Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

To: backhoe
Travis will undoubtably have something to add to this thread.
47 posted on 10/08/2001 3:53:24 AM PDT by He Rides A White Horse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies ]

To: He Rides A White Horse~ALL
This just in:

----- Original Message -----
From: PROVE <>
To: <>
Sent: Monday, October 08, 2001 3:31 PM
Subject: [PROVE] Nicholas Regush on Thimerosol and Anthrax

> Here are two recent columns from Nicholas Regush
> that are worth reading.  Dawn
> Thursday, October 04, 2001
> Finally. The Institute of Medicine released its report on childhood vaccines
> containing thimerosol. The message: The mercury-containing preservative
> should best be avoided. But there is no hard evidence linking it to autism
> and other developmental conditions. In other words, we don't really know for
> sure because absence of evidence of harm doesn't necessarily translate into
> safety. Unfortunately, Dr. Louis Z. Cooper, President Elect of the American
> Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), doesn't get it. He stated in an AAP press
> release this week that, "Parents should be reassured about the safety of
> vaccines." Well, no, Dr. Cooper, that's not what the report is all about.
> Please consult the smarter experts in regulatory affairs (and preferably not
> at the AAP) and they will inform you that safety must first be proven before
> reassurance is invoked. (See yesterday's "Red Flag" posted below for more on
> the AAP)
> To be fair, the AAP did recommend in July 1999, along with the U.S. Public
> Health Service, that vaccines with the preservative should be moved off the
> shelves ASAP. That's because it has become increasingly apparent even to the
> medical profession that high doses of thimerosol can be neurotoxic. And now
> the institute's report does raise the possibility that vaccines containing
> thimerosol could lead to brain damage in children.
> Thankfully, there has been a transition to vaccines free of thimerosol,
> including those against hepatitis B and haemophilus influenza, and a vaccine
> against diptheria, tetanus and pertussis. But not nearly quick enough. In
> fact, Congressman Dan Burton (R-IN) yesterday once again requested a recall
> of all vaccines containing thimerosol. In short, there is still enough
> stocked on shelves in the health care system for parents to remain
> concerned. What are the vaccine manufacturers waiting for? They should be
> the ones cleaning house!
> If the AAP is so worried (as it appears) that parents will avoid vaccinating
> their children because of continuing fears about thimerosol, perhaps this
> group that represents some 55,000 primary care doctors and specialists
> "dedicated to the health, safety and well being of infants, children,
> adolescents and young adults" should bite the bullet and launch a major
> campaign to get doctors and clinics to rid their shelves of vaccine stock
> containing thimerosol.
> Monday, October 08, 2001
> Now that the United States has attacked targets in Afghanistan, many of us
> will be glued to our television sets to hear what the experts on military
> operations, Central Asia, Islam, the Middle East, home-front security and
> bio-terrorism will say about the progress of this campaign, its political
> and social implications, and possible repercussions. We all know, of course,
> or we should know, that much of that information will be speculative. But it
> will sometimes be difficult to determine who has new insight into the events
> as they unfold and who is blowing humid or hot air.
> As some attention on the airways becomes focused on the likelihood of a
> retaliatory strike against Americans, one can, for example, expect experts
> to appear who hold strong views about whether a biological attack is
> feasible. If this past week of newspaper and internet articles and
> television stories are any indication of what's to come, it's clear that are
> two camps; one believes that the bio-terror threat is overblown; the other
> considers it highly plausible.
> Because no group has been successful in using aerosolized lethal biological
> agents, some experts contest the likelihood that it can be done effectively.
> In the case of anthrax, which is not contagious, it is typically claimed
> that the chances are slim that terrorists could find a way to adequately
> release the "weaponized" anthrax in a wide plume, given the potential
> difficulties involved in finding a way to spray it, and the uncertainty of
> weather conditions. But other experts point out that this is all a lot of
> blather and that no one should underestimate the ability of a highly
> motivated group to develop ways to use anthrax as a weapon - and one that
> could potentially kill millions of people.
> My reaction to this all-too-common type of debate which receives a ton of
> media attention is to ignore it. The blather comes from both sides. No one
> really knows - and won't know, unless it actually happens. In this case, we
> should probably assume that an attack can be successful. We therefore should
> focus our attention on what we do know about our chances of living through
> it.
> So what do we know, say, in the case of anthrax? We know that a vaccine
> exists, but that it remains unavailable to the general public. We also know
> that the production of this vaccine has stalled because the Food and Drug
> Administration (FDA) has refused to allow any further release of the
> vaccine, made by BioPort of Lansing, Michigan, because of a series of
> manufacturing violations. The United States military, which has been giving
> the vaccine to its Service Members, has pretty near shut down its anthrax
> vaccination program. In short, we know that a vaccine against anthrax is not
> in the cards for us anytime soon.
> We also know that there is considerable debate about the vaccine's safety.
> There are numerous reports associating an anthrax shot with a wide range of
> symptoms, including fatigue, nervous system problems, and signs of
> auto-immune disease. And while a reasonable amount of media play in recent
> years has been given to the safety issue, the media have shed relatively
> little light on whether the anthrax vaccine actually works. We need basic
> facts in order to arrive at realistic strategies for self-defense.
> Well, today's "Red Flag" is that the anthrax vaccine doesn't have good
> science supporting efficacy. I've spent the last ten days digging into the
> details of the available science and have come away from it feeling that I'
> ve been conned by the FDA, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, a
> variety of medical bodies and the military about the vaccine's
> effectiveness. For one thing, there are no human efficacy studies worth
> highlighting. And the animal studies, which include rabbits, guinea pigs,
> and Rhesus monkeys, at best, suggest the vaccine might be modestly
> effective. Even then, these rather inconclusive lab experiments hardly can
> be seen as representing war-like assaults. In fact, a weaponized anthrax
> attack might involve a genetically-engineered form of anthrax that the
> vaccine will be incapable of fending off.
> ABC NEWS COLUMN: For details on the effectiveness of the anthrax vaccine,
> see my Second Opinion column today, which is posted at
> For other critical views of the anthrax vaccine, see:
> and
> For the Department of Defense's latest report on the anthrax vaccine, go to:
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> Dawn Richardson
> PROVE(Parents Requesting Open Vaccine Education)
> (email)
> (web site)
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> PROVE provides information on vaccines, and immunization policies and practices that affect the children and adults of Texas.  Our mission is to prevent vaccine injury and death and to promote and protect the right of every person to make informed independent vaccination decisions for themselves and their family.
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> This information is not to be construed as medical OR legal advice.
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> Subscribe to PROVE Email Updates:
> Click here
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> Removal from PROVE Email Updates:
> Click here:
> You are currently subscribed as

57 posted on 10/08/2001 2:42:23 PM PDT by backhoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson