In spite of the
known toxicity of thimerosal/mercury, vaccines containing it have
not been
recalled.
Rather than being required to remove all existing stocks of
mercury-containing vaccines, manufacturers
and the FDA were merely "urged to work toward rapid reduction or
elimination of mercury-containing preservatives in vaccines". Had the
public not become aware of the fact that vaccines contain mercury, even
this woefully inadequate step might not have been taken.
As if that wasn't enough, and ignoring the fact
that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence", it was
apparently felt necessary to dilute further the already grudging
support being given to the notion that mercury exposure should be
reduced, because they went on to say: "When vaccines containing
thimerosal have been administered in the recommended doses,
hypersensitivity has been noted, but no other harmful effects have been
reported". This in spite of the fact that the
FDA
"determined that infants who receive
thimerosal-containing vaccines at several visits may be exposed to more
mercury than recommended by federal guidelines for total mercury
exposure", and its known toxicity.
In any event, almost three years later, vaccines
containing thimerosal are still available and being administered to
infants. (Click
here
for more on mercury and vaccines
In an ironic, disgraceful twist, the flu vaccine,
which also contains thimerosal, and
was not included in the list of vaccines recommended to have it
removed, is now being
recommended for infants
What might be the consequences of the zealous
pursuit of vaccination, regardless of potential risks? One only
has to look to the emerging polio vaccine story for a clue
When, in pursuit of the elimination of polio via
vaccination, it was discovered that a known animal carcinogen
contaminated the vaccine, those vaccines containing the contamination
were
not recalled, for fear of “eroding confidence” in
vaccines. Officially adopting what perhaps should be known as its
ongoing “ostrich policy”, in its apparent belief that what you don’t
know can’t hurt you, Public Health allowed existing stocks to be used
up and the public to be kept uninformed
Sadly, however, that was not to be the end of the
story. Over the years there have been many journal
articles on possible connections between SV40 and cancer, the
most recent one linking SV40 to
non-Hodgkin’s
lymphoma. For many years, however, little research was
being done, and what was being done, ignored. That is, until the
report about 30 years later, of SV40 in
children’s
brain tumors, and the later accidental discovery that SV40-caused
mesotheliomas
in hamsters. (Apparently research showing SV40's presence in
"human" brain tumors, as early as
1978,
was not considered of great enough import to warrant increased
investigation.) Now, although the question is being more
aggressively studied, with more and more cancers being linked to SV40,
there continues to be resistance from some quarters. (To read more,
click
here
for the three excellent San Francisco Chronicle articles on
this topic.)
Why were the questions about SV40 and cancer
not vigorously pursued, from the very moment of its discovery in polio
vaccines administered to millions of people?What should this say about our blind faith in
vaccination policy and the “experts” promoting it?
Sandy Mintz