CDC & thimerosal: fraud & child abuse by some CDC officials

[Guest guest]

Dear Dr. Rhonda ,

As reported in a recent newspaper article (1), your statement that " Most of the

mercury-containing preservative, thimerosal, was eliminated from flu vaccines

after 1999,

though some manufacturers use it in trace amounts, said Rhonda ,

spokeswoman for the

Centers for Disease Control (CDC). " appears to be inaccurate. The CDC's own

delineation of

flu vaccines and thimerosal (2) indicates that 3 flu vaccines contain thimerosal

and

specifically lists as " thimerosal free " a different two flu-vaccines that

contain only

" trace amounts " of thimerosal, whereas a CDC webpage (3) states that " Yes, the

majority of

influenza vaccines distributed in the United States currently contain thimerosal

as a

preservative. "

Importantly, recent research has shown that 3 thimerosal injections can increase

the rate

of autism by a factor of 20 (4-6), and an infant, toddler, or young child who

receives a

thimerosal-containing flu shot is *likely* to have additional thimerosal

injected via

other vaccinations (7), thereby further increasing the likelihood of developing

autism or

an autism-associated neurologic disorder. Despite the increasing evidence that

thimerosal

injections induce adverse neurologic sequelae in susceptible infants, the CDC

continues to

assert that thimerosal injections do no harm (8).

I believe:

A. Your statement that thimerosal was eliminated from flu vaccines is inaccurate

and

should be corrected to the media. Furthermore, the CDC's assertion that

thimerosal

injections are " safe " constitutes fraud based on what appears to have been

deliberate

distortion of CDC studies originally published as RL et al, then as

Verstraeten et

al. Please consider a Republican Congressman's summary of CDC data-fudging (9),

then as

failing to mention the Geier and Geier findings (8; 5-6).

B. The CDC's fraudulent manipulation of data (eg, 9) and the CDC's official

stance that

thimerosal is " safe " will contribute to an increased rate of thimerosal

injections and

will thereby increase the number of children and families neurologically injured

by

thimerosal.

C. The CDC's stance and ongoing misstatements about thimerosal by certain CDC

spokespersons therefore can and should be classified as child abuse in accord

with any and

all local, state, and federal statutes regarding injuries to children.

Binstock

Researcher in Developmental & Behavioral Neuroanatomy

P.O. Box 1788

Estes Park CO 80517

usa

References:

1. Don't panic about flu, some advise

Common sense goes a long way toward maintaining a strong immune system.

http://www.pe.com/lifestyles/healthandfitness/stories/PE_Fea_Health_chiro1223.58\

63d.html

2. Flu Vaccine 2004 Mercury Content

http://www.safeminds.org/NewChart.pdf

3. http://www.cdc.gov/nip/flu/thimerosal.htm

Does the influenza vaccine contain thimerosal?

Yes, the majority of influenza vaccines distributed in

the United States currently contain thimerosal as a

preservative. However, some contain only trace

amounts of thimerosal and are considered by the

Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to be

preservative-free. Manufacturers of preservative-free

flu vaccine use thimerosal early in the manufacturing

process. The thimerosal gets diluted as the vaccine

goes through the steps in processing. By the end of

the manufacturing process there is not enough

thimerosal left in the vaccine to act as a preservative

and the vaccine is labeled ‘preservative-free’.

4. A quote from researcher Geier, MD, PhD: " We went to Atlanta, " he

continues, " to

the CDC, and looked at the VSD [Vaccine Safety Data] data. There is

thimerosal-containing DTaP [diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis vaccine] and

thimerosal-free

DTaP, so we asked a question: Among children that got a minimum of

either three consecutive thimerosal-containing DTaPs or three consecutive

thimerosal-free

DTaPs, was there a difference in the number of autism cases in the two

groups? We found mega differences. More than 20 times higher. The rate of autism

in the

children that got more than three doses of thimerosal-containing DTaP

vaccines was much, much higher. Almost all the children that have autism in

that group

were the ones that got the thimerosal-containing DTaP vaccine. The more

thimerosal the greater the cases of autism. "

--O'Meara KP. CDC Study Raises Level of Suspicion.

http://www.insightmag.com/news/573542.html

5. Geier DA, Geier MR. An assessment of the impact of thimerosal on childhood

neurodevelopmental disorders. Pediatr Rehabil. 2003 Apr-Jun;6(2):97-102.

6. Geier MR, Geier DA. Neurodevelopmental disorders after thimerosal-containing

vaccines:

a brief communication. Exp Biol Med (Maywood). 2003 Jun;228(6):660-4.

available at: http://www.safeminds.org/Geier_2nd_article.pdf

7. Which vaccines currently contain thimerosal aka ethylmercury and which do

not:

http://www.vaccinesafety.edu/thi-table.htm

and

http://www.vaccinesafety.edu/thi-table.htm#2

8. http://www.cdc.gov/nip/flu/thimerosal.htm

Is it safe for children to receive an influenza vaccine that contains

thimerosal?

Yes. There is no convincing evidence of harm caused

by the small doses of thimerosal in vaccines, except

for minor effects like swelling and redness at the

injection site due to sensitivity to thimerosal.

9. Regarding thimerosal's adverse effects and CDC fudging of data

Letter from Congressman Dr. Weldon to director of CDC:

October 31, 2003

L. Gerberding, M.D., M.P.H.

Director, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

1600 Clifton Road, N.E.

Atlanta, GA 30333

Dr. Gerberding,

I am writing to follow up on our conversation about the article (Verstraeten et.

al.,)

that will be published in the November 2003 issue of Pediatrics. I have reviewed

the

article and have serious reservations about the four-year evolution and

conclusions of

this study.

Much of what I observed transpired prior to your appointment a year ago as the

Director of

the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). I am very concerned

about activities that have taken place in the National Immunization Program

(NIP) in the

development of this study, and I believe the issues raised need your personal

attention.

I am a strong supporter of childhood vaccinations and know that they have saved

us from

considerable death and suffering. A key part of our vaccination program is to

ensure that we do everything possible to ensure that these vaccines, which are

mandatory,

are as safe as possible. We must fully disclose adverse events. Anything less

than

this undermines public confidence.

I have read the upcoming Pediatrics study and several earlier versions of this

study

dating back to February 2000. I have read various e-mails from Dr. Verstraeten

and

coauthors. I have reviewed the transcripts of a discussion at Simpsonwood, GA

between the

author, various CDC employees, and vaccine industry representatives. I

found a disturbing pattern which merits a thorough, open, timely, and

independent review

by researchers outside of the CDC, HHS, the vaccine industry, and others with a

conflict of interest in vaccine related issues (including many in University

settings who

may have conflicts).

A review of these documents leaves me very concerned that rather than seeking to

understand whether or not some children were exposed to harmful levels of

mercury in

childhood vaccines in the 1990s, there may have been a selective use of the data

to make

the associations in the earliest study disappear. While most childhood vaccines

now only have trace amounts of mercury from thimerosal containing vaccines

(TCVs), it is

critical that we know with certainty if children were injured in the 1990s.

Furthermore, the lead author of the article, Dr. Verstraeten, worked for

the CDC

until he left over two years ago to work in Belgium for GlaxoKline (GSK),

a vaccine manufacturer facing liability over TCVs. In violation of their own

standards of

conduct, Pediatrics failed to disclose that Dr. Verstraeten is employed by GSK

and

incorrectly identifies him as an employee of the CDC. This revelation undermines

this

study further.

The first version of the study, produced in February 2000, found a significant

association

between exposure to thimerosal containing vaccines (TCVs) and autism and

neurological developmental delays (NDDs). When comparing children exposed to

62.5 µg of

mercury by 3 months of age to those exposed to less than 37.5 µg, the study

found a relative risk for autism of 2.48 for those with a higher exposure level.

(While

not significant in the 95% confidence interval for autism, this meets the legal

standard

of proof exceeding 2.0.) For NDDs the study found a relative risk of 1.59 and a

definite

upward trend as exposure levels increased.

A June 2000 version of the study applied various data manipulations to reduce

the autism

association to 1.69 and the authors went outside of the VSD database to secure

data from a

Massachusetts HMO (Harvard Pilgrim, HP) in order to counter the association

found between

TCVs and speech delay. At the time that HP's data was brought in, HP was in

receivership

by the state of Mass., its computer records had been in shambles for years, it

had

multiple computer systems that could not communicate with one another (Journal

of Law,

Ethics and Medicine Sept. 22, 2000), and it used a health care coding system

totally

different from the one used across the VSD. There are questions relating to a

significant

underreporting of Autism in Mass. The HP dataset is only about 15% of the HMO

dataset used

in the February 2000 study. There may also be significant problems with the

statistical

power of the HP dataset.

In June of 2000 a meeting was held in Simpsonwood, GA, involving the authors of

the study,

representatives of the CDC, and the vaccine industry. I have reviewed a

transcript of this meeting that was obtained through the Freedom of Information

Act

(FOIA). Comments from Simpsonwood, NJ meeting include: (summary form, not direct

quotes):

• We found a statistically significant relationship between exposures and

outcomes. There

is certainly an under ascertainment of adverse outcomes because some children

are just

simply not old enough to be diagnosed, the current incidence rates are much

lower than we

would expect to see (Verstraeten);

• We could exclude the lowest exposure children from our database. Also

suggested was

removing the children that got the highest exposure levels since they

represented an

unusually high percentage of the outcomes. ()

• The significant association with language delay is quite large. (Verstraeten);

• This information should be kept confidential and considered embargoed;

• We can push and pull this data anyway we want to get the results we want;

• We can alter the exclusion criteria any we way we want, give reasonable

justifications

for doing so, and get any result we want;

• There was really no need to do this study. We could have predicted the

outcomes;

• I will not give TCVs to my grandson until I find out what is going on here.

Another version of the study - after further manipulation - finds no association

between

TCVs and autism, and no consistency across HMOs between TCVs and NDDs and speech

delay.

The final version of the study concludes that " No consistent significant

associations were

found between TCVs and neurodevelopmental outcomes, " and that the lack of

consistency argues against an association. In reviewing the study there are data

points

where children with higher exposures to the neuortoxin mercury had fewer

developmental

disorders. This demonstrates to me how excessive manipulation of data can lead

to absurd

results. Such a conclusion is not unexpected from an author with a serious,

though

undisclosed, conflict of interest.

This study increases speculation of an association between TCVs and

neurodevelopmental

outcomes. I cannot say it was the author's intent to eliminate the earlier

findings of an

association. Nonetheless, the elimination of this association is exactly what

happened and

the manner in which this was achieved raises speculation. The dialogue at

the Simpsonwood meeting clearly indicates how easily the authors could

manipulate the data

and have reasonable sounding justifications for many of their decisions.

The only way these issues are going to be resolved - and I have only mentioned a

few of

them - is by making this particular dataset and the entire VSD database open for

independent analysis. One such independent researcher, Dr. Mark Geier, has

already been

approved by the CDC and the various IRBs to access this dataset. They have

requested the

CDC allow them to access this dataset and your staff indicated to my office that

they

would make this particular dataset available after the Pediatrics study is

published.

Earlier this month the CDC had prepared three similar datasets for this

researcher to

review to allow him to reanalyze CDC study datasets. However when they accessed

the

datasets - which the researchers paid the CDC to assemble - the datasets were

found to

have no usable data in them. I request that you personally intervene with those

in the CDC

who are assembling this dataset to ensure that they provide the complete

dataset, in a

usable format, to these researchers within two weeks. The treatment that these

well-published researchers have received from the CDC thus far has been abysmal

and

embarrassing. I would also be curious to know whether Dr. Verstraeten, an

outside

researcher for more than two years now, was required to go through the same

process as Dr.

Geier in order to continue accessing the VSD.

You have not been a part of creating this current situation, but you do have an

opportunity to help resolve this issue and ensure that confidence and

trustworthiness in

the CDC and our national vaccination program is fully restored. I would ask that

you work

with me to ensure that a full, fair, and independent review is made of the VSD

database to fully examine this matter. I would like to meet with you at your

earliest

convenience to move this process forward.

Thank you for your consideration. I look forward to working with you on this

urgent matter

of great importance to our nation's most precious resource, our children.

Sincerely,

Dave Weldon, M.D. [R-Fla]

Member of Congress

-----------

cc: L. Gerberding, M.D., M.P.H.

Director, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

1600 Clifton Road, N.E.

Atlanta, GA 30333