Re: OT- Imus, mark this up

[Guest guest]

This assuming they also pull it from the manufacturing process for

which they dont have to label it's use because supposdely they remove

it.

>

> Dear Mr. Imus,

>

> I am the parent of a seven year old with autism treatment poisoning.

>

> All that is needed to settle once and for all whether mercury in

> vaccines causes autism is a 3 year time period when mercury is

> removed from vaccines. That 3 year clock can start as early as

> 6/30/2006, when the ban on vaccines containing mercury is scheduled

> to go into effect in California.

>

> 1 in 8 Amercians are Californian. If the manufacturers have to

make

> a safer vaccine for Californians, they will make a safer vaccine

for

> everyone.

>

> Potentially delaying the start of the 3 year clock is language in

> Senate Bill 3 introduced 1/24/2005 by Senators Frist and Gregg. In

> addition to superceding state law concerning vaccine components

> (like the ban passed by the California legislature and bravely

> signed by Gov. Arnold), Senate Bill 3 offers Pharma protection from

> liability for vaccine injuries. Disgustingly, this language is

> attached to the bill that increases the death benefit for soldiers

> killed in battle.

>

> There was no time when mercury was removed from vaccines 1999-2002.

> Therefore, there is no time that the autism rate could have

dropped.

>

> The CDC/FDA/IOM " recommended " mercury removal in 1999 and " urged "

> manufacturer's to remove mercury: they did not recall the mercury

> vaccines. There are no teeth in urging and recommending. What is

> the penalty for doing nothing after having been urged?

>

> In a 2003 letter to Congressman Weldon, the FDA stated that vaccine

> manufacturers shipped vaccines with mercury as a preservative in

> 2001 with 2002 expiration dates.

>

> There was no 3 year window of vaccines without mercury, and there

is

> currently a Bill before the Senate seeking avoid the clock starting

> on 6/30/2006.

>

> Ask yourself, why wouldn't the public health officials and vaccine

> manufacturers welcome the opportunity to prove that mercury in

> vaccines does not cause autism?

>

> Barry

> Montclair, NJ

[Guest guest]

,

Great letter.

A couple of points I've heard from various sources. One is that you

won't have a perfect case in CA, because folks come in and out. So

you'll have kids vaxed in CA moving out to other states; and kids

vaxed in other states (w/thimerosal) moving into CA and thus being

diagnosed in CA.

Other point is that the states that are doing their own bans are

going to get the thimerosal-free vaxes; the states without their own

ban are going to get the vaxes with thimerosal that CA and IA won't

take...which is incentive to get bans going in each state. S.3 and

related bills are trying to wipe that out so each state can't

protect itself...but in the meantime, each state should be moving

forward trying to protect itself.

(I notice you're in NJ - that ban is currently being worked on)

-

>

> Dear Mr. Imus,

>

> I am the parent of a seven year old with autism treatment

poisoning.

>

> All that is needed to settle once and for all whether mercury in

> vaccines causes autism is a 3 year time period when mercury is

> removed from vaccines. That 3 year clock can start as early as

> 6/30/2006, when the ban on vaccines containing mercury is

scheduled

> to go into effect in California.

>

> 1 in 8 Amercians are Californian. If the manufacturers have to

make

> a safer vaccine for Californians, they will make a safer vaccine

for

> everyone.

>

> Potentially delaying the start of the 3 year clock is language in

> Senate Bill 3 introduced 1/24/2005 by Senators Frist and Gregg. In

> addition to superceding state law concerning vaccine components

> (like the ban passed by the California legislature and bravely

> signed by Gov. Arnold), Senate Bill 3 offers Pharma protection

from

> liability for vaccine injuries. Disgustingly, this language is

> attached to the bill that increases the death benefit for soldiers

> killed in battle.

>

> There was no time when mercury was removed from vaccines 1999-

2002.

> Therefore, there is no time that the autism rate could have

dropped.

>

> The CDC/FDA/IOM " recommended " mercury removal in 1999 and " urged "

> manufacturer's to remove mercury: they did not recall the mercury

> vaccines. There are no teeth in urging and recommending. What is

> the penalty for doing nothing after having been urged?

>

> In a 2003 letter to Congressman Weldon, the FDA stated that

vaccine

> manufacturers shipped vaccines with mercury as a preservative in

> 2001 with 2002 expiration dates.

>

> There was no 3 year window of vaccines without mercury, and there

is

> currently a Bill before the Senate seeking avoid the clock

starting

> on 6/30/2006.

>

> Ask yourself, why wouldn't the public health officials and vaccine

> manufacturers welcome the opportunity to prove that mercury in

> vaccines does not cause autism?

>

> Barry

> Montclair, NJ

[Guest guest]

Point IMUS to the Simpsonwood meeting notes gathered from the FOIA.

He could have a fill up an entire week of air time with that

document.

Also, HR650 is another bill currently floating around on the other

side of Capitol Hill. It was submitted by Congressman Ric Keller, R

FL 8th district, titled " The Vaccine Accessibility for Children and

Seniors Act of 2005 " . And guess what, it does nothing to increase

access to vaccines but completely addresses the vaccine lawsuits to

the favor of the manufacturers.

>

> Dear Mr. Imus,

>

> I am the parent of a seven year old with autism treatment poisoning.

>

> All that is needed to settle once and for all whether mercury in

> vaccines causes autism is a 3 year time period when mercury is

> removed from vaccines. That 3 year clock can start as early as

> 6/30/2006, when the ban on vaccines containing mercury is scheduled

> to go into effect in California.

>

> 1 in 8 Amercians are Californian. If the manufacturers have to

make

> a safer vaccine for Californians, they will make a safer vaccine

for

> everyone.

>

> Potentially delaying the start of the 3 year clock is language in

> Senate Bill 3 introduced 1/24/2005 by Senators Frist and Gregg. In

> addition to superceding state law concerning vaccine components

> (like the ban passed by the California legislature and bravely

> signed by Gov. Arnold), Senate Bill 3 offers Pharma protection from

> liability for vaccine injuries. Disgustingly, this language is

> attached to the bill that increases the death benefit for soldiers

> killed in battle.

>

> There was no time when mercury was removed from vaccines 1999-2002.

> Therefore, there is no time that the autism rate could have

dropped.

>

> The CDC/FDA/IOM " recommended " mercury removal in 1999 and " urged "

> manufacturer's to remove mercury: they did not recall the mercury

> vaccines. There are no teeth in urging and recommending. What is

> the penalty for doing nothing after having been urged?

>

> In a 2003 letter to Congressman Weldon, the FDA stated that vaccine

> manufacturers shipped vaccines with mercury as a preservative in

> 2001 with 2002 expiration dates.

>

> There was no 3 year window of vaccines without mercury, and there

is

> currently a Bill before the Senate seeking avoid the clock starting

> on 6/30/2006.

>

> Ask yourself, why wouldn't the public health officials and vaccine

> manufacturers welcome the opportunity to prove that mercury in

> vaccines does not cause autism?

>

> Barry

> Montclair, NJ