mercury in vaccines during pregnancy can cause serious health problems for children.

Medical evidence shows that pregnant mothers exposed to mercury in vaccines are more likely to have children with ADHD

The truth is finally starting to come out, , concerning the dangers of mercury exposure during pregnancy, including mercury exposure resulting from vaccinations. New research published in the journal Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine reveals that even low-level mercury exposure during pregnancy can cause children to develop attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and other similar hyperactive and behavioral conditions.

The smoking gun in the long debate over whether or not trace mercury exposure causes health problems in children, the new research helps seal the deal in definitively identifying mercury as a known neurotoxin. And since the threshold for exposure levels causing observed symptoms was relatively low, the study helps reinforce the fact that exposure to Thimerosal, a mercury derivative still commonly used in influenza vaccines, is dangerous for both pregnant women and children.

Dr. Sharon K. Sagiv, Ph.D., M.P.H., from Boston University's School of Public Health and her colleagues examined the relationship between mercury levels and fish consumption patterns among pregnant women to arrive at the conclusion that eating fish helps reduce the risk of impulsivity, hyperactivity, and atypical inattentive behaviors in children. But within these observational confines, Dr. Sagiv and her team also noticed that exposure to as little as one microgram per milliliter of mercury during pregnancy can cause serious health problems for children.

"Low-level prenatal mercury exposure is associated with a greater risk of ADHD-related behaviors, and fish consumption during pregnancy is protective of these behaviors," wrote Dr. Sagiv and her colleagues in their conclusion. "These findings underscore the difficulties of balancing the benefits of fish intake with the detriments of low-level mercury exposure in developing dietary recommendations in pregnancy."

Some vaccines contain up to 50 times the amount of mercury implicated in causing ADHD

This is where mercury in vaccines comes into play. According to the National Network for Immunization Information (NNII), vaccines contain anywhere from two to three micrograms of Thimerosal per milliliter of vaccine, and this is in a lowest case scenario. When Thimerosal is actually added to vaccines on purpose as a preservative, rather than simply being left over as a trace residue from the manufacturing process, levels of mercury contamination can be much higher.

Since Thimerosal is roughly 50 percent mercury by weight, this means the level of mercury found in many vaccines exceeds the threshold for what was found in Dr. Sagiv's study to cause ADHD and other behavioral problems. In vaccines that contain added Thimerosal, which include multi-dose vials of flu vaccine, levels of mercury are as much as 50 times higher than the one mcg/ml threshold observed in the study.

"Live viral vaccines contain as much as 25 mcg (per 0.5 milliliters) of mercury (as Thimerosal) per dose," wrote Erik L. Goldman from the CrossRoads Institute in a piece entitled Digestive, Metabolic Problems Abound In Patients with ADHD, Autism. The "per 0.5 milliliters" was added to Goldman's statement in accordance with data provided by the Institute for Vaccine Safety (IVS), which shows that many vaccines actually contain the equivalent of 50 mcg of mercury per milliliter of vaccine.

"Young children receiving serial live viral vaccines get quantities of mercury that, on a body weight basis, exceed safe levels for U.S. adult fish consumption," he added.

Sources for this article include:

http://www.jaapa.com

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

http://www.immunizationinfo.org

EU nations ban Novartis influenza vaccine after dangerous proteins found

EU nations ban Novartis influenza vaccine after dangerous proteins found

A handful of European Union (EU) member nations have banned several influenza vaccines manufactured by Swiss drug maker Novartis after agglomerations of small, white proteins were discovered floating in batch injections of the flu jabs Agrippal and Fluad, neither of which are sold in the U.S. According to the drug giant, both vaccines are allegedly still safe, but Germany, Spain, Switzerland, Austria, Italy, and France are not taking any chances, having all recently decided to block sales of the affected vaccines until more is known about the issue.

The tainted vaccines were first discovered in Italy, which prompted immediate action by the Italian government to ban not only Agrippal and Fluad, but also Influpozzi and adjuvanted Influpozzi. Following Italy's decision, both Germany and Spain implemented their own bans, which prompted subsequent bans by Switzerland, France, and others. These decisions came as the European Medicines Agency (EMA), which evaluates the safety of drugs and vaccines approved centrally for use throughout the EU, announced that it would not lead an investigation into the safety of the vaccines, as they were all approved nationally rather than centrally.

Novartis has also released little information thus far about what the floating particles are, and how they might affect vaccine safety. The company, which has seen an increasing share of safety problems in recent years, offered duplicitous explanations concerning both issues, assuring the public that, even though it is unclear as to the contents of the particles, the affected vaccines are still somehow safe for public use.

Authorities in France, Italy, and elsewhere have also been repeating some of the same empty reassurances, despite their imposed bans. French Health Minister Marisol Touraine, for instance, made a public announcement claiming that none of the impurities had yet been found in vaccines distributed throughout France, and that there "is no known risk" for patients who have already received injections of the now-banned vaccines. The Swiss regulatory drug agency issued similar reassurances, adding that the white clumps are probably just "normal components of the vaccine."

"Given the current unclear situation, Swissmedic has issued a halt to deliveries for the cited vaccines and recommends not using them until further notice," added the agency.

Netherlands-based vaccine maker Crucell, which is owned by U.S. drug maker Johnson & Johnson (J&J), also reportedly halted an Italian shipment of 2.36 million doses of a different seasonal flu vaccine, Inflexal V, after two lots out of 32 failed quality control inspections. Crucell says it is holding deliveries of all its seasonal flu vaccines pending an internal investigation.

Sources for this article include:

http://www.reuters.com

http://www.pmlive.com

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/252120.php

http://www.fiercepharma.com

Study Calls Into Question Primary Justification for Vaccines

Study Calls Into Question Primary Justification for Vaccines

*PubMed Health



According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), "Immunity to a disease is achieved through the presence of antibodies to that disease in a person’s system. This, in fact, is the main justification for using vaccines to "boost" immunity, and a primary focus of vaccine research and development.

And yet, newly publish research has revealed that in some cases no antibodies are required for immunity against some viruses.

Published in the journal Immunity in March, 2011, and titled, "B cell maintenance of subcapsular sinus macrophages protects against a fatal viral infection independent of adaptive immunity," researchers found that mice infected with vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV) can suffer fatal invasion of their central nervous system even in the presence of high concentrations of "neutralizing" antibodies against VSV.

The researchers found that while B-cells were essential for surviving a systemic VSV infection through the modulation of innate immunity, specifically macrophage behavior, the antibodies they produce as part of the adaptive immune response were "neither needed nor sufficient for protection." These findings, according to the study authors, "…contradict the current view that B cell-derived neutralizing antibodies are absolutely required to survive a primary cytopathic viral infection, such as that caused by VSV."

The discovery that antibodies are not required for protection against infection, while counterintuitive, is not novel. In fact, not only are antibodies not required for immunity, in some cases high levels are found in the presence of active, even lethal infections. For example, high serum levels of antibodies against tetanus have been observed failing to confer protection against the disease. A report from 1992 published in the journal Neurology found severe tetanus in immunized patients with high anti-tetanus titers, one of whom died as a result of the infection.

These research findings run diametrically opposed to currently held beliefs regarding the process by which we develop immunity against infectious challenges. Presently, it is a commonly held view that during viral infections, innate immunity mustactivate adaptive responses in order to achieve effective immunity. It is believed that this is why the immune system has developed a series of innate defenses, including complement, type I interferon, and other "stopgap measures," which work immediately to lower pathogen burden and "buy time" for the much slower adaptive immune response to develop.

This view, however, has been called into question by the new study: "Although this concept may apply to other viral infections, our findings with VSV turn this view upside down, indicating that during a primary infection with this cytopathic virus,innate immunity can be sterilizing without adaptive immune contributions."

Does this strike a mortal blow to the antibody theory which underlies vaccinology, and constitutes the primary justification for the CDC's focus on using vaccines to "boost" immunity?

Indeed, in vaccinology, which is the science or method of vaccine development, vaccine effectiveness is often determined by the ability of a vaccine to increase antibody titers, even if this does not translate into real-world effectiveness, i.e. antibody-antigen matching. In fact, regulatory agencies, such as the FDA, often approve vaccines based on their ability to raise antibody titers, also known as "vaccine efficacy," without requiring proof of vaccine effectiveness, as would seem logical.

The obvious problem with these criteria is that the use of vaccine adjuvants like mercury, aluminum hydroxide, mineral oil, etc. – all of which are intrinsically toxic substances -- will increase antibody titers, without guaranteeing they will neutralize the targeted antigen, i.e. antibody-antigen affinity. To the contrary, many of these antibodies lack selectivity, and target self-structures, resulting in the loss of self-tolerance, i.e. autoimmunity.

Here is another way of understanding vaccine-induced antibody elevations….



Introducing foreign pathogenic DNA, chemicals, metals, preservatives, etc., into the body through a syringe will generate a response not unlike kicking a beehive. The harder you kick that beehive, the greater will be the "efficacy" (i.e. elevated antibodies), but the actual affinity that these antibodies will have for the antigen (i.e. pathogen) of concern is in no way ensured; to the contrary, the immune response is likely to become misdirected, or disproportionate to the threat.

Also, valuable immune resources are wasted by generating "false flag" responses to threats which may not readily exist in the environment, e.g. there are over 200 forms of influenza A, B & C which can cause the symptoms associated with annual influenza A,* so the seasonal trivalent flu vaccine only takes care of little more than 1% of the possible vectors of infection - and often at the price of distracting resources away from real threats, as well as exhausting and/or damaging the entire immune apparatus.

It is clear that one can create a synthetic immune response through vaccination, but it is not likely to result in enhanced immunity, insofar as real-world effectiveness is concerned, which is the only true judge of whether a vaccine is valuable or not. One might view the basic criteria used by vaccine researchers, namely, that generating elevated antibody titers proves the value of the vaccine, oppositely: proving the vaccine is causing harm to the body, especially that of the developing infant and child, by generating unnecessarily elevated antibodies by any means necessary, i.e. throwing the chemical and biological kitchen sink at the immune system, e.g. aluminum, phenol, diploid (aborted fetal) cells, peanut oil, pertactin, etc.

We leave the reader with a series of quotes addressing the inherent weaknesses of the antibody theory of immunity:


"Just because you give somebody a vaccine, and perhaps get an antibody reaction, doesn’t mean a thing. The only true antibodies, of course, are those you get naturally. What we’re doing [when we inject vaccines] is interfering with a very delicate mechanism that does its own thing. If nutrition is correct, it does it in the right way. Now if you insult a person in this way and try to trigger off something that nature looks after, you’re asking for all sorts of trouble, and we don’t believe it works."- Glen Dettman Ph.D, interviewed by Jay Patrick, and quoted in "The Great American Deception," Let’s Live, December 1976, p. 57.


"The fallacy of this (antibody theory) was exposed nearly 50 years ago, which is hardly recent. A report published by the Medical Research Council entitled 'A study of diphtheria in two areas of Gt. Britain, Special report series 272, HMSO 1950 demonstrated that many of the diphtheria patients had high levels of circulating antibodies, whereas many of the contacts who remained perfectly well had low antibody." - Magda Taylor, Informed Parent


"Human trials generally correlate "antibody" responses with protection - that is if the body produces antibodies (proteins) which bind to vaccine components, then it must be working and safe. Yet Dr March says antibody response is generally a poor measure of protection and no indicator at all of safety. "Particularly for viral diseases, the 'cellular' immune response is all important, andantibody levels and protection are totally unconnected."-Private Eye 24/1/2002


"Whenever we read vaccine papers the MD researchers always assume that if there are high antibody levels after vaccination, then there is immunity (immunogencity). But are antibody levels and immunity the same? No! Antibody levels are not the same as IMMUNITY. The recent MUMPS vaccine fiasco in Switzerland has re-emphasized this point. Three mumps vaccines-Rubini, Jeryl-Lynn and Urabe (the one withdrawn because it caused encephalitis) all produced excellent antibody levels but those vaccinated with the Rubini strain had the same attack rate as those not vaccinated at all, there were some who said that it actually caused outbreaks. Ref: Schegal M et al Comparative efficacy of three mumps vaccines during disease outbreak in Switzerland: cohort study. BMJ, 1999; 319:352-3."- Ted Koren DC