EPIDEMIOLOGY

[Guest guest]

Epidemiology: A century of « progress »?

From removing the pump handle to avoid streams of polluted water making people

ill to removing the data stream to remove clear evidence of harm inflicted to

people.

The results are evident. In the first case people stopped getting ill, in the

second case illness continues and gets worse. Worse we can only guess if autism

is only the

start of the damage that mercury is causing.

The signification of handle has gone full circle so today we know how to

« handle ». From removing handles to « handling » by blatant and large

scale removal of

incriminating data.

Epidemiology is the study of what happens to people when exposed to hazards.

Like all science it is as good as the techniques, expertise and motives of those

using it.

Today epidemiology is increasingly used to deny evidence of harm by taking only

the data you require and not the data that informs.

Todays science is becoming more and more, we don't know but it can't be X and

less and less thalidomide can cause flipper like defomation to the growing

foetus.

Authority science on autism is 100 per cent we don't know and 100 per cent it

can't be X where in this case X is a deliberate and unnecessary addition of a

brain

damaging toxic chemical, the most toxic chemically known to man. Not so much

science as blocking the science that indicates harm from thimerosal.

There is much evidence to show epidemiology is only as good as the people who

practice its art.

Sir Doll is undoubtably the best example of how good epidemiology can be

to show illness for example from tobacco and sadly how easy it is in the modern

world to make even more money by saying and doing nothing much. Never much liked

for destroying or at least allowing people to get cancer knowing they might to

making a personal fortune by using his expertise to say and do nothing. A case

of serve, obey and keep your mouth shut. Sir Doll is also the best

example of

epidemiology going bad or rather going into hibernation.

When clear evidence of the link between autism and mercury was found by a junior

and temporary member of the CDC, the history of what happened next is

increasingly clear. Data that showed harm from mercury was removed until less

than 5 per cent of it was left for epidemiology studies. The result was even

here of a

link and further data was added to remove the last vestiges of evidence of harm

from what has been known of this chemicals ability to take away minds for

thousands

of years. The chance to show harm and eliminate a mistake was lost. In the

corruption of data the result actually showed a protective and intellectual

improving ability of

substances that destroy brain cells. A remarkable result which no can explain.

The explanation is simple. Pure fraud. Today we still have no acceptance that

this work

was fraudulent and that the paper needs to be coded as being of little or no

value. It is in fact the main reason why denial of harm for neurological illness

from thimerosal

is accepted as fact. Evidence that began as showing a hundred fold correlation,

something rarely if ever seen in epidemiology.

Mercury, Autism Spectrum Disorder and the very ordered defence of any connection

between the two. The defence of a huge correlation between mercury vaccines

and autism is a criminally insane manoevre by an organisation charged with

protecting our health. The elimination of mercury has in 2010 not only been

halted but for

several years both the amount and age of exposure have moved in directions to

increase harm to infants.

Autism became a disorder of increasing concern during the 1990's with several

thousand parents today (2010) fighting for recognition of the harm from mercury

injections given to their children up to 20 years ago. Decisions in favour of

harmed children typically taking more than 15 years and making any rapid

response to harm in

USA and UK completely impossible;

The scientific position in 1999 was very clear:

On December 17th 1999 for example two people at the CDC knew exactly how bad and

large the connection was between mercury vaccines and autism.

The odds of getting neurological illness after mercury vaccines ranged from a 20

fold risk up to a 100 fold risk.

Further the CDC people involved, knew the risk from mercury vaccines was not

noticeable after the first month of a child's life.

To summarise 1999 knowledge:

We knew from thousands of years ago that mercury takes away our mind.

We knew organomercury compounds posed a delayed action neurological response

even to healthy grown people with a delay of 5 to 10 months from small amounts

not

actually eaten but entering the body through the skin (spill or deliberate

injection). This knowledge coming as a shock to the scientific world with the

death from

neurological illness to Wetterhahn in 1997.

We did by now know generally of the deliberate addition of thimerosal to

vaccines and this fact had been known by vaccine developers for they actually

commanded

and added the mercury to preserve and to increase the effect of other materials

in the vaccine. Until this time most people including many who control vaccine

safety had

no idea of the mercury toxic addition or exactly how much was added.

We also knew that any mercury vaccine tested was toxic even when diluted 100

times and for some countries for this reason alone was not a preservative to be

used

in vaccines with the proviso that for every mercury vaccine there were non-toxic

alternatives. This was true for the USA with mercury free DTP vaccines that were

in

this study classed as containing mercury thus nullifying any science in the

final report.

Usage of mercury compounds in medical drugs and agriculture had established over

time the huge and gradually evident harm from organomercury and even inorganic

mercury compounds and for drinking water the reference level was 2 parts per

billion (2ppb) vastly less than that in any vaccine both up to 1999 and today in

many so

called mercury free vaccines. Amounts of mercury not only vastly higher but at

levels where filmed destruction of growing brain cells has been achieved where

even

lead salts known to induce autism had no effect.

There was much work already known on thimerosal but as any research is expensive

and time consuming for simplicity methylmercury was the chosen toxin to study

for many practical reasons. Also thimerosal has undergone many name changes and

misspellings making a library search difficult. The toxic part of any mercury

compound is mainly the mercury atom so the connection of methyl and ethyl

alcohol as being of vastly different toxicity is both obnoxious and false and

even here it is not

the methyl alcohol per se which is toxic but the formaldehyde metabolite. Methyl

alcohol in small amounts with large amounts of ethyl alcohol hides stops the

methyl

alcohol toxicity. In any event ethyl alcohol is tolerated by humans but is in

itself toxic and can damage an unborn child. For this reason drinking of alcohol

is an event

recognised to cause potential harm to the pre-natal child. But ethyl alcohol

consumption is illegal before adulthood and by this time the person makes an

intelligent choice.

A one day baby has no choice about receiving mercury vaccines and claims of

theoretical harm are evident danger for some babies of even their continued

life.

The current research in 1999 at the CDC was, as history shows, too damaging to

release to the public in its original form. The evidence of harm both clear and

evident

with unknown harm not even investigated by this team.

Thes original data sets have not been made public and requests for them have met

with denials that they now exist. They have been lost. This is clear nonsense as

the

database is that of the USA nation and essential for just this kind of research.

It appears only to be made public when the results are politically acceptable.

The loss of

national data in peace time is unacceptable.

The first available known data come from a meeting in 2000 where the

participants were asked not to disclose the events as they would be published in

two weeks. A

blatant lie and attempt to hide the facts from a public unknowingly exposed to

harm. In the event they were never published and the final paper on this subject

was so

dishonest as to be worthless. Copies of the data are clearly marked confidential

and inscribed DO NOT COPY. Honest persons abide by such notices confident that

any

information needed for the public would be passed through reputable channels.

The evidence of harm was never honourably passed on to the public involved. The

final

report published years later actually shows organomercury brain destroying

materials as improving your intelligence. A finding that actually destroys any

thoughts of

intelligence, integrity or honesty in the authors or the publishing journal

even. For example the paper claimed to compare the effects of mercury vaccines

but did no such

thing. The data was handled, manipulated and selected to show nothing. The

published paper claimed the lead author still worked for the CDC, a small point,

but shows

the lack of rigour. The lead author had moved from a temporary and junior

position with the CDC to a senior and important position at a vaccine company

that would lose

favour and money if sued for harming those it claimed to protect from illness,

disorders and death.

This first alteration of the facts used five different criteria to reduce the

chance of a repeat finding of 20 to 100 fold correlations with neurological

disorders. The first

known alteration reduced risks to more normal and modest levels. For example the

largest risk of autism after mercury vaccines dropped to 2.5 times no extra

risk.

Further by reducing numbers it was not possible to achieve significance. This

despite graphs showing a very clear and gradual rise in risk of autism with no

change

found at 50µg, risk of 1.25 at 60µg and the risk of 2.5 at more than 60µg of

thimerosal.

The entire database relates to more than 2 million infants but this first

alteration of data had reduced the numbers down to less than a one tenth of a

million infants. More

than 95 per cent of the infants vaccinated had been rejected as unsuitable for

evaluating thimerosal harm but passed as well to be vaccinated with what has

always

been regarded as chemically the most toxic element out of a hundred or so

elements.

When you regard the initial remark that harm was done in the first month the

first criteria to be removed in this 2000 study was those children before 1991

and effectively

at a time when no child normally was vaccinated in the first month of life. How

can this be an honest study when you callously take out more than 50 per cent of

the

children as they would prove harm from early vaccines especially early mercury

vaccines. Remember this first alteration of data reduced in one stroke harm of

100 fold

down to levels of 2 or so.

Epidemiology in the 21st century is not suspect it is not science but pure

politics.

The study in any event was now concerned with children born in 1992 through to

1997. I am not certain how many children in this time have now died or got

autism and

other illnesses but the figure of autism children in this study now comes down

to 67 individuals. The study of whether mercury causes autism is a battle over

these 67

people and how they were chosen from a huge database. If you take sudden death

after vaccines using a day after as the cut off you would get 3 times this

number of

deaths following mercury vaccines. This alone shows that it is nearly impossible

to overcome the idea that a vaccine saves people from illness. Deaths and

injuries not

vaccine preventable can rise with impunity on the model that we are saving life

from the vaccines. For example in the UK in this time period probably zero

people died

from any vaccine preventable illness. Deaths of a much larger order from

vaccines should therefore cause concern even if only warning such as on packets

of

cigarettes so people can make informed choices for their child. Remember if the

honest work had been published it was suggesting babies of age 1 month and over

have

much less chance of harm.

I have mentioned that for every mercury vaccine there are and do exist

equivalent non-mercury alternatives. Ie vaccines which on a mercury based model

for autism

would if included in the wrong dataset completely nullify any meaning in the

results. We are risking life for a few cents.

To be explicit the research put some of non-mercury vaccines on the mercury side

and vice-versa and any epidemiology science of mercury versus non-mercury

vaccines is essentially destroyed. This fraud is possible as not a single

mercury content in blood, urine or faeces or any mercury challenge tests or

indeed any chemical

analysis has been attempted. We have no absolute proof of fraud but solid

evidence of fraud only.

The whole exercise can be summarised as a series of data changes, eliminating

embarrassing data sets and importing data sets of less or zero quality. The

original 2

million with a 200 fold correlation had except for a few cases come down to

virtually one in all cases and the inclusion of another set of unreliable data

enabled the final

pediatrics report to actually show clear benefit from mercury vaccines. Not so

much a triumph of manipulation but sheer unadulterated political fraud and

deceit.

Neil Halsey who inititiated vaccines for the age one day baby and was clearly

embarrassed by this research and admitted promptly the folly of adding mercury

to

vaccines. Even in December 2003 in response to the paper showing no harm from

mercury he writes:

The results differ from those presented in 2001. The original paper with the

promise it would be made public years earlier had been broken.

He also noted that despite the finding of no correlation there was in the paper

an admitted correlation which had then been swiftly discounted. There is

eveidence of

harm but it is not anything to take seriously. Death and harm to infants not to

be taken seriously.

Months later another more serious allegation was made by Dr Mark Geier. We now

know that this letter was held up for all this time and only got published by

intense and

persistant lobbying. He notes that some vaccines which were described as mercury

vaccines were in fact not mercury vaccines at all. In effect making a nonsense

out

of the whole of this paper and its findings.

DeStefano's response to this was almost immediate, suggesting that Mark

Geier's letter had been seen before its much delayed publication and a suitable

response

or riposte prepared. He concedes the coding of thimerosal was inaccurate. His

first parry is that allowance was made for this but that it was not evident. His

next parry

is that it was not a major portion of the vaccines. His third parry is actually

say this fact of vaccines with and without mercury helped in their research and

data

collection. All very careful cover up and arrogance for good science. No oops we

made an error. The data had been changed so much even an oops would have been

dishonest by now. Just toughing it out and to date no one in authority has taken

on board the dishonesty in this article.

In short any faith in one of the principal authors is at a very low level and of

course the lead author is effectively gagged so did not enter into the debate

over intellectual

honesty in this research.

Justification for the manipulation and repeated manipulation of data sets and

bringing in and eliminating of data is enlightening:

DeStefano says

1 The methods of analysis were refined. It is not clear how this was achieved.

It has no appearance of refinement only that of fraud.

2 Errors in data were corrected. To correct a 100 fold correlation to 2 perhaps.

Not amention of why the hundred fold correlation was corrected only the final

results of

no correlation.

3 Suggestions by reviewers were incorporated. No doubt eliminating vaccines

before 1992 etc? Also eliminating parents who had genuine health concerns –

hardly

suggestive of refinement but possibly of covering up. We can only guess what he

was hinting at here.

4 More children of interest were identified. The first alteration actually

reduced children of interest. 67 people with autism for the period 1992 to 1997

in USA seems

hardly to suggest much desire to identify children of interest. There must have

been hundreds dying within hours of their vaccines that occurred in this period.

All put

down to SIDS, a cover up of vaccine harm without precedence until this paper

arrived.

5 The demand to see the data sets has with one exception been totally denied

despite the remark of DeStefano that it was available. In fact the dataset was

put in private

hands and the data used for the Verstraeten work has been lost.

Further work has led to both dubious support for the innocuousness of thimerosal

but research showing clear harm has been explained away as bad science or those

that performing it are somehow incompetent.

The changes in Verstraeten's research are not just suspicious but show clear

evidence of tampering on many occasions with no openness today to review exactly

what came to pass. We have only fragments and evidence of fruad in handling

data.

There is clear evidence of harm from mercury given early in life causing harm.

There is clear evidence of scientific fraud to achieve results showing no harm.

There is clear evidence of political manoevering to damn those who show the harm

from mercury and to conclude that any and all of the data set additions and

changes

are part of normal 21st century epidemiology as practised by world experts like

Sir Doll who proved the harm of getting lung cancer from tobacco

smoking.

We are effectively in the hands of politicians who tell us everything has been

handled correctly.

Today we have one child in three with neurological problems. The rise is faster

than any possible gene change.

If it has been handled correctly then the harm and death to infants is the

correct USA 2010 policy.

This is euthanasia 21st century style.

Epidemiology: A century of « progress »?