, at the mouth of the Caloosahatchee River where cyanobacteria was present* showed levels of glyphosate 12 times higher than is allowed in European drinking water.

Runoff from orange grove spraying and weed management with glyphosate in the Everglades contributes to the presence of glyphosate in Florida waterways. A 2013 study shows that glyphosate can remain viable in salt water for 315 days. Another 2016 study by Roy et al. has shown that glyphosate induces cardiac toxicity in fish. Harm from glyphosate upon marine life, pets, and humans living in Florida is a scientifically sound concern. Residents, an notable environmental proponents such as Erin Brockovich are increasingly justified in calling for action.

Glyphosate and Cancer

WFTX Fox 4 News reported in 2016 regarding South Florida, The result of one study explains that “compared with the state, there is a statistically significant 36% increased risk of childhood cancer.”

Although there is no conclusive evidence this increased risk is due specifically to glyphosate, author Warren Wright continues, “these findings are suggestive of environmental risk factors in our area.” Considering that glyphosate is widely and heavily used in this specific environment and has been deemed a definite animal carcinogen and a probable human carcinogen by theWorld Health Organization, residents are justifiably outraged that the spraying of glyphosate would continue on crops or waterways for any reason. Some local residents have taken action. Stuart and Miami, Florida have banned the use of glyphosate. Residents in Tampa are suing Monsanto. Florida residents want the entire state to be protected and are calling on Governor Scott to place a moratorium on glyphosate.

The conservation group Friends of the Everglades is frustrated that the Florida State Department of Health (FDOH) has yet to take any action.  “What I can say is that scientists who are fearful for their careers and have a hard time finding funding, would all say this is an area that needs much more serious investigation and follow-up by the state of Florida,” says chairman Alan Farago.

Glyphosate and Health Impacts, Especially on Children

Chemical farming proponents and even some food movement individuals have claimed that low levels of glyphosate are safe. This information is not only confusing but blatantly wrong. Peer-reviewed scientific studies have shown that ultra-low levels of glyphosate herbicides cause, yes cause, non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. According to the Liver Foundation, 1 out of 10 Americans now has liver disease. Some are children as young as 8 years old. Additional studies show that low levels of glyphosate herbicides can be endocrine disruptors, changing sex hormones. In addition, Andre Leu, president of IFOAM and author of The Myth of Safe Pesticides stated at the Monsanto Tribunal “Children do not have the enzymes in their livers to break down toxins, especially infants and unborn children. There are NO safe levels.” Clearly, ignoring the science and encouraging people to continue to consume glyphosate, especially children who are especially vulnerable to pesticides, a fact acknowledged by the American Academy of Pediatrics, is dangerous.

Millions of children often start their day with a glass of orange juice and eat oatmeal or Cheerios with high residues of glyphosate. By doing so, they may be increasing their risk of liver disease, cancer, and many other health issues connected to glyphosate. Too many, however, want to feel comfortable in eating what they want to eat. Too many farmers want to continue to spray chemicals they have been told are safe. And too many food manufacturers want to continue profiting from cheap food grown with chemical farming. The question is, when will there be too many sick children? And when will the harms from chemical farming be deemed too much?

Take Action to Ban Glyphosate

Take action today. Tell your Governor you do not want glyphosate herbicides used anywhere in your state. Sign petition.

Support the Organic Consumer Association’s call to action- click here: TAKE ACTION: Tell Florida’s Natural: Orange Juice with Roundup®?Weedkiller Isn’t ‘Natural’

CDC Publishes Fact Sheet Insisting “thimerosal in vaccines is not harmful” Despite Evidence That It Is

Propaganda experts have long admitted that the “big lie” is an important tool for molding public opinion. A psychological profile of Hitler carried out by the U.S. Office of Strategic Services noted that one of the German leader’s “primary rules” was that “people will believe a big lie sooner than a little one” and “if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it.”

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) appears to agree that a big and oft-repeated lie is a powerful public relations tool, because in August, its Immunization Safety Office posted a fact sheet that once again insists that “thimerosal in vaccines is not harmful to children,” despite ample evidence to the contrary. The fact sheet trots out the same handful of thimerosal-related studies (“conducted by CDC or with CDC’s involvement”) that it has used for years to silence thimerosal critics. Fortunately, multiple resource pages on the Children’s Health Defense website make it easy to rebut the CDC’s regurgitated falsehoods. Our website provides a thimerosal FAQ, information dispelling myths about thimerosal’s use in vaccines and countering false vaccine safety claims (including claims about thimerosal), analysis of the flawed studies that the CDC relies on to exonerate thimerosal from any role in the childhood epidemics of neurodevelopmental disorders—and more. Below, we summarize three of the most obvious reasons to ignore the CDC’s latest attempt to pull the wool over the public’s eyes.

The handful of CDC-funded or CDC-approved studies listed in the thimerosal fact sheet stand in sharp contrast to research conducted by independent researchers over the past 75+ years that have consistently found Thimerosal to be harmful…

Still dangerous and neurotoxic

The CDC says “the evidence is clear” that thimerosal is “merely a preservative” and not a neurotoxin. However, no one who actually takes the time to examine the scientific literature can rationally conclude that mercury in any form—including the mercury in thimerosal—is safe for humans. The handful of CDC-funded or CDC-approved studies listed in the thimerosal fact sheet stand “in sharp contrast to research conducted by independent researchers over the past 75+ years that have consistently found Thimerosal to be harmful”; this independent research has linked thimerosal to “neurodevelopmental disorders, …tics, …speech delay, language delay, attention deficit disorder, and autism.” Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.’s book, Thimerosal: Let the Science Speak, describes hundreds of peer-reviewed scientific publications and the “broad consensus among research scientists that Thimerosal is a dangerous neurotoxin.”

The CDC falsely claims that “thimerosal was taken out of childhood vaccines in the United States in 2001.” However, 25 micrograms of thimerosal remain in many of the influenza vaccines administered in the U.S., including to pregnant women and infants. In fact, “thimerosal wasn’t so much removed as it was moved around.”

All eight studies included in the CDC fact sheet involve lead or co-authors accused of fraud or known to have been involved in behind-closed-doors data manipulation or weighed down by serious conflicts of interest.

Fraudulent authors

All eight studies included in the CDC fact sheet involve lead or co-authors accused of fraud or known to have been involved in behind-closed-doors data manipulation or weighed down by serious conflicts of interest. Dr. William Thompson, who authored three of the studies in his former capacity as a senior CDC vaccine safety scientist, made a whistleblower deposition to Congressman William Posey and issued statements through his personal attorney about fraud and destruction of data at the CDC. In one of his most egregious examples, Thompson reported that his bosses, including Branch Chief Frank DeStefano (an author on three of the studies included in the fact sheet), ordered Thompson and other CDC scientists to get rid of data demonstrating vaccine-induced autism. As described previously by Children’s Health Defense:

“DeStefano called his four co-authors into a room and ordered them to dump the damning datasets into a giant garbage can. The published study omitted those datasets.”

The bulk of Thompson’s whistleblowing revelations occurred in 40-plus phone conversations and over 10,000 pages of documents shared with Dr. Brian Hooker. In those conversations, Thompson also stated that CDC officials “worked hard” to “dilute Dr. Thompson’s strong and statistically significant finding…that thimerosal exposure via infant vaccines causes tics in boys.” In fact, Thompson asked Hooker to “start a campaign to publicize the fact that multiple CDC-sanctioned publications show that thimerosal causes tics.”

In addition to the studies authored by Thompson and DeStefano, two of the papers held out by the CDC as definitive proof of thimerosal’s innocence are 2003 studies authored by Thomas Verstraeten and Paul Stehr-Green—two participants at the infamous secret meeting held in Simpsonwood in 2000 to discuss the relationship between exposure to thimerosal-containing vaccines and neurological damage in children. Both Verstraeten and Stehr-Green were heavily involved in trying to make a clear association between thimerosal and neurodevelopmental effects seem unimportant. Although the Verstraeten study nonetheless went on to report “statistically significant associations between thimerosal and language delays and tics,” the CDC fact sheet dismisses the associations as “weak” and “not consistent.”

Massaged data

As outlined previously by Children’s Health Defense and others, and as indicated in the preceding sections, there are a variety of reasons not to trust the results of the eight studies included in the CDC fact sheet—including CDC funding and other conflicts of interest as well as erroneous and fraudulent reporting of data. The table below summarizes the studies’ major problems.

1. http://www.sciencelab.com/msds.php?msdsId=9926486
2. The CDC fact sheet includes the Stehr-Green study twice, formatting the study slightly differently in each of the two rows; although the duplication is immediately apparent to the attentive reader, a casual reader might conclude that the CDC had nine rather than eight studies at its disposal.

Lacking credibility

At this juncture, with over 80 studies connecting the dots between thimerosal and autism alone, and new studies appearing every day that link other vaccine ingredients such as aluminum to the chronic illness epidemics beleaguering today’s children, the CDC has lost all credibility when it makes poorly substantiated claims about thimerosal or vaccine safety. An agency that buys and sells well over $4 billion of vaccines annually clearly has a vested interest in tamping down any discussion of vaccine risks. Fortunately, the public increasingly recognizes that the CDC’s “fact sheets” lies must be read with a large grain of salt.

Sign up for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the Children’s Health Defense. CHD is planning many strategies, including legal, in an effort to defend the health of our children and obtain justice for those already injured. Your support is essential to CHD’s successful mission.

It’s That Time of Year: Here’s Why More People Are Avoiding The Flu Shot

The Children’s Health Defense team has pulled together the following resources to help you make informed decisions about the flu vaccine in order to protect you and your family from harm.

For instance, mercury is a neurotoxin and contained in some flu vaccines. It has been linked to neurodevelopmental disorders and many diseases. Please download and copy or print the brochure below to share with your family, friends, doctors and community leaders.

You can access the  Color Brochure for Reading here.
The Color Brochure for Printing here.
The Black and White Brochure for Copying here.

Children’s Health Defense Video

Flu Shots During Pregnancy: Cause for Concern –  Cathy Isaacs was pregnant with twins when against her better judgement her doctor convinced her to get a flu vaccine. Immediately after receiving the vaccine Cathy began miscarrying.  She lost her son. Her daughter was vaccine-injured and subsequently diagnosed with Autism. Watch Cathy tell her story.

More Resources/Related Articles by Children’s Health Defense:

Thimerosal in the Flu Vaccination Supply

For the 2018-19 Season:

Flu vaccine supply is produced by private manufacturers, so the supply depends on them. The vaccine manufacturers originally projected that as many as 163 million to 168 million doses of injectable flu vaccine (i.e., inactivated and recombinant flu vaccines.) Approximately 33- 34 million of those vaccines will contain thimerosal. ( CDC Vaccine Supply and Distribution)

TABLE 1. Influenza vaccine — United States, 2018–19 influenza season*

*NR = not relevant (does not contain thimerosal).

Flu Brochure References for 2018-2019 Flu Brochure:

In 2004, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimated that one in every six women has mercury blood levels that could pose a risk to an unborn child.

NYT Report 2004:  

Mahaffey et al., 2004. Supplemental Materials

Mercury rapidly crosses the placenta and accumulates in the fetus at higher levels than in the mother. Two studies in 2012 showed that a mother’s mercury exposure is linked to attention problems in her children.

Stern and Smith, 2003

Clarkson, 2002. 

Sagiv et al., 2012

Boucher et al., 2012

Scientific studies have documented that ethylmercury used in vaccines crosses into the infant brain and could impact critical stages of brain development.

Burbacher et al., 2005

It is inconsistent to recommend vaccines containing ethylmercury when also counseling pregnant women to avoid seafood high in methylmercury due to the known harmful effects mercury can have on the developing fetus.

FDA/EPA 2017 Advice

Thimerosal-containing flu vaccines contain 250 times the mercury level the EPA uses to classify hazardous waste. Unused thimerosal-containing flu vaccine should be returned to the manufacturer for appropriate disposal.

Wisconsin DNR 2014

Colorado DPHE 2010

Ohio EPA 2017

An Australian study found one in every 110 children under the age of 5 had convulsions following vaccination with the FLUVAX H1N1 vaccine in 2009.

Armstrong et al., 2011

Australian Department of Health Report

Additional research found a spike in cases of narcolepsy in children associated with the H1N1 vaccine.

Sarkanen et al., 2017

Partinen et al., 2012

Montplaisir et al., 2014

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) warns pregnant women and young children not to eat fish containing high levels of methylmercury. Yet the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommends pregnant women and infants get influenza vaccines, many of which contain ethylmercury from the preservative thimerosal. Receiving them may result in mercury exposures exceeding the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recommended maximum levels.

FDA/EPA 2017 Advice

CDC Recommendations

The research on fetal exposure to mercury from maternal flu shots has never been done.

For a 6-month-old infant, the calculation is as follows:  The average 50th percentile weight for a 6-month-old is 7.6kg, the maximum recommended daily exposure to methylmercury per the EPA is 0.1 mcg/kg/day (or .76155 mcg for this weight) and an infant flu shot may contain 12.5 mcg of mercury. This yields an exposure 16 times the EPA limit from a single flu shot.

Children’s Health Defense is deeply concerned that the risks of getting mercury-containing seasonal influenza vaccines may outweigh the benefits for pregnant women, infants and children.  Mercury is known to be highly toxic to brain tissue and can impact critical stages of brain development.

Grandjean and Landrigan, 2014

A 2017 CDC study links miscarriage to flu vaccines, particularly in the first trimester.  Pregnant women vaccinated in the 2010/2011 and 2011/2012 flu seasons had two times greater odds of having a miscarriage within 28 days of receiving the vaccine.  In women who had received the H1N1 vaccine in the previous flu season, the odds of having a miscarriage within 28 days were 7.7 times greater than in women who did not receive a flu shot during their pregnancy.

Donahue et al., 2017

A study published in 2016 that looked at the safety of flu vaccines found a moderately elevated risk for major birth defects in infants born to women who had received a flu vaccine during the first trimester of pregnancy. A study published in 2017 found an elevated risk of autism spectrum disorders in children whose mothers had a first trimester flu shot.

Chambers et al., 2016

Zerbo et al., 2017

Flu vaccine administration is documented to cause an inflammatory response in pregnant women. Recent research found inflammation during pregnancy is associated with the development of autism spectrum disorders.

Christian et al., 2011

Christian et al., 2010

Brown et al., 2014

Patterson, 2011

A large study in approximately 50,000 pregnant women over five flu seasons found no difference in the risk for developing influenza or similar illnesses between those who received the influenza vaccine during pregnancy and those who did not.

Black et al., 2004

An independent 2014 review found no randomized controlled trials assessing vaccination in pregnant women.  It states, “The only evidence available comes from observational studies with modest methodological quality.  On this basis, vaccination shows very limited effects.”

Cochrane Report 2014 (page 2)

If you decide to vaccinate, insist on mercury-free influenza vaccines for yourself and your children and do not get a flu vaccine the same day as other vaccines.

Miller, 2016

All vaccines, with or without mercury, pose health risks.  However, the influenza vaccine is of great concern, as many brands contain high levels of mercury in their multi-dose vials.  Be sure to read package inserts for any vaccine prior to getting vaccinated.

Supreme Court Decision in Bruesewitz v. Wyeth

According to flu vaccine package inserts, “Safety and effectiveness has not been established in pregnant women or nursing mothers and should only be given to a pregnant woman if clearly needed.

FDA Link to Approved Vaccine Package Inserts

A study that compared children who received flu vaccine to those who did not find the same rate of influenza in both groups following vaccination.  It also found that the group of children who received the flu vaccine had a 4.4 times higher rate of non-influenza respiratory tract infections.

Cowling et al., 2012

A review in the medical journal The Lancet found a lack of health benefits from influenza vaccine in children under two along with significantly increased rates of vaccine-related adverse events.

Jefferson et al., 2005.

According to the CDC over the past 14 seasons, the effectiveness of the influenza vaccine has varied from 10% to 60%.

Seasonal Influenza Vaccine Effectiveness, 2004-2018 | Seasonal Influenza (Flu) | CDC

Simple techniques such as avoiding those with flu-like illnesses, eating a healthy diet and good hand washing can prevent many cases of flu.  If you do contract influenza, optimizing vitamin D levels, fluid intake and rest can boost immune function.

CDC Recommendations

Vitamin D and Influenza

Epidemic influenza and vitamin D

Consider the evidence regarding the effectiveness of the flu vaccine in actually preventing influenza.  For information, visit summaries.cochrane.org

Sign up for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the Children’s Health Defense. CHD is planning many strategies, including legal, in an effort to defend the health of our children and obtain justice for those already injured. Your support is essential to CHD’s successful mission.

Natural Measles Immunity — Better Protection & More Long-Term Benefits Than Vaccines

Stories about vaccines in the popular press tend to be unabashedly one-sided, generally portraying vaccination as a universal (and essential) “good” with virtually no downside. This unscientific bias is particularly apparent in news reports about measles, which often are little more than hysterical diatribes against the unvaccinated.

Although public health authorities have made a case for measles eradication since the early 1980s, 50-plus years of mass measles vaccination and high levels of vaccine coverage have not managed to stop wild and vaccine-strain measles virus from circulating. Routine measles vaccination also has had some worrisome consequences. Perhaps the most significant of these is the shifting of measles risks to age groups formerly protected by natural immunity. Specifically, modern-day occurrences of measles have come to display a “bimodal” pattern in which “the two most affected populations are infants aged less than 1 year and adults older than 20 years”—the very population groups in whom measles complications can be the most clinically severe. As one group of researchers has stated, “The common knowledge indicating that measles [as well as mumps and rubella] are considered as benign diseases dates back to the pre-vaccine area and is not valid anymore.”

A little history

Before the introduction of measles vaccines in the 1960s, nearly all children contracted measles before adolescence, and parents and physicians accepted measles as a “more or less inevitablepart of childhood.” In industrialized countries, measles morbidity and mortality already were low and declining, and many experts questioned whether a vaccine was even needed or would be used.

Measles outbreaks in the pre-vaccine era also exhibited “variable lethality”; in specific populations living in close quarters (such as military recruits and residents of crowded refugee camps), measles mortality could be high, but even so, “mortality rates differed more than 10-fold across camps/districts, even though conditions were similar.” For decades both prior to and following the introduction of measles vaccination, those working in public health understood that poor nutrition and compromised health status were key contributors to measles-related mortality, with measles deaths occurring primarily “in individuals below established height and weight norms.” A study of measles mortality in war-torn Bangladesh in the 1970s found that most of the children who died were born either in the two years preceding or during a major famine.

Moms who get measles vaccines instead of experiencing the actual illness have less immunity to offer their babies, resulting in a ‘susceptibility gap’…

Measles vaccination and infants

Before the initiation of mass vaccination programs for measles, mothers who had measles as children protected their infants through the transfer of maternal antibodies. However, naturally acquired immunity and vaccine-induced immunity are qualitatively different. Moms who get measles vaccines instead of experiencing the actual illness have less immunity to offer their babies, resulting in a “susceptibility gap” between early infancy and the first ostensibly protective measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine at 12 to 15 months of age.

A Luxembourg-based study published in 2000 confirmed the susceptibility gap in an interesting way. The researchers compared serum samples from European adolescents who had been vaccinated around 18 months of age to serum samples from Nigerian mothers who had not been vaccinated but had experienced natural measles infection at a young age. They then looked at the capacity of the antibodies detected in the serum to “neutralize” various wild-type measles virus strains. The researchers found that the sera from mothers with natural measles immunity substantially outperformed the sera from the vaccinated teens: only two of 20 strains of virus “resisted neutralization” in the Nigerian mothers’ group, but 10 of 20 viral strains resisted neutralization in the vaccination group. This complex analysis led the authors to posit greater measles vulnerability in infants born to vaccinated mothers.

…many vaccines may eventually become susceptible to vaccine-modified measles…and consequently complicate measles control strategies

The Luxembourg researchers also noted that in the Nigerian setting, where widespread vaccination took hold far later than in Europe, the mothers in question had had “multiple contacts with endemic wild-type viruses” and that these repeat contacts had served an important booster function. One of the authors later conducted a study that examined this booster effect more closely. That study found that re-exposure to wild-type measles resulted in “a significantly prolonged antibody boost in comparison to [boosting through] revaccination.” Taking note of expanding vaccine coverage around the world and reduced circulation of wild-type measles virus, the researchers concluded in a third study that “many vaccinees may eventually become susceptible to vaccine-modified measles…and consequently, complicate measles control strategies.”

Bimodal distribution

With the disappearance of maternally endowed protection, what has happened to measles incidence in infants? A review of 53 European studies (2001–2011) focusing on the burden of measles in those “too young to be immunized” found that as many as 83% of measles cases in some studies and under 1% in other studies were in young infants.

At the same time, the predictions of an increased percentage of measles cases in older teens and adults have also come true. Reporting on a higher “death-to-case ratio” in the over-15 group in 1975 (not many years after widespread adoption of measles vaccination in the U.S.), a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) researcher wrote that the higher ratio could be “indicative of a greater risk of complications from measles, exposing the unprotected adult to the potential of substantial morbidity.”

In recent measles outbreaks in Europe and the U.S., large proportions of cases are in individuals aged 15 or older:

  • In the U.S., 57 of the 85 measles cases (67%) reported in 2016 were at least 15 years of age. U.S. researchers also have conservatively estimated that at least 9% of measles cases occur in vaccinated individuals.
  • Among several thousand laboratory-confirmed cases of measles and an additional thousand “probable” or “possible” cases in Italy in 2017, 74% were in individuals at least 15 years of age, and 42% of those were hospitalized.
  • Examining a smaller number of laboratory-confirmed measles cases in Sicily (N=223), researchers found that half of the cases were in adults age 19 or older, and clinical complications were more common in adults compared to children (45% versus 26%). Likewise, about 44% of measles cases in France from 2008 to 2011 (N=305) were in adults (with an average age in their mid-20s), and the adults were more than twice as likely to be hospitalized as infected children.

Time to reevaluate

Pre-vaccination, most residents of industrialized countries accepted measles as a normal and even trivial childhood experience. Many people, including clinicians, also understood the interaction between measles and nutrition, and, in particular, the links between vitamin A deficiency and measles: “Measles in a child is more likely to exacerbate any existing nutritional deficiency, and children who are already deficient in vitamin A are at much greater risk of dying from measles.” Instead of inching the age of initial measles vaccination down to ever-younger ages, as is increasingly being proposed, there could be greater value in supporting children’s nutrition and building overall health—through practical interventions that “improve[e]…existing dietaries through the inclusion of relatively inexpensive foods that are locally available and well within the reach of the poor.”

Ironically, while acute childhood infections such as measles protect against cancer, the rise of chronic childhood illnesses (disproportionately observed in vaccinated children) is linked to elevated cancer risks.

There are many other tradeoffs of measles vaccination that remain largely unexplored, including the important role of fever-inducing infectious childhood diseases in reducing subsequent cancer risks. Ironically, while acute childhood infections such as measles protect against cancer, the rise of chronic childhood illnesses (disproportionately observed in vaccinated children) is linked to elevated cancer risks. These tradeoffs—along with the dangerous loss of infant access to protective maternal antibodies and the higher rates of measles illness and complications in older teens and adults—suggest that measles vaccination deserves renewed scrutiny.

Sign up for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the World Mercury Project. Your donation will help to support us in our efforts.

1 Out of Every 9 Children Have Serious Adverse Reactions To The DTaP Vaccine: New Statistics

Until the 1990s, the vaccine administered to children for diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis protection was the DTP vaccine, one of the first combination vaccines ever licensed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). However, as a “whole-cell” vaccine (meaning that it contained the entire Bordetella pertussis organism rather than purified components), DTP had a significant downside—including published safety concerns dating back to the 1930s and widespread reports of neurological damage emanating from both the United States and other countries. By 1991, the Institute of Medicine cautiously reported that the evidence was “consistent with a possible causal relation between DTP vaccine and acute encephalopathy” [brain disease].

Characterized pertussis prevention as ‘an unresolved problem,’ nothing the ‘progressive increase’ in pertussis incidence after introduction of the acellular vaccines and the need for even more boosters

To pacify a concerned public, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) advised a phase-out of the whole-cell vaccine around 1991, while promoting an “acellular” version called DTaP (diphtheria, tetanus and acellular pertussis). By 1997, the switch had taken place for all five doses in the series, recommended for infants and children at two, four, six and 15-18 months and 4-6 years. In the two decades since the changeover, however, the DTaP vaccine has been plagued by embarrassingly low effectiveness. A 2018 article characterized pertussis prevention as “an unresolved problem,” noting the “progressive increase” in pertussis incidence after the introduction of the acellular vaccines and the need for ever more boosters. Another recent commentary flatly stated that “pertussis is…not under control in any country” and that new types of pertussis vaccines are needed.

Nonetheless, on the safety front, health authorities have regularly praised the DTaP vaccines as offering a safer alternative than their whole-cell predecessors. Is this reputation for safety well-deserved? CDC researchers writing in June 2018 in Pediatrics seem to think so—but a closer reading of their findings suggests otherwise.

Examining DTaP’s track record

For their study, the CDC researchers assessed over two decades’ worth of data (1991–2016) from the CDC- and FDA-administered passive surveillance system called VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System), examining adverse events (AEs) reported to VAERS following vaccination with one of five currently licensed DTaP vaccines (see table). The five vaccines included two DTaP-only vaccines (approved for the full five-dose series of shots) and three combination vaccines (approved for some portion of the DTaP series). The combination formulations in question included DTaP plus hepatitis B vaccine (HBV), inactivated polio vaccine (IPV) and/or Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib) vaccine.

The researchers used several methods to consider DTaP vaccination risks, including 1) compiling all “serious” and “non-serious” adverse events reported to VAERS in association with the five vaccines over the designated time period; 2) clinically reviewing all deaths reported to VAERS following DTaP vaccination; 3) reviewing a subset (5%) of “non-death serious reports”; and 4) running an automated search of reported anaphylaxis following DTaP vaccination.

Not so safe

The analysis of VAERS reports identified tens of thousands of AEs (N=50,157) in the aftermath of a DTaP-containing vaccine. (A single VAERS report may include more than one AE, so the adverse event categories are not mutually exclusive.) VAERS, by the federal government’s own admission, captures only about 1% of AEs; thus, the 50,000-plus AEs probably vastly underrepresent the number of real-world DTaP-related vaccine injuries.

The study’s results illustrate the heavy burden of vaccines to which children in the U.S. are subjected. For about 88% of the VAERS reports analyzed, children received the DTaP vaccine concurrently with one or more other vaccines, even though the five types of DTaP vaccine in and of themselves already constitute potent combinations. Researchers who have looked at the number of vaccines administered at well-child visits have pointed out that American infants receive more vaccines in their first year than infants anywhere in the world.

…many vaccines (including DTaP) are administered in bundles at health care visits around two and four months—exactly when nine out of ten SIDS deaths occur.

Roughly one in nine (11.2%) of the reported AEs were coded as serious, and 15% of all serious AEs were deaths (844/5,627). (If one were to average these deaths over the 26 years from 1991 through 2016, this would represent over 32 deaths annually.) Of note, the investigators’ perusal of death certificates, autopsy reports and medical records showed that the reported cause for nearly half of the deaths (48.3%) was sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), nearly always in children under six months of age. Although the researchers dismiss the possibility of a causal relationship between vaccination and SIDS, evidence from other corners is strongly suggestive of just such a link. In fact, it strains credulity to deny a plausible connection: many vaccines (including DTaP) are administered in bundles at health care visits around two and four months—exactly when nine out of ten SIDS deaths occur.

Serious but non-fatal AEs cited in 10% to 35% of all VAERS reports included systemic symptoms such as pyrexia (fever), vomiting, seizures/convulsions, diarrhea, lethargy and hypotonia (muscle weakness). Anaphylaxis occurred far less frequently, but most reported anaphylactic reactions arose quickly—within 30 minutes of vaccination. Seizures were the fourth most common serious AE reported. Other studies have detected a heightened risk of febrile seizures when children receive DTaP simultaneously with other vaccines. Febrile seizures are not benign (as once thought), which makes the frequency of post-DTaP seizures concerning.

The authors do not explain why they counted pyrexia as both a serious and nonserious AE, but it accounted for one in five of the latter. As a potential sign of drug allergy and an indicator of a “systemic inflammatory response to a stimulus such as infection,” pyrexia and its prominence are noteworthy. Back in 2004, other CDC researchers commented on the difficulty of ascertaining “the true importance of fever as an [adverse event following immunization]” and noted a lack of clarity regarding “how to interpret fever data derived from vaccine safety trials or immunization safety surveillance.”

What the study leaves out

Although the CDC authors noted that their analysis excluded Quadracel, the most recently approved combination DTaP-IPV vaccine (licensed in 2015), they curiously do not explain why they omitted several other licensed DTaP vaccines that were in widespread use during the time period in question:

  • The Tripedia vaccine (manufactured by Connaught, which through a series of mergers became Aventis Pasteur and later Sanofi Pasteur) was approved as a fourth and fifth DTaP dose in 1992, 1996 and 2000; in 2001, Aventis Pasteur reformulated Tripedia and the FDA approved it for all five doses.
  • Acel-Imune (manufactured by the now-defunct Lederle Laboratories) was approved for the fourth and fifth DTaP doses in 1991 and, in 1996, for the full five-dose series.
  • The Certiva DTaP vaccine (made by North American Vaccine Inc., which was acquired in 2000 by Baxter International Inc.) was licensed in 1998 for doses one through five.

The authors also neglect to mention that all five DTaP vaccines included in their review contain one or more neurotoxic aluminum adjuvants, along with formaldehyde and polysorbate 80, a stabilizer for which information on potential chronic health effects is “not available.” The Tripedia vaccine that the study excluded featured both aluminum and the mercury-containing preservative thimerosal. Adverse events reported during post-approval use of Tripedia included “idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura, SIDS, anaphylactic reaction, cellulitis, autism, convulsion/grand mal convulsion, encephalopathy, hypotonia, neuropathy, somnolence and apnea.” By excluding these other acellular DTaP vaccines, the CDC study underestimates the magnitude of DTaP-related adverse reactions still further.

Weighing the risks

The CDC authors wrap up their assessment of DTaP vaccine safety with the boilerplate pronouncement that their analysis “did not identify any new or unexpected safety issues.” Parents might disagree, wondering whether it makes sense to expose their child to a not-insignificant risk of serious DTaP-related injury when the risk of diphtheria is virtually non-existent in the U.S. (zero cases in 2016) and the risk of tetanus is likewise minuscule. (Tetanus, in any event, is non-communicable.)

… pertussis incidence has steadily increased (not decreased) in the U.S. since 1980, despite high vaccine coverage.

Evaluating the risks of pertussis infection versus pertussis vaccination in different age groups is somewhat more complex but requires admitting up front that pertussis incidence has steadily increased (not decreased) in the U.S. since 1980, despite high vaccine coverage. Discussing the problem of waning immunity, a 2012 study reported that “after the fifth dose of DTaP, the odds of acquiring pertussis increased by an average of 42% per year.” In fact, the track record for whole-cell and acellular pertussis-containing vaccines shows that both are fraught with problems. Back in 1993, researchers writing in the New England Journal of Medicine observed that a pertussis epidemic in Cincinnati had “occurred primarily among children who had been appropriately immunized” with the whole-cell vaccine. The same pattern of pertussis outbreaks in fully vaccinated populations has occurred with the acellular vaccines. A related but underacknowledged problem is the role of vaccinated individuals as asymptomatic carriers and reservoirs of infection for vulnerable infants. Finally, some researchers have suggested that pertussis vaccination may result “in selection of more virulent strains that are more efficiently transmitted by previously primed hosts.” Specifically, the acellular vaccines only contain B. pertussis antigens “that hold little or no efficacy against B. parapertussis,” which is another causative agent of pertussis infection; researchers concluded in 2010 that acellular vaccines “interfere with the optimal clearance of B. parapertussis” and may “create hosts more susceptible to B. parapertussis infection.”

Whether one focuses on safety or effectiveness, it is apparent that simplistic slogans and Pollyanna attitudes are no help in evaluating vaccine risks and benefits. Ultimately, it should be up to parents—not CDC researchers biased against a fair consideration of risks—to make their own informed vaccine decisions.

Two Huge Vaccine Scandals That The Press Is Completely Ignoring

Editorial by World Mercury Project Guest Contributor Jon Rappoport 

Some lies are so big, many people can’t accept the fact that they’re lies. Their minds are boggled. “No,” they say, “that couldn’t be.” But yes, that could be, and is.

Two giant vaccine scandals are in progress at the moment.

The mainstream press is mentioning them, here and there, but without any intent to raise alarms, dig in, investigate, and get down to the core of the problem.

So I’ll get to the core.

The first scandal revolves around the flu vaccine for the current year. The CDC and other “experts” have admitted the vaccine has a very low effectiveness rate.

Why is it a dud?

Because the vaccine is produced using chicken eggs, and in that medium, the flu virus—which is intentionally placed in the eggs—mutates. Therefore, it isn’t the same virus which is causing flu this year. Therefore, no protection against the flu.

FiercePharma reports: “Based on data from Australia, which already had its flu season, scientists warn that this season’s flu shot might be only 10% effective. And the reason for such a low level of protection might lie in the method by which the majority of flu vaccines are made: in eggs.”

Ten percent effectiveness. Now that’s ridiculous. And it’s assuming you accept the whole model of how vaccines work—that they actually do protect (safely) against disease, rather than, at best, repressing the visible symptoms of the disease.

Amidst their spotty coverage of this scandal, here is what the press is failing to mention: the problem with the flu vaccine isn’t just a 2017-2018 flaw.

It would be the same problem ever since chicken eggs have been used to manufacture the vaccine.

Are you ready?

Healthline.com: “The majority of flu vaccines are grown in chicken eggs, a method of vaccine development that’s been used for 70 years.”

Hello? Anyone home?

Seventy years. The same problem.

The same “low effectiveness” problem.

That’s a page-one story with a giant headline. That’s the lead item on the nightly news. That’s a pounding investigative series about the lunatic promotion of a massively ineffectivebut universally promoted—vaccine going back decades and decades.

But it isn’t a giant headline. It isn’t an investigation. It’s a here-today-gone-tomorrow piece. That’s all.

…Dengvaxia can cause more serious infections in those who previously hadn’t had exposure to the virus.

The second scandal keeps unfolding in the Philippines, where drug giant Sanofi’s Dengvaxia, given to prevent Dengue Fever, is facing enormous pushback from government officials, who stopped the national vaccination campaign, after thousands of children already received the shot.

The issue? Safety.

FiercePharma: “The Philippines stopped vaccinations shortly after the company warned that Dengvaxia can cause more serious infections in those who previously hadn’t had exposure to the virus. The country also kicked off a probe and plans legal action, according to health secretary Francisco Duque.”

Did you get that? The company (Sanofi) itself warned that vaccine might not be safe.

FiercePharma: “…the [Philippine] Department of Health didn’t heed warnings from an advisory group of doctors and pharmacologists, who concluded early last year that the vaccine’s safety and efficacy were unproven.”

My, my.

But let’s dig even deeper. Sanofi is saying the vaccine might be dangerous for those who haven’t been exposed to the Dengue virus before getting the shot. What on Earth does that mean?

It means a child who had naturally come in contact with the virus would have developed his own antibodies to it. And later, those antibodies would protect him against the Dengue virus IN THE VACCINE. Otherwise, the virus in the vaccine could give him a case of Dengue or cause some other form of damage.

This is saying, “If a child is ALREADY immune to Dengue Fever, because his immune system has successfully dealt with the virus, then the vaccine won’t damage him.”

And THAT is saying, “If the child has naturally developed an immunity to Dengue, then the vaccine, WHICH HE DOESN’T NEED, won’t harm him.”

Of course, the press isn’t getting the picture. If any reporters are seeing the light, they’re keeping their mouths shut. The scandal is too big and too crazy.

Between the lines, a vaccine company is admitting their vaccine is only safe for children who don’t need it.

A tree just fell in the forest. Who heard it?

Sign up for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the World Mercury Project. Your donation will help to support us in our efforts.

Enough is Enough: Why The U.S. Clearly Needs An Independent Vaccine Safety Organization

By the World Mercury Project Team

Most Americans are oblivious to the huge annual burden of chronic illnessinjuries and deaths linked to vaccines. Some of the blame for the public’s ignorance belongs to a complicit media that “pretends that vaccine-related injuries do not occur.” However, the lion’s share of culpability for the buried story likely rests with the two federal agencies charged with vaccine oversight—the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)—both of which regularly engage in various forms of deception to uphold their bland narrative that vaccines are unambiguously safe.

The two agencies claim that they only license vaccines and allow them to remain on the market if the vaccines’ benefits outweigh their potential risks. Yet credible accusations have surfaced for years—aired by legislatorsresearcherswatchdog groups and many others—that both the FDA and CDC lack the impartiality required to make accurate judgments about vaccine safety. How can they, when the CDC’s dual mandate is both to monitor vaccine safety and promote vaccines?

Recognizing that this represents an “enormous” and “inherent” conflict of interest, a few gutsy legislators periodically have attempted to establish an “objective and non-conflicted office,” the sole purpose of which would be “to address, investigate, and head off potential vaccine safety problems.” Thus far, these efforts have gone nowhere, but even a cursory look at the agencies’ capture by industry confirms that it is time to stop allowing the fox to guard the hen house.

The congressional committee noted that FDA and CDC advisory committee members and chairpersons own stock in the vaccine companies under consideration as well as owning vaccine patents.

Self-interested experts

There are many reasons why the public needs and deserves an independent vaccine safety organization. One of the most significant criticisms has to do with the FDA’s and CDC’s business-as-usual reliance on external experts with financial ties to the pharmaceutical companies and/or products that they are evaluating. Little has changed since a congressional Committee on Government Reform outlined this problem nearly two decades ago. The Reform Committee examined the doings of the FDA’s Vaccine and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC), which determines whether new vaccines should be licensed, and the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), which recommends vaccines for inclusion in the childhood vaccine schedule.

The congressional committee noted that FDA and CDC advisory committee members and chairpersons own stock in the vaccine companies under consideration as well as owning vaccine patents. The CDC “grants conflict of interest waivers to every member of their advisory committee a year at a time and allows full participation in the discussions leading up to a vote by every member,” even if a member has a financial stake in the decision.

The Reform Committee also discussed the example of the FDA’s vote to approve the ill-fated rotavirus vaccine. Ten of the fifteen VRBPAC members were either absent or were excluded from the vote, whereas five “temporary” members parachuted in to join the remaining five in voting to license the vaccine. Moreover, “three out of the five [permanent] members…who voted for the rotavirus vaccine had conflicts of interest that were waived.”

Overall, the congressional review sketched a portrait of an “old boys network” of experts and advisors who “rotate between the CDC and FDA, at times serving simultaneously.” In one case, after finding that an expert had served continuously for 16 years, the chairman asked, “With over 700,000 physicians in this country, how can one person be so indispensable that they stay on a committee for 16 years?”

A 2009 report…determined that CDC continued to display “a systemic lack of [ethics] oversight.”

Despite stern rebukes, CDC and FDA don’t fix the problems

Unfortunately, there is no grounds for assuming that the two agencies have fixed these rampant conflict-of-interest problems. A 2009 report by the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) at the Department of Health and Human Services determined that CDC continued to display “a systemic lack of [ethics] oversight.” Virtually all (97%) of the individuals sitting on CDC advisory committees, including ACIP, omitted relevant financial disclosure information from their required ethics form, and CDC rarely complied with the requirement to “identify and resolve all conflicts of interest…before permitting [those individuals] to participate in committee meetings.” Although the OIG sternly rebuked the CDC to do its job in obtaining complete financial disclosures, the CDC balked at “fully implementing” the recommendation, describing it as “impractical.”

In 2014, a Drexel University researcher examined 15 years’ worth of conflicts of interest at the FDA, framing them as a significant “health policy problem” driven by both financial ties and “selection” mechanisms (that is, committee members who are “predisposed to favor pharmaceutical companies”). A 2015 article in the British Medical Journal (BMJ)illustrates the ongoing magnitude of the problem, showing how drug and device companies paid roughly $3.7 billion to U.S. physicians and teaching hospitals over just one half-year period; as the BMJ incisively states, “financial conflicts of interest in medicine are not beneficial, despite strained attempts to justify them and to make a virtue of self-interest.”

Not serious about serious adverse events

Although the FDA and CDC claim to take vaccine safety seriously, another favorite tactic is to downplay actual and potential vaccine risks. This is particularly apparent when the two agencies denigrate the very surveillance system that they co-administer. The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) carries out spontaneous surveillance, meaning that “no active effort is made to search for, identify and collect information, but rather information is passively received from those who choose to voluntarily report their experience.” Because of these features, FDA and CDC authors readily admit that their system has “inherent limitations,” and Harvard researchers agree, noting that VAERS is subject to “incomplete recognition of potential adverse events, administrative barriers to reporting, and incomplete case documentation.” The VAERS capture rate of as little as one percent of actual vaccine-related adverse events “preclude[s] or delay[s] the identification of ‘problem’ vaccines”—“potentially endangering the health of the public.”

Even with the massive underreporting, VAERS receives approximately 30,000 reports annually, up to 4,500 of which the CDC characterizes as serious—meaning that “the adverse event resulted in permanent disability, hospitalization, life-threatening illness, or death.” Lest the public worry about these thousands of reported injuries, the CDC has a ready answer. The agency asserts (without the slightest hint of irony) that “while these problems happen after vaccination, they are rarely caused by the vaccine.” Both the CDC and FDA shore up this oddly unconcerned attitude by regularly publishing boilerplate agency-authored VAERS analyses that declare “no new or unexpected [adverse events] patterns.”

Circumvention and circumlocution

Cozy corporate alliances” and an emphasis on public-private partnerships tilt the CDC’s and FDA’s actions in favor of industry in numerous ways. For example, the CDC and vaccine manufacturers co-fund a variety of “sock-puppet mouthpieces” disguised as independent non-profits; these front groups make it possible for the CDC to circumvent lobbying restrictions and support a compulsory vaccination agenda. World Mercury Project has described numerous other examples of bias and wrong-doing at both agencies. The CDC, for example, has:

Meanwhile, the FDA has:

  • Refused to give “any serious consideration to the abundant and mushrooming evidence of thimerosal’s profound toxicity.”
  • Relied on “outdated information, unwarranted assumptions and errors” and published misleading safety studies to allow unsafe levels of aluminum to remain in childhood vaccines.
  • Ignored advice from within its own ranks to pay closer attention to vaccine safety so as to avoid “a situation of unforeseen and unpredictable vaccine outcomes.”
  • Permitted vaccine manufacturers to use phony placebos to conceal vaccine risks.
With the FDA and CDC having repeatedly demonstrated their prioritization of industry profits over public safety, the time is past due for creating an independent agency that takes vaccine safety seriously.

Enough is enough

Two to four million individuals suffer “serious, disabling, or fatal injury” associated with prescription drugs each year (including an estimated 128,000 deaths), but these incidents tend to remain outside the public eye. Even with the opioid epidemic, it took over a decade for the media to begin reporting the story and even longer (until 2017) for the government to declare the epidemic a national health emergency.

It is unconscionable that vaccines with doubtful safety data continue to be rushed onto the market while the ensuing injuries and deaths remain in the shadows. With the FDA and CDC having repeatedly demonstrated their prioritization of industry profits over public safety, the time is past due for creating an independent agency that takes vaccine safety seriously. A former program director at the National Institutes of Health wrote a couple of years ago about the role of vaccines in creating a powerful medical establishment—supported by drug-profit-hungry businessmen and philanthropists. In that author’s words, “improved public health is possible only by switching the current corruptive and abusive culture of ‘who you know’ to a culture of ‘what you know.”

Sign up for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the World Mercury Project. Your donation will help to support us in our efforts.

Parents: What You’re Not Being Told About Your Child’s Autism & What Caused It…

By Brian S. Hooker, Science Advisor, Focus for Health and Board Member, World Mercury Project

Recently, the newest U.S. autism prevalence numbers were released by the CDC.  It was not good news.  Among children born in 2004 and 2006, the prevalence of autism had increased from 1 in 68 to 1 in 59, respectively.  Leading the nation in terms of autism prevalence was New Jersey with a rate of 1 in 35 children and 1 in 22 boys.  In other words, nearly 5% of boys in New Jersey have autism spectrum disorder as defined by the new DSM V criteria. Of the children with autism in the U.S., 56% had an evaluated IQ of 85 or less, meaning they possessed intellectual disability, with the majority of those children having an IQ of less than 70.

Many in the scientific community have posited that autism is genetically determined, and researchers have searched the genome looking for the cause of this disorder.  However, the over 400 genes that have been attributed to autism risk were found to contribute to only a fraction of autism cases.  Climbing down this flimsy branch of genetics, researchers and lauding media contrived the phrase “individuals born with autism.”

Looking at prevalence alone, we are seeing a dramatic and chilling increase in numbers of autism cases, especially in the past 18 years since CDC started to officially count autism numbers in the U.S.  In 2000, the prevalence was 1 in 250, then 1 in 133 (2006) followed by 1 in 88 (2012), 1 in 68 (2014) and now 1 in 59.  Historic data also consistently show that the rate of autism in the 1980’s was near 1 in 2000 children.  It is clear that we are in an ever-increasing epidemic of this often profoundly debilitating developmental disorder, where the majority of these children will never be able to live independently throughout their lifetime.

…these wonderful kids were born normally, developed normally for the first one year to 18 months of life, and then regressed into the isolated, painful and disabling world of autism.

Let’s go back to the “individuals born with autism” phrase that I take issue with.  It is the experience of my family and many, if not most families of children with autism, that these wonderful kids were born normally, developed normally for the first one year to 18 months of life, and then regressed into the isolated, painful and disabling world of autism.  They were not born with it but experienced a significant decline in function after an environmental stressor.

Just prior to the release of the CDC’s autism prevalence numbers, an important paper by Dr. Sally Ozonoff and her colleagues at the prestigious UC Davis MIND Institute was quietly published in the journal Autism Research.  The paper, entitled “Onset Patterns in Autism: Variation across Informants, Methods, and Timing” was the culmination of a prospective study tracking the onset of autistic symptoms as evaluated by special education practitioners and parents.  This was done with the gold standard autism assessment instrument Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule (ADOS), including assessments of frequency and quality of eye contact, shared affect, and overall social engagement by highly trained examiners.

Among those children diagnosed with autism, 88% showed a decline of function (i.e., regression) from an average to above average performance during the first assessments, as compared to those children who did not end up with an autism diagnosis.

147 infants with a family history of ASD and 83 without such a history were evaluated during 7 extensive practitioner assessments held periodically within the first three years of life.  If these children were born with autism they would have shown signs at the very beginning of life. But they did not.

Among those children diagnosed with autism, 88% showed a decline of function (i.e., regression) from an average to above average performance during the first assessments, as compared to those children who did not end up with an autism diagnosis.  In addition, the examiners saw a higher rate of regression than that reported even by parents (88% compared to 69%, respectively), using assessment instrument findings that were based on parental ratings and interviews.  Also, when retrospective instruments were used for reporting (which are hampered by recall bias), incidence of regression was roughly 40%, much lower than that seen in the arguably more accurate prospective study.

The conclusion of this research, the first of its kind, is critically important for future research and further dialogue about the role of genes vs. environment in autism causation.

Out of a sampling of 230 children followed for the first three years of their lives, fully 88% of those who were diagnosed with autism started at average and above average social engagement scores, and then regressed prior to ultimately being diagnosed with autism.  In other words, nearly all of the children followed in the study who developed autism had regressive autism. They were not born with it.

Resources must be allocated to understanding the environmental stressors that cause regression, and to identify the children most vulnerable to these environmental stressors.  Let’s take this new information and use it wisely: acknowledge that many individuals with autism were not born that way, and work to identify any potential environmental exposures that led to neurological and behavioral regressions and a lifetime of disability for these wonderful children and their families.

Sign up for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the World Mercury Project. Your donation will help to support us in our efforts.

Hepatitis B Vaccine ‘Significantly Increased’ IL-6, A Bio-Marker For Autism’: Mainstream Media Silence

By World Mercury Project Board Member JB Handley, Co-Founder, Generation Rescue

GUANDONG, China?—Sun Yat-sen University’s (a Top 10 university in China) Dr. Zhibin Yao is not a household name in the American autism community, but perhaps he should be. Not only is he American-educated (University of Pittsburgh) and the author of 33 peer-reviewed studies, but he’s also the lead author of two of the most important biological studies ever done analyzing how, exactly, a vaccine can cause autism.

In 2015, Dr. Yao was the lead author of “Neonatal vaccination with bacillus Calmette–Guérin and hepatitis B vaccines modulates hippocampal synaptic plasticity in rats,” the first study that ever looked at the impact ANY vaccine might have on the brains of rats. I discussed this study in detail in an extensive article I wrote in April titled, “International scientists have found autism’s cause. What will Americans do?.” Vaccine Papers, a website dedicated to a rigorous, science-based analysis of the risks and benefits of vaccines, explained the paper this way:

“This is the first study to test the effects of immune activation by vaccination on brain development. All other studies of immune activation have used essentially pathological conditions that mimic infection and induce a strong fever. A criticism I have heard often from vaccine advocates is that the immune activation experiments are not relevant to vaccines because vaccines cause a milder immune activation than injections of poly-IC or lipopolysaccharide (two types of immune system activators). This new study demonstrates that vaccines can affect brain development via immune activation. Hence, the immune activation experiments are relevant to vaccines…The hep B vaccine increased IL-6 in the hippocampus (the only brain region analyzed for cytokines).”

Despite its importance, explaining Dr. Yao’s 2015 paper to the average person wasn’t easy, partly because his study covered a number of other topics, meaning you had to isolate the data that implicated the Hepatitis B vaccine, and then explain it. With his next paper, however, Dr. Yao and his team made explaining everything much easier, and left very little to interpretation.

The authors noted that the HBV [Hepatitis B vaccinated] mice showed ‘significantly increased’ IL-6, which we know is a biomarker for autism.

So much bigger than Wakefield, and zero media coverage

In 1998, Dr. Andrew Wakefield ended up crucified for a paper that only noted what some parents had reported–namely, that their children regressed into autism after the MMR vaccine. Dr. Yao’s second paper, on the other hand, conducted a thorough study of the Hepatitis B vaccine’s impact on the brains of mice, and did so versus a control group of mice who received a saline placebo. This is a “gold standard” animal study that you would typically do BEFORE a drug was introduced to the human population. In a world where vaccines were treated like other prescription drugs, Dr. Yao’s study would have sent up a giant red flag about the neurotoxicity of the Hepatitis B vaccine. Of course, that didn’t happen, and this is the first time you’ve probably ever heard of this study:

As you can see, this study was actually published in late 2016. I saw it for the first time two weeks ago, and almost couldn’t believe what I was reading. Dr. Yao and his colleagues open with a statement that should make every American parent shudder:

“The hepatitis B vaccine (HBV) is administered to more than 70% of neonates worldwide. Whether this neonatal vaccination affects brain development is unknown.”

Given the “unknown” of whether or not Hepatitis B impacts brain development, Dr. Yao and his colleagues then set about answering the question, and their answers are disturbing on so many levels, let me try and summarize:

1. The HBV vaccine negatively impacted the behavior of mice.

Specifically, the HBV mice (those that were vaccinated with Hepatitis B vaccine) showed a “significant decrease in locomotion” and “increased anxiety.”

2. The HBV vaccine mice experienced a spike in the cytokine IL-6.

The authors noted that the HBV mice showed “significantly increased” IL-6, which we know is a biomarker for autism.

3. It took time for the neurological impact of HBV vaccine to manifest.

This troubled the study authors. They discussed the “latency,” meaning the extensive time between when the mice were vaccinated and when the neurological disorders presented themselves (note that Hepatitis B vaccine trials in infants typically followed the infants for one week or less to monitor adverse events):

“…the significant difference found in the present study is between the immunized mice and the control mice, rather than between the mice of 8-week-old and the mice of another age. Therefore, this difference does reflect the effects of the neonatal vaccination. The mechanism underlying the latency and transient phenomenon is very complex and needs further studies for well understanding, because such latency involves many aspects of the immune responses in the periphery and CNS as well as neural plasticity.” 

4. They concluded with a statement that, in a sane world, would prompt the immediate cessation of Hepatitis B vaccine administration to babies.

What can I say, just read what they wrote for yourself:

“This work reveals for the first time that early HBV vaccination induces impairments in behavior and hippocampal neurogenesis. This work provides innovative data supporting the long suspected potential association of HBV with certain neuropsychiatric disorders such as autism and multiple sclerosis.”

Conclusion

It’s all there, in black and white. A growing, compelling body of work tying vaccinations to autism through biological science. Dr. Yao’s paper requires little interpretation, and it’s just sitting there, hiding in plain sight (this is the first time anyone in America has ever written about this paper.) Recently, a group of scientists published an editorial emphasizing how important animal studies are to understanding the neurotoxicity of aluminum adjuvant used in vaccines. They noted that “multiple vaccine administrations and neuro/immunologic adverse effects is difficult to establish by epidemiology.” Epidemiology, the study of large numbers of people and health outcomes using a spreadsheet, is rife with potential for abuse, manipulation, and missing signals. That’s why biological science is so important, and that’s why this new study from Dr. Yao and his colleagues provides a devastating blow to anyone who claims a vaccine couldn’t possibly cause brain damage or autism. As Dr. Yao and his colleagues concluded:

“This study used the same vaccine and a similar time schedule to those used for human infant vaccination in China. Therefore, these findings suggest that there may be similar effects of neonatal HBV vaccination on brain development and behavior in humans.”

Sign up for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the World Mercury Project. Your donation will help to support us in our efforts.