page 69
Chapter 7
The Dangerous Impurities of Vaccines
A year after I met with the top government regulatory scientists at the NIH Emergency Workshop on SV40 in 1997, they met again in Washington for another workshop on vaccine safety. At this there were representatives of all the major US government health organisations and of the vaccine manufacturers. A third similar meeting would be held a year later in 1999.
The main issue at the November 1998 meeting was whether or not it would be safe for manufacturers to produce the viruses needed for vaccines from cancer cells. Pharmaceutical companies were seeking government approval for this, on the basis that cancerous cells, as ‘immortal’ and permanent, would be cheaper to use than cells they had to regularly replace by, for example, buying more monkeys.
These workshops looked at the issue broadly, by comparing the safety of the different ways available for making our vaccines. As everyone present was a scientist, the discussions were much more open and frank than they are when journalists are present.
They started with the Measles, Mumps and Rubella vaccine (MMR). One of the first speakers on this was Dr. Arila Khan from the federal Food and Drugs Agency (FDA) and what she had to report was very disturbing. 144
‘Today I would like to present an update on the reverse transcriptase [RT] activity that is present in chicken cell derived vaccines.’ My attention was immediately grabbed. I knew that the mumps and measles viruses used for the MMR vaccine are grown in fertilised chicken eggs, as are also the viruses for the Flu and Yellow Fever vaccines. (The rubella virus for MMR is produced differently - in artificially grown cells taken originally from an aborted human foetus.)
Dr, Khan was reporting the result of a just concluded two-year investigation into the safety of MMR led by the World Health Organization. She explained this was initiated in 1996 after the discovery in MMR of RT; an enzyme whose presence they believed could Indicate that retroviruses had contaminated the vaccine. This had greatly alarmed them as Home retroviruses are thought to cause cancers - and AIDS.
WHO had then quietly, without telling the public, without withdrawing the vaccine, organised MMR safety studies at various laboratories to see ‘whether this RT activity was associated with a retroviral particle, and even more importantly, whether this retrovirus particle could infect and replicate in human cells.’
What they then discovered confirmed their worse fears. Dr. Khan continued: ‘The NT activity is found to be associated with retroviral particles of two distinct avian endogenous retroviral families designated as EAV and ALV.’ Now ALV stands for Avian I Olikosis Virus. It is associated with a leukaemia cancer found in wild birds, so definitely was not wanted in the vaccines. EAV was less dangerous, at least for birds as it is natural for them to have it.
144 _http://www.fda.gov/Cber/advisorv/vrhp/vrbpmain.htm
_http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/cber98t.htm#Vaccines%20and%20Related%20Biological%20Products%20Advisorvy2OCommittee meeting of Vaccines and Related Hlological Products Committee 19 November 1988.
Page 73
[...]
But, if cells die in the lab, it is often simply assumed that the Correct viruses are present. (For more on this, see chs. 19-20.)
The genetic codes of viruses produced by the exposed cells are also very rarely checked to see if they are identical to the added particles - for they may share many code sequences simply because the same cells can make many types of viruses out of near identical materials - and because cells often vary the viruses they produce to some extent.
If it is finally judged that these tests have been successful in growing the right viruses, a sample of the virus-rich fluid from the cell culture is taken, and this may then be used as a ‘vaccine seed’ that is added to monkey or other cells in an incubator, with ‘growth’ chemicals, to make them produce more of the viruses wanted for vaccines.
The latest information I could find on the retroviral contamination of the MMR vaccine was in a 2001 scientific paper from the CDC. This reported that 100 MMR recipients were tested to see if they were contaminated by either of the two types of retroviruses identified by Dr. Khan and others. The conclusion was dramatic. ‘The finding of RT activity in all measles vaccine lots from different manufacturers tested Suggests that this occurrence is not sporadic and that vaccine recipients may be universally exposed to these [chicken] retroviral particles.’
They then concluded: ‘Despite these reassuring data, the presence of avian retroviral particles in chick embryo fibroblast-derived vaccines [like MMR] raises questions about the suitability of primary chicken cell substrates for vaccine production.’ They recommended considering stopping production in fertilized eggs, and growing the vaccine viruses instead on 'RT-negative cells from different species, such as on immortalized [cancerous] or diploid [laboratory grown] mammalian cells.’ I was amazed to learn this, for, to the best of my knowledge, nothing has been done since this report was made to render MMR safer. The measles vaccine is still produced from contaminated chicken embryos.
A year later, on September 7th, 1999, another Workshop was convened in Washington DC to consider these issues.154 Representatives from all the largest public health institutions in the West were at this, including the World Health Organization whose representative co-chaired it. The UK government’s vaccine safety bodies had a lop-level representative in Dr. Philip Minor. Apparently no press were present- but the importance of the meeting meant that it was taped, as was the earlier conference, to ensure an accurate record.
Dr. Bill Egan, the Acting Director of the Office of Vaccines at the Center for Biologies opened the meeting with this statement:
‘I think we need to remind ourselves that viruses can propagate only in live cells, and this of course holds true for whole viral vaccines... They can only be produced in cells [substrates]... We have only to think back to the finding of SV40 in poliovirus vaccines to realize the extent of the risk that any cell substrate may pose, there is still great need for concern... we have been given the task of identifying these concerns...’
The scientists present then told that our vaccines are widely contaminated by viral and DNA genetic code fragments, many viruses and proteins. They openly worried that among these could also be dangerous prions or oncogenes.
They reported that they had found monkey viruses in still more vaccines. Dr. Andrew Lewis of the FDA gravely added that ‘humans were immunized with adenovirus vaccines that contained adenovirus-SV40 hybrid viruses.’ In other words, a brand-new monkey-human mutant virus was created in this vaccine. Dr. Ben Berkhout exclaimed at hearing this: ‘That's the one I would like to focus on today, Is [there a danger of] the
Page 74
potential reversion of an attenuated vaccine strain to a virus variant that can replicate fast and can potentially cause AIDS?’
This was a startling and horrifying question. Could our most common childhood vaccines be so affected by contaminating DNA that they will give our children AIDS? Were such mutation events in vaccines rare? Apparently not. Another doctor stated. 'Recombination among a variety of viruses and cells co-infected in tissue culture is not uncommon. This is an issue that certainly will need further consideration.’ In other words, vaccine incubators can create mutated viruses.
The next speaker described the 'foreign cellular DNA’ they had found contaminating our childhood vaccines. Dr. Andrew Lewis of the CDER and FDA worried that this might well include 'viral oncogenes’ - in other words, contaminants that might cause cancer.
Another scientist, Dr. Adimora, asked how would the public react if they knew of these dangers? ‘The general public have a variety of concerns about vaccines but, to my knowledge, the cell substrates in which the vaccines are grown has not been one of their major concerns to date.’ But, ‘it could conceivably be different in future.’
Dr. Lewis corrected him slightly, saying the public on one occasion had worried about substrates: 'There was a tremendous concern associated with the polio vaccine developed in rhesus monkey kidney cells associated with the SV40 infection. Two years ago we were one of the sponsors of a meeting that were dealing with the follow up to those concerns.’ This was the NIH meeting that had first introduced me to these issues.
Dr. Rebecca Sheets of the CBER, the US laboratory responsible for monitoring vaccine safety, worryingly noted that as government officers they had no control whatsoever over how vaccines are made! Under current legislation they could only give ‘recommendations’ to the manufacturers. Nevertheless, they were highly concerned for the ‘cell substrates in which the vaccine viruses are grown ... can be the source of adventitious agents, the source of tumorigenic potential, and the source of residual cellular DNA which can have both infectivity or tumorigenic potential.’
She continued: ‘If the use of cancer cells for the growth of vaccine viruses were authorised,’ then they would be concerned about ‘the potential for exposure to adventitious oncogenic viruses. The screening methods for these viruses are difficult or relatively insensitive, and that there may exist currently unknown or occult agents that have never before been detected despite use of current technology.’ (I was later to learn that the particle identified as HIV was first grown in such a cancer culture.)
All ways of making vaccines have their dangers. Dr. Hayflick, a well-reputed scientist involved for many years with vaccines, described how the ‘Primary Culture’ method of taking cells from ‘sacrificed animals’ or bird embryos ran into problems when ‘it became apparent that these cells contained many unwanted viruses, some of which were lethal to humans. ’ He noted: ‘Latent viruses were such a problem with primary monkey kidney cells that a worldwide moratorium on the licensing of all polio virus vaccines was called in 1967 because of death and illnesses that occurred in monkey kidney workers and vaccine manufacturing facilities’. The contaminating virus blamed was the deadly Ebola. This was most serious, but again I could find no record of the public having been informed about this suspension or the Ebola.
The top UK government expert present at this conference, Dr. Phil Minor of the National Institute of Biological Standards and Control, added that the polio vaccine had originally been so polluted that its doses contained as much monkey virus as poliovirus! I had no idea that so much monkey virus was in this vaccine given to hundreds of millions of children. Then there was another shock for me. I had been assured two years earlier at the SV40 Workshop that the polio vaccine was no longer contaminated with SV40 - and consequently I had so assured the UK public in our resulting Channel 4 television documentary. Now I learnt I had been misled and consequently had seriously misinformed
Page 75
the public. Scientists reported to this meeting that ‘SV40 sequences’ remained in the poliovirus seed used for the current polio vaccines.
As for the rubella, measles and other vaccines produced in ‘Cell Line substrates’, in cells taken from the wild but now grown in laboratories, these cell cultures host 'the broadest virus spectrum of any cell population known!’ It was also explained that these cultures in which are produced our children’s vaccines, were safety tested, controversially and alarmingly, on Terminally ill cancer human patients’ and on ‘prisoners.’
[...]
A year later Gallo had tried to grow HIV on white blood cells that were previously deliberately made cancerous (‘transformed’) by exposing to radiation or toxins, thinking this would immortalise them - and thus prevent his virus from killing them. It is a method known as the ‘Continuous Cell Line’ - and it was the next item on the agenda of this workshop. Dr. Hanna Golding, an expert with the CBER, explained she was really worried about being asked to approve of the use of cancer cells in making vaccines: ‘The issue that we are really concerned about is the unknown. We are dealing with 13 new cell substrates that are transformed. We don't know their history. We don't know what's the aetiology.’ In other words, we don’t know from where they come or what they do.
The meeting was told: ‘The main disadvantage of the continuous cell line is that many [cells] express [produce] endogenous viruses, and there has always been this concern over tumorigenic potential, should we say, associated with cellular DNA.’ They were saying that all of these had made their way into vaccines given to children. I felt this was getting more and more horrific.
Cancer cells can be extremely aggressive, moving around laboratories, contaminating culture after culture. Dr. Hayflick told of how the eminent Dr. Maurice Hilleman, the scientist whom I had earlier interviewed about the MMR vaccine, had used what he thought was an ‘intestine-based cell line’ to make an adenovirus vaccine, only to discover later to his horror that his cell line had been invaded and taken over by the aggressive cervical cancer virus known as HeLa.
I also learnt that DNA fragments contaminating vaccine lots might be from dead cells but nevertheless remained extremely active and dangerous. Dr. Golding feared these contaminating DNA codes might combine together in the vaccine lots - creating a mutant viral strain that could easily get in the individual doses of vaccine.
The removal of this contaminating DNA has proved so impossible that the US government in 1986 told the vaccine manufactures that some of it could stay. It recommended a weight limit for contaminating DNA of 100 picograms per dose. But the manufacturers could not meet this safety recommendation, as was explained at this Workshop. Their failure had led the government to relax its standards, applying the 100 picograms limit solely to the product of continuous [cancer] cell lines, and allowing one hundred times as much contaminating DNA (10 nanograms) in vaccine doses produced on
page 76
other types of substrate, such as the MMR vaccines. But the meeting was told that vaccine manufacturers had now admitted that they could not meet even this lower standard of‘purity’ -and, since these limits were only ‘recommendations’, the government was not able to enforce them. Thus high levels of hazardous DNA pollution remain in many vaccines. When I read this, I wondered about the cases of brain damage and autism now increasingly reported after the administration of these DNA polluted vaccines?
This failure was also a great concern to this meeting. Many of the doctors present worried that such a great amount of DNA fragments might cause viral mutations in the vaccines. ‘Naked’ DNA (with no protein coat) is known to be highly reactive. Dr. Phil Krause calculated; ‘If there are 10 nanograms of residual DNA per dose, which is the current WHO recommendation, and if two doses were recommended per child, as is the case with MMR vaccine, and the infectivity of viral DNA in the vaccine were comparable to that of purified polyoma virus DNA, we can calculate the theoretical infectivity risk. ... For a vaccine that is universally administered to the 4 million children born in the US every year, this would represent about 500 infections per year, clearly an unacceptable rate.’
This shocked me. If he was right, and it seemed he was (none of the experts present questioned his calculations), this surely meant the current MMR vaccine is potentially very dangerous. Krause also had only added up the risk from one vaccine. What when to it is added the contaminating DNA in the many other vaccines?
I did not realise initially what it meant for the stricter safety recommendations being only applied to vaccines made on continuous cell lines. It meant that all the common vaccines might be very DNA polluted. This realisation only came after I learnt from an expert at the workshop that: ‘Unpurified viral vaccines (like MMR) ... contain residual DNA in quantities greater than 10 nanograms.’
Dr. Krause also stated: ‘Of course, in the context of DNA vaccines, we are talking about injecting even larger quantities of DNA into people.’ He was speaking here about the new DNA vaccines being developed as ‘safer’ than our current vaccines.
Another important safety issue was raised. ‘What would this contaminating DNA do when it was injected into humans in vaccines? Could it change our own DNA? Could it cause cancers - or autoimmune diseases?’ ‘When you consider that almost every one of these vaccines is injected right into the tissue that is the preferred site for DNA gene therapy ... I think you couldn't do much more to get the DNA expressed [to get contaminating DNA taken up by human cells] than to inject it into a muscle in the way it's being done.’ Another speaker lamely admitted; T chaired the committee that licensed the chickenpox vaccine, and it [residual DNA] was actually an issue that we considered at that time. We looked among recipients of the vaccine for evidence of an autoimmune response associated with the DNA included in that vaccine.’ He then added: ‘Actually, we didn't look, we asked the company to look and they did not find one.’
Walid Heneine of the CDC asked: ‘No one has mentioned how much DNA we now have in the licensed vaccines. I mean, how much are we being exposed to? Do we have any idea how much is in the viral vaccines, like yellow fever, measles, mumps vaccines? Do the regulators have an idea from the manufacturers, how much DNA there is?’
Dr. Loewer replied: ‘I have no idea. Nobody that I know has mentioned it.’ Dr. Becky Sheets from CBER confirmed the suspicions of many when she responded. ‘I think that the vast majority of licensed vaccines, U.S. licensed vaccines, have not been tested for residual DNA. The few that have been tested are the ones that have been licensed in the last few years, including varicella and Hepatitis A.’
She then added: ‘I wanted to respond to an earlier question regarding how purified are live viral vaccines |like MMR| - [the answer is| minimally purified.’
These presentations made some of the experts most uneasy. Dr. Desrosiers stated: ‘I don't worry so much about the agents that one can test for. I worry about the agents that
page 77
you can't test for, that you don't know about.’ Dr. Greenberg agreed, He said he was: ‘worried also about the agents that aren't known’. He continued: ‘There are still countless thousands of undiscovered viruses, proteins, and similar particles. We have only identified a very small part of the microbial world - and we can only test for those we have identified. Thus the vaccine cultures could contain many unknown particles.’ Another doctor said: ‘As time goes on, of course, new viruses are discovered and new problems arise. The foamy virus has been [recently] identified as one that we should be really sure is absent from these vaccines.’
The Chairman of the Workshop then asked Dr. Maxine Linial: ‘Maxine, does anybody know if vaccines have been checked for foamy virus contamination?’
She replied: ‘As far as I know, no.’
‘You mean nobody has looked or as far as you know?
She responded; I don't know. There are very few reagents. I mean, there are reagents for the so-called human or chimp foamy virus, but as far as I know, there are no good antibody reagents.’ In other words, they could not tell if the vaccines contained loamy viruses. (‘Reagents’ are antibodies to known virus particles.)
The experts voiced other concerns. ‘And I'll' be honest and say that I'm surprised that primary African green monkey kidney cells continue to be used, and I'm a little bit disappointed that FDA and whoever is involved had not had a more serious effort to move away from primary African green monkey kidneys. We all know that there are a number of neurodegenerative conditions and other conditions where viral causes have been suspected for years and no viral agent identified. Maybe they're caused by viruses, but maybe they're not.’
Another doctor said: ‘We need to consider again some of the issues of residual DNA. Is it oncogenic? We had a lot of experience with chicken leucosis viruses in chick embryo cells beginning back in 1960. And the thing about them is they are not easy to detect because they don't produce any pathogenic effect.’
An unnamed participant added; I have to express some bewilderment [at this talk of dangerous contamination], simply because, as I mentioned last night, the vero cell, which under many conditions is neoplastic [tumour-causing], has been licensed for the production of IPV and OPV [the common polio vaccines] in the United States, Thailand, Belgium and France.’ The current polio vaccines thus run the risk of having oncogenes in them. Again this was news to me. I had no idea that the polio vaccine might be grown on such cells.
Dr. Rosenberg added unreassuringly: ‘When one uses neoplastic cells as substrates for vaccine development, one can inadvertently gelt virus to virus, or virus to cellular particle, interactions that could have unknown biological consequences.’
Dr. Tom Broker said we had to be concerned ;about ‘papilloma virus infections’ in Ihc vaccine ... ‘One of the more remarkable facts off this family of diseases is that since 1980 more people have died of HPV disease than hav<e died of AIDS.’
Dr. Phil Minor, from the UK National Institute of Biological Standards and Control, told of another disaster. ‘Flepatitis B was transmitted by yellow fever vaccine back in the 1940s. The hepatitis B actually came from the stabilisers of the albumin that was actually put in there to keep it stable’
He continued: ‘For many years, rabies vaccines were produced in mouse brain or sheep brain. They have quite serious consequences, but not necessarily associated with adventitial agents. You can get encephalitis as a result of immune responses to the non-invasive protein.’ ‘Influenza is an actuated vaccine. Again, it's not made on SPF eggs, that is, specified pathogen-free eggs. They are avian leukosis virus free, but they are not free of all the other pathogens that you would choose to exclude from the measles vaccine production system.’
page 78
Dr. Minor, the UK’s top vaccine safety officer, then added: ‘So even today then you have to bear in mind that a large amount of vaccine that’s made is made on really quite crude materials, from an adventitious agent point of view. It’s not a trivial usage. In fact, when considering what vaccines are actually made on these days, they are quite primitive in some respects.’
These warnings were coming from a senior doctor working for the UK government who would ask me at a later meeting not to pass on vaccine information that would alarm parents.
He went on to discuss SV40 and the polio vaccine. ‘It's a very common polyoma virus of old world monkeys, and particularly rhesus macaques. The difficulty with this was that, when the rhesus macaque monkeys are sacrificed and a primary monkey kidney culture made from him or her, as the case may be, a silent infection is set up. So there is evidence of infection [found] just by looking at the cultures. In fact, these cultures can throw out as much SV40 as they do polio [virus].’ The problem was that the cell cultures didn't show any sign of having defects, when they were actually infected with SV40.’
It seemed that SV40, and its accompanying proteins and genetic codes, would never have got into so many humans if they had not contaminated the vaccine - and that they were only dangerous when moved into a species for which their presence was not natural - such as into humans and into Cynomolgus monkeys.
Dr. Minor continued: ‘Wild caught monkeys were being used extensively in vaccine production. Up to a half of the cultures would have been thrown away because of adventitious agent contamination, mainly foamy virus, but certainly other things as well.’
But, they could not be certain what viruses were present. They could be mistaking SV40 for other viruses. Why? He explained because antibody tests are used to test for its presence - and such tests are not all that accurate. Antibodies don’t only react to a specific viral protein. They may ‘cross-react’ against other things. ‘What you could also argue is that you are not picking up SV40 specific antibodies at all, and they could be other human polyomas [viruses] like the BK or the JC, and it's cross-reacting antibodies that we’re picking up. I think that is still a thing that needs to be resolved.’
‘The point about this long story which I have just been telling you about SV40 is that SV40 was a problem between 1955 and 1962, and it’s now 1999, and we still don't really know what was going on. So if you actually make a mistake, it’s really quite serious. It may keep you occupied for the rest of your working life. ‘
Then Dr. Minor made a still more alarming admission: ‘Now the regulatory authorities in the room will be well aware of a large number of other examples of this type which don't actually get published. I think that's not so good. I think this stuff really should be out there in the public literature.
Another UK expert then took the stand. It was Dr. Robertson from NIBSC and, as he explained, ‘for those of you who don't know, NIBSC is CBER's cousin from across the pond in the U.K.’ In other words, it was the top UK vaccine safety monitoring body. He started off on a reassuring note: ‘There is no evidence for any increase in the incidence of childhood cancers since the onset of measles, mumps vaccination.’ But he then said: ‘But, I think, as a scientific community, unless we do something at least for the future, we might be in a very difficult situation to defend certain issues. If I confronted some of the violent ideologically pure Greens in our country, [telling them what we have been discussing here]: I'm sure they would say: ‘Shut it down because this is unsafe, totally unsafe.’
It was thus that I learnt that our vaccines are a veritable soup, made up not just of viruses that should or should not be there, but also thousands of bits of viruses and of cells, DNA and RNA genetic codes, proteins, enzymes, chemicals and perhaps oncogenes and prions. The vaccine was monitored for the presence of only a very few of these particles and vaccine lots are thrown away only if these are found.
page 79
In other words, the vaccines we give our children are liquids filled with a host of unknown particles, most of which came from the cells of non-humans: from chickens, monkeys, or even from cancer cells. Truly we do not know what we are doing or what are the long-term consequences. All that is known for sure is that vaccines are a very cheap form of public medicine often provided by governments to assure the public that they really do care for the safety of our children.
I have not mentioned one final addition to the vaccines - the preserving and antibiotic chemicals added to the doses. The manufacturer of a MMR vaccine noted: The finished product contains the following excipients: sucrose, hydrolysed gelatin (porcine), sorbitol, monosodium glutamate, sodium phosphate, sodium bicarbonate, potassium phosphate and Medium 199 with Hanks’ Salts, Minimum Essential Medium Eagle (MEM), neomycin, phenol red, hydrochloric acid and sodium hydroxide.’ 155 What these chemicals might do was not discussed at these workshops.
On top of this I knew from government records that vaccines sometimes contain the pork-derived trypsin used to break up monkey cells and other flesh in the vaccine cultures. Also, in the latest version of the Salk vaccine there is a surprisingly large amount of formaldehyde left behind after it has done its work of ‘poisoning the viruses’ (despite biology teaching us that viruses ;are not living particles). These workshops omitted all these issues from their consideration.
Today the Salk vaccine is back in use under the brand name IPOL, supposedly in a safer format - and the Sabin is out of use in the West as it is now blamed for causing some polio cases. But IPOL officially ‘contains maximum 0.02% of formaldehyde per dose.’156 I his is 200 parts a million, yet a major Harvard University study on the CDC website reports: ‘Formaldehyde is a reactive chemical that has been recognized as a human carcinogen. At levels above 0.1 parts per million, the exposure causes a burning sensation in the eyes, nose and throat: nausea; coughing; chest tightness; wheezing; and skin rashes.157
This utterly shocked me, coming after learning from these reports that our top government scientists know our children are vaccinated with ‘primitive’ cocktails of viruses mixed among DNA fragments, chemicals and cellular debris, all potentially highly dangerous - along with many unidentified particles.
Furthermore the transcript of another scientific meeting, this one held at the Institute of Medicine in June 2000, comprised of scientists from the CDC, FDA and vaccine industry, reveals it was called because a CDC scientist, Dr. Thomas Verstraeten, found a statistically significant relationship between mercury in vaccines and several neurological conditions, including possibly autism, which today is seriously affecting very many of our children. 58
The official US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) safety of exposure standard for mercury is 0.1 microgram per kilogram of body weight per day, or 7 micrograms for a 70-kilogram adiult. Yet, ‘fully vaccinated children receive as much as 117.5 micrograms of mercury from vaccines in doses of up to 25 micrograms each.’ According to 2003 research, ‘thimerosal [mercury] in a single vaccine greatly exceeds the EPA adult standard.’159
155 Op. Cit.
156 _http://www.vaccineshoppe.com/US_PDF/860-10_4305 _4308.pdf IPOL produced Aventis Pasteur SA
157 _http://www.efluxmedia.com/news_Formialdehyde_Exposure_Boosts_ALS_Risk_16632.htm
158 See article at _http://www.rollingstone.com/poiitics/storv/7395411/deadly_immunity. For the research documents see _http://www.autismhelpforyou.com/Simpsonwood_And_Puerto%20%20Rico.htm
159 Davis, Eric Health Hazards of Mercury, at _http:_westonaprice.org/envtoxins/mercury, citing Geier MR, DA 2003, Thimerosal in Childhood Viaccines, Neurodevelopment Disorders, and Heart Disease in the United States. Journal of American Pysicians and Surgeons, 2003;8(1):6-11.
page 80
Mercury is now being reduced or eliminated from vaccines, and yet, undeniably most of our children seem to have survived multiple doses with these vaccines, including those containing mercury, with no evident damage. How can this be?
My horror at discovering how little is known about the contents of our vaccines, is counterbalanced by my growing admiration for our marvellous immune system. Apparently after vaccination, if we are in a good state of health, it normally is quite capable of neutralising much of this debris, removing or reducing its great danger.
But this did not explain why top scientists, who believe with every iota of their being in the great danger presented by viruses, who see these as the great enemy, have exposed our children to such dangers, without ever informing their parents of these dangers?
In 2002 further research has found major childhood vaccines contaminated with retroviruses. The RT-positive vaccines include measles, mumps, and yellow fever vaccines produced by several manufacturers in Europe and the United States. RT activity was detected in the vaccines despite strict manufacturing practices requiring that chick embryos and embryo fibroblasts be derived from closed, specific-pathogen-free chicken flocks. Such chickens are screened for known pathogens’160
[...]
page 81
In March 1989, MMR (Urabe AM-9) was introduced in Japan. In September 1989 the first Japanese case of aseptic meningitis, post MMR vaccine, was reported to the Japanese Public Health Council. 162 When this vaccine was introduced in the UK, reports ol the same illness immediately followed.16’ These should have been predicted, as similar reports had lead to the withdrawal of the vaccine in Canada.164 As I have reported above, many cases of this disease previously were diagnosed as non-paralytic polio. If chemical pollutants caused that illness, as the evidence above seems to suggest, might contaminants m vaccines cause, or help to cause, similar neural damage?
At that time the mumps component of this MMR vaccine was blamed (with its associated contaminants included but not mentioned), and so it was eventually withdrawn from circulation in the UK. This lead to SFK, it’s manufacturer, having the other two components, measles and rubella, left unsold on the shelf. It was partially to use up these that the UK organised the MR campaign whose disastrous history I recount in the first chapter of this book. It’s manufacturer, Smith Klein Beecham (SKB), was also apparently given immunity from prosecution for vaccine damage. A governmental joint working party minute of May 7th 1993 reportedly stated: 'SKB continued to sell the Urabe strain vaccine without Liability.’ 165
Measles, mumps and other vaccines continue to be produced on contaminated fertilized bird eggs. WHO, and the national health authorities have quietly, but officially, permitted childhood vaccines to contain 'a low level’ of viral contamination - simply because they cannot remove it economically.
WHO currently approves as acceptable a level of contamination of 106 to 107 possible viral particles per millilitre for the substrates on which are grown our vaccines. They publicly say this only presents a ‘theoretical safety concern’ but clearly they still are very concerned, as they stated when no journalists were present in these conferences, Vaccines have become very big business since more and more doses per child are stipulated and purchased every year. The estimated revenue from childhood vaccines in llic US is now over 2.4 billion dollars a year. 166 But are the contamination and additives in the vaccines damaging many of the children they are supposed to help?
162 See _http://www.nih.go.jp/J J1D/55/101.pdf.. This is referenced in the highly recommended piece by Alan Golding available online at _http://alan-golding.blogspot.com/2008/08/time-to-revisit-decisions.html
163 Gray JA. Lancet 19189;2:98
164 Murray MW. Lancet 1989;2:677
165 JCVI minutes of 7 May 1993 cited by Alan Golding above. JCVI is the Joint Working Party of the
British Paediatric Association and the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunization.
166 Pdiatric Preventive Care Cost, Estimated US Average, 2005, by Patient Age, Recommendations for Preventive Pediatric Health Care (RLE9939) and Recommended Childhood and Adolescent Immunization Schedule, US, 2005. Mused on 4 million births a year.
Okay. I think that covers a fair bit.
The rest of Janine Roberts' book deals with HIV, (which from reading ahead is filled with astonishing claims and evidence of more spurious wishful thinking), and reproductions of pages of incriminating documents.
If anything really jumps out at me, I'll reproduce it here, but I would strongly recommend just on my incomplete reading that anybody interested in this subject find a copy. (And maybe email the author encouraging her to put something out in a digital format. These hard copies are hard to come by!)
