This is a toxicologist Boyd Haley “I would like to make one significant point. I and other scientists like the Geiers, Dr. Deth, Dr. Jill James, etc. and numerous concerned MDs have talked at hundreds of autism conferences attended by hundreds of parents. The parents do not identify thimerosal as the most likely cause of autism based on emotion, they know the science better than the MDs at the CDC and their cohorts. They also read the FOIA material from SafeMinds and know a whitewash and “manufacturing of uncertainty” when they read it. There is NO substantial science behind the CDC’s claim that science is on their side. What is holding up progress on the autism treatments and sensible research is the success of the CDC campaign where parents are pictured as emotional while the CDC parrots are presented as logical, well educated experts. Scientists who have done research are not even mentioned so the deception by the CDC is further publicized by reporters who don’t know the difference. If the CDC represent mainstream science, then science in the USA is heading for rock bottom (like a genetic cause for an epidemic would be laughed at by a conference of scientists). Just calling a physician a scientist because he has his name on a few epidemiological based publications is a joke.” Boyd Haley

you see it’s things like the next example of the CDC fraudulant studies

But more importantly, a review of e-mails exchanged between the Danish researchers and the CDC reveals that the statement “From 1991 until 2000 the incidence increased and continued to rise after the removal of thimerosal from vaccines, including increases among children born after the discontinuation of thimerosal” may not have been true.In an e-mail on 11/13/2002 at 09:24, “co-author” Marlene B. Lauritsen informed Drs. Madsen, Thorsen and Schendel of the CDC:
“But the incidence and prevalence are still decreasing in 2001″.
The sentences, before and after that unequivocal statement, were blackened with a magic marker before they were released through the Freedom of Information Act. (Exhibit II)

It does seem they the CDC uses that black marker a lot, here they are at it again. When byronchild asked CDC spokesperson Curtis Allen for a copy of the contract that would detail the agreement between the IOM and the CDC,
Allen stated that the contract would be available only in a heavily “redacted” or blacked-out format.

The IOM stated “no comment” to byronchild about the leaked transcript
or its
use in the pending civil court case.
If you still cannot figure out these people have done worse than terrorist then you are the one in denialism

Just one more thing the CDC is never suppose to hide anything from the public they are suppose to do everything above board in the public eye with
complete transparency it does appear that they the CDC is acting in self protection mode and that is very dangerous for the public and they have forgotten who they serve for lately it has been exclusively Big Pharma

Someone who steadfastly refuses to accept the evidence no matter much evidence is provided is antiscience. That is the definition of one of the two main classes of antiscience, denialism.

At a certain point so much evidence has been accumulated for a certain scientific principle that you simply cannot reject that principle without rejecting science along with it.

Black cat just where do I start tearing your statement apart Maybe if the studies that found no evidence of a link
had not been faked and the IOM report been out an out fraud I would have to agree with you. Now for the Proof and exposing CDC lies

If you ever told the IOM looked at this and found no link.
like Paul Harvey says now for the rest of the story

This is the proof the CDC bought the IOM but as of recently we have learned that the IOM advised the CDC to seek counsel. This should not be happening in the US. DOES THIS 1ST EXCERPT SOUND LIKE THEY FOUND NO LINK? IN EXCERPT 2 THEY THE CDC IS ORDERING THE IOM NOT TO FIND CAUSATION IGNORE THE FIVE GOOD BIOLOGICAL STUDIESAND PUT ALL THERE CONFIDENCE IN POPULATION BASED STUDIES THAT WE NOW KNOW HAVE BEEN FAKED AND ACCORDING TO CONGRESS AND NEIHS WAS FATE-ALLY FLAWED and recently Dir. of CDC Gerberdine concurred that the CDC main studies are worthless and the population based studies done over seas are worse IN EXCERPT # 3 THEIR MINDS WERE MADE UP BEFORE THEY SAWANY STUDIES NOT TO MENTION THEY WERE ORDERED NOT TO FIND CAUSATION. TO THESE PEOPLE OUR AMERICAN CHILDREN MEAN NOTHING ABSOLUTLY NOTHING. ALL THOUGH IN PRIVATE THEY MAKE STATEMENTS LIKE IT’S A HARD DECISION WE MAKE KNOWING THAT THEIR WILL HAVE TO BE LAMBS SACRIFICED FOR THE GOOD OF THE WHOLE. I WONDER IF THAT HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES GUY THAT MADE THAT STATEMENT KNEW THAT THEY WERE SACRIFICED SO PEOPLE COULD SAVE FIFTY CENTS TO TWO DOLLARS A CHILDAND COST THIS NATION 3.2 TO 5 MILLION $$$FOR THE MAYBE 1 IN 50 WITH A MITOCHONDRIA. ———————————————————————————————————-THIS WAS TAKEN FROM THE IOM MEETING MINUTES. EXCERPT # 1″We’ve got a dragon by the tail here,” states a committee member in the
transcript. “At the end of the line, what we know is – and I agree –
that
the more negative that presentation [the report] is, the less likely
people
are to use vaccination, immunization, and we know what the results of
that
will be. We are kind of caught in a trap. How we work our way out of
the
trap, I think, is the charge.”
—————————————————————————————————————————-EXCERPT # 2-When byronchild asked CDC spokesperson Curtis Allen for a copy of the
contract that would detail the agreement between the IOM and the CDC,
Allen
stated that the contract would be available only in a heavily
“redacted” or
blacked-out format.

The IOM stated “no comment” to byronchild about the leaked transcript
or its
use in the pending civil court case.
—————————————————————————————————————————-EXCERPT # 3Specifically sited are statements by the IOM’s study director Kathleen
Stratton, PhD, and committee chair Marie McCormick, MD. These
statements,
the law firm says, strongly suggest Stratton and McCormick deliberately
railroaded their committee into specific outcomes (all in italics
directly
from court document):

Dr. McCormick, for example, in speaking of the CDC, noted that the
agency
“wants us to declare, well, these things are pretty safe on a
population
basis.” (See Exhibit 1 at page 33).

“The committee’s bias and predetermination of the causality issues
presented
are found at page 74 in a comment from Dr. Stratton:

Here the CDC Is lying again for just recently the CDC stated that the vaccine schedule has always been flexible this was after they have figured out it might be to many to soon with to many TOXINS causing mito disorders.
As you can see that is not what this statement of Dr. stratton is conveying notice how she says we would not say compensate and in my sons case they did what she said we would not say compensate so I guess the NVICP is a cruel joke on severely damaged children and their parents by people who seem to be in line for competing with Hitler for the biggest holocaust.
infact these people at the CDC seem not to have a conscinece or for that matter a soul that has not been sold to Big Pharma they are truley sick people

Dr. Stratton: “We said this before you got here, and I think we said
this
yesterday, the point of no return, the line we will not cross in public
policy is to pull the vaccine, change the schedule. We could say it is
time
to revisit this but we will never recommend that level. Even
recommending
research is recommendations for policy. We wouldn’t say compensate, we
wouldn’t say pull the vaccine, we wouldn’t say stop the program.”

Similarly, Dr. McCormick, at page 97 in discussing whether autism could
be
associated with vaccines, stated that “we are not ever going to come
down
that it is a true side effect,” despite the fact that the committee had
not
yet considered any evidence on this issue.

Dir. of the CDC admitting that they have nothing left after the VSD studies and the Denmark and other overseas studies were debunked by the NIEHS a arm of the NIH
————————————————————————–
CDC Director Dr. Julie Gerberding has delivered a potentially explosive report to the powerful House Appropriations Committee, in which she admits to a startling string of errors in the design and methods used in the CDC’s landmark 2003 study that found no link between mercury in vaccines and autism, ADHD, speech delay or tics.Gerberding was responding to a highly critical 2006 report from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), which concluded that the CDC’s flagship thimerosal safety study was riddled with “several areas of weaknesses” that combined to “reduce the usefulness” of the study.”CDC concurs,” Dr. Gerberding wrote in an undated mea culpa to Congress, (provided to me through a Capital Hill staffer) adding that her agency “does not plan to use” the database in question, the Vaccine Safety Datalink, (VSD) for any future “ecological studies” of autism.In fact, Gerberding’s report said, any continued use of the VSD for similar ecological studies of vaccines and autism “would be uninformative and potentially misleading.”Ecological vaccine studies are large, epidemiological analyses of risks and trends using computerized data from large populations – in this case children enrolled at several big HMOs – without ever examining a single patient in person. CDC officials conducted at least five separate analyses of the data over a four-year period from 1999-2003. The first analysis showed that children exposed to the most thimerosal by one month of age had extremely high relative risks for a number of outcomes, compared with children who got little or no mercury: The relative risk for ADHD was 8.29 times higher, for autism, it was 7.62 times higher, ADD, 6.38 times higher, tics, 5.65 times, and speech and language delays were 2.09 more likely among kids who got the most mercury.Over time, however, all of these risks declined into statistical insignificance, statistical inconsistency or else outright oblivion: The relative risk for autism plummeted from 7.62 in the first analysis, to 2.48 in the second version, to 1.69 in the third round, to 1.52 in the fourth, and down to nothing at all in the fifth, final, and published analysis printed in the Journal Pediatrics in November of 2003.Vaccine officials attributed the steady drop to the elimination of “statistical noise” from the data through due diligence and the endeavor for excellence in governmental statistical analysis.Indeed, the VSD study was the main pillar of a hugely influential 2004 report by the Institute of Medicine, which also concluded that there was no evidence of link between mercury, vaccines and autism. To this day, public health officials routinely point to five “large epidemiological studies” representing the “highest quality science,” none of which found any link to thimerosal.In fact, the American VSD study has long been held up as the best and brightest of them all (the others were in Sweden, the UK, and two in Denmark). And this reputation has stuck in the minds of medicine and the media.Curiously though, even the study’s lead author – Dr. Thomas Verstraeten, an employee of vaccine maker GlaxoSmithKline — protested that the VSD study “found no evidence against an association, as a negative study would. In fact, he said that additional study was needed, which “is the conclusion to which a neutral study must come.” That’s when Congress stepped in. In 2005, a group of Senators and Representatives headed by Sen. Joe Lieberman wrote to the NIEHS (an agency of the National Institutes of Health) saying that many parents no longer trusted the CDC to conduct independent minded studies of its own vaccine program. Lieberman et al asked NIEHS to review the CDC’s work on the vaccine database and report back with critiques and suggestions.The final NIEHS report was a serious and thoughtful critique of where the CDC went wrong in its design, conduct and analysis of the study. The NIEHS panel “identified several serious problems,” with the CDC’s effort, criticism to which the agency had not responded – until now.In her letter to the House Appropriations Committee, the CDC Director responded directly to many – though not all – of the most important criticisms and recommendations contained in the NIEHS panel report.For example, the NIEHS had criticized CDC for failing to account for other mercury exposures, including maternal sources from flu shots and immune globulin, as well as mercury in food and the environment.”CDC acknowledges this concern and recognizes this limitation,” the Gerberding reply says.The NIEHS also took CDC to task for eliminating 25% of the study population for a variety of reasons, even though this represented, “a susceptible population whose removal from the analysis might unintentionally reduce the ability to detect an effect of thimerosal.” This strict entry criteria likely led to an “under-ascertainment” of autism cases, the NIEHS reported.”CDC concurs,” Gerberding wrote, again noting that its study design was “not appropriate for studying this vaccine safety topic. The data are intended for administrative purposes and may not be predictive of the outcomes studied.”Another serious problem was that the HMOs changed the way they tracked and recorded autism diagnoses over time, including during the period when vaccine mercury levels were in decline. Such changes could “affect the observed rate of autism and could confound or distort trends in autism rates,” the NIEHS warned.”CDC concurs,” Dr. Gerberding wrote again, “that conducting an ecologic analysis using VSD administrative data to address potential associations between thimerosal exposure and risk of ASD is not useful.”Read that sentence one more time. The head of the CDC is saying that its most powerful and convincing piece of exonerating evidence for thimerosal is, in effect, “useless.”I hope everyone will read it, including the recommendations to make the VSD better, and the CDC’s agreement with all of the suggestions.As questionable at the US thimerosal study was, “it was an improvement on other studies, including the two in Denmark, both of which had serious weaknesses in their designs,” Dr. Irva Hertz-Picciotto, Professor of Public Health at UC Davis Medical School and Chair of the NIEHS panel, told reporter Dan Olmsted at UPI.That leaves very little for the CDC to go on in terms of proving that thimerosal and autism are not associated in any way. Yes, there is always the study of disability services data from California – which seem to be rising among the youngest cohorts of kids, who presumably received little or no mercury because thimerosal was largely removed from childhood shots.But California is an “ecological study” with problems of its own.”Although (this) information is often used by media and research entities to develop statistics and draw conclusions, some of these findings may misrepresent the quarterly figures,” cautions the website of the California Department of Developmental Services (DDS). “Increases in the number of persons reported from one quarter to the next do not
necessarily represent persons who are new to the DDS system.”Even the CDC admits that “there are several limitations” with linking a VSD study design with the California data, Gerberding wrote to Congress, because, among other things, California only counts “persons who were referred to and/or voluntarily entered” the disability system.”It will be interesting to see how the House Committee – and the mainstream media – react to this rather breathtaking confession by the CDC, which does seem to want to conduct the best vaccine-autism science possible (see Gerberding’s replies to NIEHS recommendations for improving the VSD: CDC officials are currently conducting in- depth follow up studies with VSD patients).As the waning months of the Bush Administration get underway, I can’t help but wonder if a little housecleaning might be going on at some of our top health agencies.(And on that note, please see my blog about the upcoming HHS/FDA/CDC/ NIH workshop on autism triggers in mitochondrial disorders (ie, Hannah Poling and her five vaccines).

This is a toxicologist Boyd Haley “I would like to make one significant point. I and other scientists like the Geiers, Dr. Deth, Dr. Jill James, etc. and numerous concerned MDs have talked at hundreds of autism conferences attended by hundreds of parents. The parents do not identify thimerosal as the most likely cause of autism based on emotion, they know the science better than the MDs at the CDC and their cohorts. They also read the FOIA material from SafeMinds and know a whitewash and “manufacturing of uncertainty” when they read it. There is NO substantial science behind the CDC’s claim that science is on their side. What is holding up progress on the autism treatments and sensible research is the success of the CDC campaign where parents are pictured as emotional while the CDC parrots are presented as logical, well educated experts. Scientists who have done research are not even mentioned so the deception by the CDC is further publicized by reporters who don’t know the difference. If the CDC represent mainstream science, then science in the USA is heading for rock bottom (like a genetic cause for an epidemic would be laughed at by a conference of scientists). Just calling a physician a scientist because he has his name on a few epidemiological based publications is a joke.” Boyd Haley

you see it’s things like the next example of the CDC fraudulant studies

But more importantly, a review of e-mails exchanged between the Danish researchers and the CDC reveals that the statement “From 1991 until 2000 the incidence increased and continued to rise after the removal of thimerosal from vaccines, including increases among children born after the discontinuation of thimerosal” may not have been true.In an e-mail on 11/13/2002 at 09:24, “co-author” Marlene B. Lauritsen informed Drs. Madsen, Thorsen and Schendel of the CDC:
“But the incidence and prevalence are still decreasing in 2001″.
The sentences, before and after that unequivocal statement, were blackened with a magic marker before they were released through the Freedom of Information Act. (Exhibit II)

It does seem they the CDC uses that black marker a lot, here they are at it again. When byronchild asked CDC spokesperson Curtis Allen for a copy of the contract that would detail the agreement between the IOM and the CDC,
Allen stated that the contract would be available only in a heavily “redacted” or blacked-out format.

The IOM stated “no comment” to byronchild about the leaked transcript
or its
use in the pending civil court case.
If you still cannot figure out these people have done worse than terrorist then you are the one in denialism

Just one more thing the CDC is never suppose to hide anything from the public they are suppose to do everything above board in the public eye with
complete transparency it does appear that they the CDC is acting in self protection mode and that is very dangerous for the public and they have forgotten who they serve for lately it has been exclusively Big Pharma

In the article below just remove the word Pinks and insert the word Autism
and you will have today’s disaster in a man made disease just like Pinks
was and today it is a very well accepted as to the origin of the disease is being mercury poisoning

Wellcome Institute for the History of Medicine, London.

This paper explores the social and medical history and context of pink
disease (acrodynia), a serious disease of infants and young children
that baffled the medical world during the first half of the twentieth
century until it was shown to be caused by mercury poisoning. In the
English-speaking world the commonest source of the mercury was teething
powders, which were widely available and advertised with increasing
sophistication. Efforts to control them (such as the BMJ’s campaign against
‘Secret Remedies’) were as yet unsuccessful. The article discusses the
social conditions that influenced the existence and recognition of pink
disease, the delay in finding its cause, the way in which it was
explained as a virus infection or nutritional deficiency and why it seldom
occurred outside the teething period. It discusses both professional and
lay attitudes to health and diseases during the early twentieth century.
and provides a model of how the disease developed in a specific social
setting and how the medical profession attempted to deal with it within
the limitations of contemporary professional thought. The resistance
to the evidence of mercury poisoning is typical of resistance to new
medical knowledge and declined only when the opponents and sceptics grew
old and disappeared from the scene. Meanwhile, the cause having been
identified and accepted, pink disease disappeared, but its consequences
emerged much later, in an unexpected quarter, as a cause of male
infertility.

Publication Types:
Historical Article

PMID: 11619497 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE

Heres proof of the history of chealation working to stop an epidemic
and the stupidy of the mainstream medical at large back then, It does appear that they have not gotten any brighter or maybe there just as
greedy.

[05/28/2000 1:44:08 AM](In fact, only 1 in 500 children exposed to the teething powders developed
the disease). In 1950 authoritative British medical opinion was still cautious
about the mercury hypothesis-an understandable caution, yet responsible, as
it turned out, for the prolongation of the epidemic, with uncountable cost in
human and financial terms, for several years later.
But slowly the evidence was stacking up against mercury. Dimercaprol
(British anti-Lewisite; BAL) is a chelating agent developed for military use
against possible gas attacks and in the 1950s was the standard treatment for
industrial mercury poisoning. Several physicians gave their pink disease
patients dimercaprol with gratifying cures. (The drug was never tested in a
proper controlled clinical trial as the disease disappeared before such a trial
could be organized.)
Warkany and Hubbard’s reports of an association between mercury
exposure and the disease was confirmed by several other workers, though
these later reports also noted that urinary mercury levels were often high in
healthy children too. In the rare cases of industrial mercury poisoning that
occurred, astute clinicians noted that in the recovery phase after the acute
illness, a condition indistinguishable from pink disease could be seen for a few
weeks. Clearly, if mercury was responsible for the disease, it could not be
simple poisoning, or all exposed children would suffer in a dose related
manner; the children who became ill must be excessively sensitive to the
poison (idiosyncrasy).
And there the matter rested at impasse between the mercury hypothesis
and the manufacturers of mercurials. In the absence of decisive evidence,
Parliament declined repeated calls to ban the products (although several states
in USA and Australia did so), and the disease remained a chronic and fearful
curse.
The impasse was finally broken in 1953 by Dr J G Dathan of
Stokes-on-Trent. Upset and incensed by the miserable deaths of 2 of his young
patients and refusing to certify the deaths as due to natural causes, he referred
the cases to the coroner. The scientific cases for and against the mercury
hypothesis were arrayed against each other in an English court of law-surely
an unusual setting for a scientific debate.
The jury found that the deaths were caused by mercury poisoning from
Steedman’s teething powder-in one case by frank overdose and in the other
because of unusual sensitivity of the child-and fearing litigation or
Parliamentary action the manufacturers immediately removed the mercury
from their preparations and recalled all old stocks.
The other manufacturers gradually followed suit. 3 years later, in
Sheffield, the intake of mercurials and the incidence of pink disease had both
dropped sharply and by 1966 Warkany, the originator of the mercury
hypothesis was able to write a final ‘post mortem’ article on pink disease in
the “American Journal of Diseases of Children”-a rare, but deserved accolade
for a dedicated (and lucky) medical scientist.
The story illustrates the difficulty of achieving change when doctors are confronted by powerful commercial interests, and finds an echo in the 1980s
in the continuing sagas of tobacco and lead. This is specially so when the
companies can muster 1 or 2 experts who will say that “the evidence is not yet
decisive”.
In truth it is still not proven beyond doubt that mercury caused pink
disease and it is still possible that an epidemic virus, now fortunately passed,
caused it. Of course, that explanation is very implausible and now that the
disease is departed no one is sufficiently interested to do more experiments. It
is also true that had the world had waited for 100% proof of cause and effect,
our children would probably still be ravaged by this dreadful, but preventable
disease.
It would be dishonest to close the pink disease story without one last
remark, though as scientists we are embarrassed to have to make it. Warkany
and Hubbard’s original 1948 study on urinary mercury were drawn from
Warkany’s own practice in Cincinnati where the disease was rare and where
teething powders were rarely used. Had the control urines been taken from
the geographical areas where patients came from, mercury would have been
found in several apparently normal, healthy children, thus making the
association far less striking. If Warkany and Hubbard had done a
scientifically impeccable trial, the cause might never have been noticed.

Russell being quoted as saying we would put mercury in vaccines, and other compounds to produce a partial lobotomized state, My thought “this was done to control the masses.” another thought is they did not anticipate the mercury from other sources AKA as coal fired plants and mothers body burden
In the next statement that Russell makes, keep in mind the every child by two organization. And we wonder what happened to the kids. “Russell who advocated the use of vaccines to induce partial chemical lobotomies and create a servile zombie population,”Diet, injections, and injunctions will combine, from a very early age, to produce the sort of character and the sort of beliefs that the authorities consider desirable, and any serious criticism of the powers that be will become psychologically impossible.” – Bertrand Russell, “The Impact of Science on Society”, 1953, pg 49-50 1953. Bertrand Russell, The Impact of Science on Society: “…the subject which will be of most importance politically is Mass Psychology…. The populace will not be allowed to know how its convictions were generated. When the technique has been perfected, every government that has been in charge of education for a generation will be able to control its subjects securely without the need of armies or policemen. As yet there is only one country which has succeeded in creating this politician’s paradise.”11 I wrote this minister because a family was not able to go to church any more because the child was banned, because he was spitting and hitting other people basically acting like an animal. Just like my child and many more hundreds of thousands around the U.S. while the CDC says it’s just better Diag. and greater awareness as our schools go broke, by the way my son was just Diag 3 yr’s ago he is now 18 yr’s old, one of the signs of metal toxicity is excessive saliva and agression. I am not saying that most of the main stream medical community believed in this mind set of a step ford society but someone must have, because they ignored many warnings of toxicity and inefficacy and we find in 2008 they did exactly what he said they would do This was written in 1953 and the current main stream medical community has followed it like a recipe. The people who wanted a kind of step-ford society did not anticipate the mothers body burden of mercury or coal powered plants emitting mercury. This caused a toxic tipping point and 1 in 6 kids having a neurological learning disorder 1 – 150 children with autism 1 in 92 being boys. In MN the numbers are worse 1 – 82 children 1 – 20 something boys interestingly a 4 – 1 ratio boys to girls guess what shares a 4 – 1 ratio also mercury poisoning. As of recent a report came out saying that girls are leading boys in higher math and science and can you guess at what Ratio 4 – 1 sound familar mercury poisoning 4 – 1 Ratio boys to girls and If you cannot figure out this is truth! and what they the FDA CDC did, then it is very possible you have gotten to much mercury too.

We cannot change the fact, that the book was written, and he said it and they did it sincerely Joe Harris Dad of a very sick in body, child.