Lawson's Assignments

TRUTH BEHIND THE VACCINE COVER-UP

2011-07-10T13:37:00.001-07:00

THE TRUTH BEHIND THE VACCINE COVER-UP
By Dr. Russell Blaylock, M.D. www.russellblaylockmd.com
(c) 2004 Reprinted from sydney.indymedia.org/display.php3?article_id=45874&group=webcast and Dr. Mercola's site - www.mercola.com/2004/sep/22/blaylock_vaccine_coverup.htm

I was asked to write a paper on some of the newer mechanisms of vaccine damage to the nervous system, but in the interim I came across an incredible document that should blow the lid off the cover-up being engineered by the pharmaceutical companies in conjunction with powerful governmental agencies.

It all started when a friend of mind sent me a copy of a letter from Congressman David Weldon, M.D. to the director of the CDC, Dr Julie L. Gerberding, in which he alludes to a study by a Doctor Thomas Verstraeten, then representing the CDC, on the connection between infant exposure to thimerosal-containing vaccines and neurodevelopmental injury. In this shocking letter Congressman Weldon referrers to Dr. Verstraeten's study which looked at the data from the Vaccine Safety Datalink and found a significant correlation between thimerosal exposure via vaccines and several neurodevelopmental disorders including tics, speech and language delays, and possibly to ADD.

Congressman Weldon questions the CDC director as to why, following this meeting, Dr. Verstraeten published his results, almost four years later, in the journal Pediatrics to show just the opposite, that is, that there was no correlation to any neurodevelopmental problems related to thimerosal exposure in infants. In this letter, Congressman Weldon refers to a report of the minutes of this meeting held in Georgia, which exposes some incredible statements by the "experts" making up this study group. The group's purpose was to evaluate and discuss Dr. Verstraeten's results and data and make recommendation that would eventually lead to possible alterations in the existing vaccine policy.

I contacted Congressman Weldon's legislative assistant and he kindly sent me a complete copy of this report. Now, as usual in these cases, the government did not give up this report willingly, it required a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit to pry it loose. Having read the report twice and carefully analyzed it; I can see why they did not want any outsiders to see it. It is a bombshell, as you shall see. In this analysis, I will not only describe and discuss this report, but also will frequently quote their words directly and supply the exact page number so others can see for themselves.

The official title of the meeting was the "Scientific Review of Vaccine Safety Datalink Information." This conference, held on June 7-8, 2000 at Simpsonwood Retreat Center, Norcross, Georgia, assembled 51 scientists and physicians of which five represented vaccine manufacturers. These included Smith Kline Beecham, Merck, Wyeth, North American Vaccine and Aventis Pasteur.

During this conference, these scientists focused on the study of the Datalink material, whose main author was Dr. Thomas Verstraesten who identified himself as working at the National Immunization Program of the CDC. It was discovered by Congressman Weldon that Dr. Verstraeten left the CDC shortly after this conference to work for GlaxoSmithKline in Belgium which manufacturers vaccines, a recurring pattern that has been given the name a "revolving door" It is also interesting to note that GlaxoSmithKline was involved in several lawsuits over complications secondary to their vaccines.

To start off the meeting Dr. Roger Bernier, Associate Director for Science in the National Immunization Program (CDC), related some pertinent history. He stated that Congressional action in 1977 required that the FDA review mercury being used in drugs and biologics (vaccines). In meeting this order, the FDA called for information from the manufacturers of vaccines and drugs. He notes that a group of European regulators and manufacturers met on April 1999 and noted the situation but made no recommendations of changes. In other words it was all for show.

At this point Dr. Bernier made an incredible statement (page 12). He said, "In the United States there was a growing recognition that cumulative exposure may exceed some of the guidelines." By guidelines, he is referring to guidelines for mercury exposure safety levels set by several regulatory agencies. The three guidelines were set by the ATSDR, the FDA and the EPA. The most consistently violated safety guideline was that set by the EPA. He further explains that he is referring to children being exposed to thimerosal in vaccines.

Based on this realization that they were violating safety guidelines he says, this then "resulted in a joint statement of the Public Health Service (PHS) and the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) in July of last year (1999), which stated that as a long term goal, it was desirable to remove mercury from vaccines because it was a potentially preventable source of exposure."(Page 12)

As an aside, one has to wonder, where was the Public Health Service and American Academy of Pediatrics during all the years of mercury use in vaccines and why didn't they know that, number one, they were exceeding regulatory safety levels and second, why weren't they aware of the extensive literature showing deleterious effects on the developing nervous system of babies? As we shall see even these "experts" seem to be cloudy on the mercury literature.

Dr. Bernier notes that in August 1999 a public workshop was held at Bethesda in the Lister Auditorium by the National Vaccine Advisory Group and the Interagency Working Group on Vaccines to consider thimerosal risk in vaccine use. And based on what was discussed in that conference, thimerosal was removed from the hepatitis B vaccine (HepB). It is interesting to note that the media took very little interest in what was learned at that meeting and it may have been a secret meeting as well. As we shall see, there is a reason why they struggle to keep the contents of all these meetings secret from the public.

He then notes on page 13 that on October 1999 the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) "looked this situation over again and did not express a preference for any of the vaccines that were thimerosal free." In this discussion he further notes that the ACIP concluded that the thimerosal-containing vaccines could be used but the "long-term goal" is to try to remove thimerosal as soon as possible.

Now, we need to stop and thinks about what has transpired here. We have an important group here; the ACIP that essential plays a role in vaccine policy that affects tens of millions of children every year. And, we have evidence from the Thimerosal meeting in 1999 that the potential for serious injury to the infant's brain is so serious that a recommendation for removal becomes policy. In addition, they are all fully aware that tiny babies are receiving mercury doses that exceed even EPA safety limits, yet all they can say is that we must "try to remove thimerosal as soon as possible". Do they not worry about the tens of millions of babies that will continue receiving thimerosal-containing vaccines until they can get around to stopping the use of thimerosal?

It should also be noted that it is a misnomer to say "removal of thimerosal" since they are not removing anything. They just plan to stop adding it to future vaccines once they use up existing stocks, which entails millions of doses. And, incredibly, the government allows them to do it. Even more incredibly, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Academy of Family Practice similarly endorse this insane policy. In fact, they specifically state that children should continue to receive the thimerosal-containing vaccines until new thimerosal-free vaccine can be manufactured at the will of the manufacturers. Are they afraid that there will be a sudden diphtheria epidemic in America or tetanus epidemic?

The most obvious solution was to use only single-dose vials, which requires no preservative. So, why don't they use them? Oh, they exclaim, it would add to the cost of the vaccine. Of course, we are only talking about a few dollars per vaccine at most, certainly worth the health of your child's brain and future. They could use some of the hundreds of millions of dollars they waste on vaccine promotion every year to cover these cost for the poor. Then, that would cut into some fat-cat's budget and we can't have that.

It was disclosed that thimerosal was in all influenza vaccines, DPT (and most DtaP) vaccines and all HepB vaccines.

As they begin to concentrate on the problem at hand we first begin to learn that the greatest problem with the meeting is that, they know virtually nothing about what they are doing. On page 15, for example, they admit that there is very little pharmacokinetic data on ethylmercury, the form of mercury in thimerosal. In fact they say there is no data on excretion, the data on toxicity is sparse, yet it is recognized to cause hypersensitivity, it can cause neurological problems and even death, and it is known to easily pass the blood-brain barrier and the placental barrier.

Therefore, what they are admitting is that we have a form of mercury that has been used in vaccines since the 1930s and no one has bothered to study the effects on biological systems, especially the brain of infants. Their defense throughout this conference is "we just don't know the effects of ethylmercury." As a solution, they resort to studies on methylmercury, because there are thousands of studies on this form of mercury. The major source of this form is seafood consumption.

It takes them awhile to get the two forms of mercury straight, since for several pages of the report they say methylmercury is in thimerosal rather than ethylmercury. They can be forgiven for this. On page 16, Dr. Johnson, an immunologist and pediatrician at the University of Colorado School of Medicine and the National Jewish Center for Immunology and Respiratory Medicine, notes that he would like to see the incorporation of wide margins of safety, that is 3 to 10-fold margins of safety to "account for data uncertainties." What he means is that there are so many things we do not know about this toxin that we had better use very wide margins of safety. For most substances the FDA uses a 100-fold margin of safety.

The reason for this, which they do not mention, is that in a society of hundreds of millions of people there are groups of people who are much more sensitive to the toxin than others. For instance, the elderly, the chronically ill, the nutritionally deficient, small babies, premature babies, those on certain medications and inborn defects in detoxification, just to name a few. In fact, in this study they excluded premature babies and low birth weight babies from the main study, some of which had the highest mercury levels, because they would be hard to study and because they had the most developmental problems related to the mercury.

On page 16 as well Dr. Johnson make an incredible statement, one that defines the problem we have in this country with the promoters of these vaccines. He states, "As an aside, we found a cultural difference between vaccinologist and environmental health people in that many of us in the vaccine arena have never thought about uncertainty factors before. We tend to be relatively concrete in our thinking." Then he says, "One of the big cultural events in that meeting ---was when Dr. Clarkson repetitively pointed out to us that we just didn't get it about uncertainty, and he was actually quite right." This is an incredible admission. First, what is a vaccinologist? Do you go to school to learn to be one? How many years of residency training are required to be a vaccinologist? Are there board exams? It's a stupid term used to describe people who are obsessed with vaccines, not that they actually study the effects of the vaccines, as we shall see throughout this meeting. Most important is the admission by Dr. Johnson that he and his fellow "vaccinologist" are so blinded by their obsession with forcing vaccines on society that they never even considered that there might be factors involved that could greatly affect human health, the so-called "uncertainties." Further, that he and his fellow "vaccinologist" like to think in concrete terms-that is, they are very narrow in their thinking and wear blinders that prevent them from seeing the numerous problems occurring with large numbers of vaccination in infants and children. Their goal in life is to vaccinate as many people as possible with an ever-growing number of vaccines.

On page 17 his "concrete thinking" once again takes over. He refers to the Bethesda meeting on Thimerosal safety issues and says, "there was no evidence of a problem, only a theoretical concern that young infants' developing brains were being exposed to an organomercurial." Of course, as I shall point out later, it is a lot more than a "theoretical concern". He then continues by saying, "We agree that while there was no evidence of a problem the increasing number of vaccine injections given to infants was increasing the theoretical mercury exposure risk."

It's hard to conceive of a true scientist not seeing the incredible irony of these statements. The medical literature is abound with studies on the deleterious effects of mercury on numerous enzymes, mitochondrial energy production, synaptic function, dendritic retraction, neurotubule dissolution and excitotoxicity, yet, he sees only a "theoretical risk" associated with an ever increasing addition of thimerosal-containing vaccines. It is also important to note that these geniuses never even saw a problem in the first place, it was pressure from outside scientists, parents of affected children and groups representing them that pointed out the problem. They were, in essence, reacting to pressure from outside the "vaccinologist club" and not discovering internally that a problem "might" exist.

In fact, if these outside groups had not become involved these "vaccinologists" would have continued to add more and more mercury-containing vaccines to the list of required vaccines. Only when the problem became so obvious, that is of epidemic proportion (close to that now) and the legal profession became involved would they have even noticed there was a problem. This is a recurring theme in the government's regulatory agencies, as witnessed with fluoride, aspartame, MSG, dioxin and pesticides issues.

It is also interesting that Dr. Johnson did admit that the greatest risk was among low birth weight infants and premature infants. Now why would that be if there existed such a large margin of safety with mercury used in vaccines? Could just a few pounds of body weight make such a dramatic difference? In fact, it does but it also means that normal birth weight children, especially those near the low range of normal birth weight, are also in greater danger. It also would mean that children receiving doses of mercury higher than the 72 ug in this study would be at high risk as well because their dose, based on body weight, would be comparable to that of the low birth weight child receiving the lower dose. This is never even considered by these "vaccinologist experts" who decide policy for your children.

Now this next statement should shock everyone, but especially the poor who in any way think that these "vaccinologists" experts have their best interest in mind. Dr. Johnson says on page 17, "We agree that it would be desirable to remove mercury from U.S. licensed vaccines, but we did not agree that this was a universal recommendation that we would make because of the issue concerning preservatives for delivering vaccines to other countries, particularly developing countries, in the absence of hard data that implied that there was in fact a problem."

So, here you have it. The data is convincing enough that the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Academy of Family Practice, as well as the regulatory agencies and the CDC along with these organization all recommend its removal as quickly as possible because of concerns of adverse effects of mercury on brain development, but not for the children in the developing countries. I thought the whole idea of child health programs in the United States directed toward the developing world was to give poor children a better chance in an increasingly competitive world. This policy being advocated would increase the neurodevelopmental problems seen in poor children (also in this country) of developing countries, impairing their ability to learn and develop competitive minds. Remember, there was a representative of the World Health Organization (WHO), Dr. John Clements, serving on this panel of "experts". He never challenged this statement made by Dr. Johnson.

It also needs to be appreciated that children in developing countries are at a much greater risk of complications from vaccinations and from mercury toxicity than children in developed countries. This is because of poor nutrition, concomitant parasitic and bacterial infections and a high incidence of low birth weight in these children. We are now witnessing a disaster in African countries caused by the use of older live virus polio vaccines that has now produced an epidemic of vaccine related polio, that is, polio caused by the vaccine itself. In, fact, in some African countries, polio was not seen until the vaccine was introduced.

The WHO and the "vaccinologist experts" from this country now justify a continued polio vaccination program with this dangerous vaccine on the basis that now that they have created the epidemic of polio, they cannot stop the program. In a recent article it was pointed out that this is the most deranged reasoning, since more vaccines will mean more vaccine-related cases of polio. But then, "vaccinologist" have difficulty with these "uncertainties". (Jacob JT. A developing country perspective on vaccine-associated paralytic poliomyelitis. Bulletin WHO 2004; 82: 53-58. See commentary by D.M. Salisbury at the end of the article.)

Then he again emphasizes the philosophy that the health of children is secondary to "the program" when he says, "We saw some compelling data that delaying the birth dose of HepB vaccine would lead to significant disease burden as a consequence of missed opportunity to immunize." This implies that our children would be endangered from the risk of hepatitis B should the vaccine program stop vaccinating newborns with the HepB vaccine.

In fact, this statement is not based on any risk to U.S. children at all and he makes that plain when he states, "that the potential impact on countries that have 10% to 15% newborn hepatitis B exposure risk was very distressing to consider." (page 18) In other words the risk is not to normal U.S. children but to children in developing countries. In fact, hepatitis B is not a risk until the teenage years and after in this country. The only at-risk group among children is with children born to drug using parents; mothers infected with hepatitis B or HIV infected parents. The reason for vaccinating the newborns is to capture them before they can escape the "vaccinologist's" vaccine program.

This is a tactic often used to scare mothers into having their children vaccinated. For example, they say that if children are not vaccinated against measles millions of children could die during a measles epidemic. They know this is nonsense. What they are using is examples taken from developing countries with poor nutrition and poor immune function in which such epidemic death can occur. In the United States we would not see this because of better nutrition, better health facilities and better sanitation. In fact, most deaths seen when measles outbreaks occur in the United States occur either in children in which vaccination was contraindicated, the vaccine did not work or in children with chronic, immune-suppressing diseases.

In fact, in most studies these children catching the measles or other childhood diseases have been either fully immunized or partially immunized. The big secret among "vaccinologists" is that anywhere from 20 to 50% of children are not resistant to the diseases for which they have been immunized.

Also on page 18, Dr. Johnson tells the committee that it was Dr. Walt Orenstein who "asked the most provocative question which introduced a great deal of discussion. That was, should we try to seek neurodevelopmental outcomes fro children exposed to varying doses of mercury by utilizing the Vaccine Safety Datalink data from one or more sites." (page 18)

I take from this no one had ever even thought of looking at the data that had just been sitting there all these years un-reviewed. Children could have been dropping like flies or suffering from terrible neurodevelopmental defects caused by the vaccine program and no one in the government would have known. In fact, that is exactly what the data suggested was happening, at least as regards neurodevelopmental delays.

We should also appreciate that the government sponsored two conferences on the possible role of metals, aluminum and mercury, being use in vaccines without any change in vaccine policy occurring after the meetings. These meetings were held a year before this meeting and before any examination of the data which was being held tightly by the CDC, (which was denied to other independent, highly qualified researchers). I will talk more about what was discussed in the aluminum conference later. It is very important and is only briefly referred to in this conference for a very good reason. If the public knew what was discussed at the aluminum meeting no one would ever get a vaccination using the presently manufactured types of vaccines again.

Despite what was discussed in the aluminum meeting and the scientific literature on the neurotoxicity of aluminum, Dr. Johnson makes the following remark; "Aluminum salts have a very wide margin of safety. Aluminum and mercury are often simultaneously administered to infants, both at the same site and at different sites." Also on page 20, he states, "However, we also learned that there is absolutely no data, including animal data, about the potential for synergy, additively or antagonism, all of which can occur in binary metal mixtures..."

It is important her to appreciate a frequently used deception by those who are trying to defend an indefensible practice. They use the very same language just quoted, that is, that there is no data to show, etc, etc. They intend it to convey the idea that the issue has been looked at and studied thoroughly and no toxicity was found. In truth, it means that no one has looked at this possibility and there have been no studies that would give us an answer one way or the other.

In fact, we know that aluminum is a significant neurotoxin and that it shares many common mechanisms with mercury as a neurotoxin. For example, they are both toxic to neuronal neurotubules, interfere with antioxidant enzymes, poison DNA repair enzymes, interfere with mitochondrial energy production, block the glutamate reuptake proteins (GLT-1 and GLAST), bind to DNA, and interfere with neuronal membrane function. Toxins that share toxic mechanisms are almost always additive and frequently synergistic in their toxicity. So, Dr. Johnson's statement is sheer nonsense.

A significant number of studies have shown that both of these metals play a significant role in all of the neurodegenerative disorders. It is also important to remember, both of these metals accumulate in the brain and spinal cord. This makes them accumulative toxins and therefore much more dangerous than rapidly excreted toxins.

To jump ahead, on page 23 Dr, Tom Sinks, Associate Director for Science at the National Center for Environmental Health at the CDC and the Acting Division Director for Division of Birth Defects, Developmental Disabilities and Health, ask, "I wonder is there a particular health outcome that is related to aluminum salts that may have anything that we are looking at today?" Dr. Martin Meyers, Acting Director of the National Vaccine Program Office, answers, "No, I don't believe there are any particular health concerns that was raised." This is after an aluminum conference held the previous year that did indeed find significant health concerns and an extensive scientific literature showing aluminum to be of great concern.

On page 24 Dr. William Weil, a pediatrician representing the Committee on Environmental Health of the American Academy of Pediatrics, brings some sense to the discussion by reminding them that, "there are just a host of neurodevelopmental data that would suggest that we've got a serious problem. The earlier we go, the more serious the problem." Here he means that the further back you go during the child's brain development, the more likely the damage to the infant. I must give him credit; at least he briefly recognized that a significant amount of brain development does take place later. He also reminds his collogues that aluminum produced severe dementia and death in dialysis cases. He concludes by saying, "To think there isn't some possible problem here is unreal." (page 25)

Not to let it end there, Dr. Meyers adds, "We held the aluminum meeting in conjunction with the metal ions in biology and medicine meeting, we were quick to point out that in the absence of data we didn't know about additive or inhibitory activities." Once again we see the "no data" ploy. There is abundant data on the deleterious effects of aluminum on the brain, a significant portion of which came out in that very meeting.

Dr. Johnson also quotes Dr. Thomas Clarkson, who identifies himself as associated with the mercury program at the University of Rochester, as saying that delaying the HepB vaccine for 6 months or so would not affect the mercury burden. (page 20). He makes the correct conclusion when he says, "I would have thought that the difference was in the timing. That is you are protecting the first six months of the developing central nervous system."

Hallelujah, for a brief moment I thought that they had stumbled on one of the most basic concepts in neurotoxicology. Then Dr. Meyers dashed my hopes by saying that single, separated doses would not affect blood levels at all. At this juncture, we need a little enlightenment. It is important to appreciate that mercury is a fat soluble metal. That is, it is stored in the body's fat. The brain contains 60% fat and therefore is a common site for mercury storage. Now, they establish in this discussion that about half of methylmercury is excreted over several months when ingested. A recent study found that ethylmercury has a half-life of 7 days.

Even so, a significant proportion of the mercury will enter the brain (it has been shown to easily pass through the blood-brain barrier) where it is stored in the phospholipids (fats). With each new dose, and remember these children are receiving as many as 22 doses of these vaccines, another increment is added to the brain storage depot. This is why we call mercury an accumulative poison. They never once, not once, mention this vital fact throughout the entire conference. Not once. Moreover, they do so for a good reason, it gives the unwary, those not trained in neuroscience, assurance that all that matters here is blood levels.

In fact, on page 163, Dr. Robert Brent, A developmental biologist and pediatrician at the Thomas Jefferson University and Dupont Hospital for Children, says that we don't have data showing accumulation and "that with the multiple exposures you get an increasing level, and we don't know whether that is true or not." He redeems himself somewhat by pointing out that some of the damage is irreversible and with each dose more irreversible damage occurs and in that way it is accumulative.

On page 21 Dr. Thomas Clarkson makes the incredible statement implying that he knows of no studies that shows exposure to mercury after birth or at six months would have deleterious effects. Dr. Isabelle Rapin, a neurologist for children at Albert Einstein College of Medicine, follows up by saying that "I am not an expert on mercury in infancy" but she knows it can affect the nerves (peripheral nervous system). So, here is one of our experts admitting that she knows little about the effects of mercury on the infant. My question is-Why is she here? Dr. Rapin is a neurologist for children at Albert Einstein College of Medicine who stated that she has a keen interest in developmental disorders, in particular those involving language and autism, yet she knows little about the effects on mercury on the infant brain.

This conference is concerned with the effects of mercury in the form of thimerosal on infant brain development, yet throughout this conference our experts, especially the "vaccinologists" seem to know little about mercury except limited literature that shows no toxic effects except at very high levels. None of the well known experts were invited, such as Dr. Ascher from Bowman Grey School of Medicine or Dr. Haley Boyd, who has done extensive work on the toxic effects of low concentrations on the CNS. They were not invited because they would be harmful to the true objective of this meeting, and that was to exonerate mercury in vaccines.

Several times throughout this conference, Dr. Brent reminds everyone that the most sensitive period for the developing brain is during the early stages of pregnancy. In fact, he pinpoints the 8th to 18th week as the period of neuromaturation. In fact, the most rapid period of brain maturation, synaptic development and brain pathway development is during the last three months of pregnancy continuing until two years after birth. This is often referred to as the "brain growth spurt." This is also not mentioned once in this conference, again because if mothers knew that their child's brain was busy developing for up to two years after birth they would be less likely to accept this safety of mercury nonsense these "vaccinologists" proclaim.

The brain develops over 100 trillion synaptic connections and tens of trillions of dendritic connections during this highly sensitive period. Both dendrites and synapses are very sensitive, even to very low doses of mercury and other toxins. It has also been shown that subtoxic doses of mercury can block the glutamate transport proteins that play such a vital role in protecting the brain against excitotoxicity. Compelling studies indicate that damage to this protective system plays a major role in most of the neurodegenerative diseases and abnormal brain development as well.

Recent studies have shown that glutamate accumulates in the brains of autistic children, yet these experts seem to be unconcerned about a substance (mercury) that is very powerful in triggering brain excitotoxicity.

It is also interesting to see how many times Dr. Brent emphasizes that we do not know the threshold for mercury toxicity for the developing brain. Again, that is not true-we do know and the Journal of Neurotoxicology states that anything above 10ug is neurotoxic. The WHO in fact states that there is no safe level of mercury.

On page 164 Dr. Robert Davis, Associate Professor of Pediatrics and Epidemiology at the University of Washington, makes a very important observation. He points out that in a population like the United States you have individuals with varying levels of mercury from other causes (diet, living near coal burning facilities, etc.) and by vaccinating everyone you raise those with the highest levels even higher and bring those with median levels into a category of higher levels. The "vaccinologists" with their problem of "concrete thinking" cannot seem to appreciate the fact that not everyone is the same. That is, they fail to see these "uncertainties".

To further emphasize this point lets take a farming family who lives within three miles of a coal-burning electrical plant. Since they also live near the ocean they eat seafood daily. The fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides used on the crops contain appreciable levels of mercury. The coal-burning electrical plant emits high levels of mercury in the air they breathe daily and the seafood they consume has levels of mercury higher than EPA safety standards. This means that any babies born to these people will have very high mercury levels.

Once born, they are given numerous vaccines containing even more mercury, thereby adding significantly to their already high mercury burden. Are these "vaccinologists" trying to convince us that these children don't matter and that they are to be sacrificed at the alter of the "vaccine policy"?

Recent studies by neurotoxicologists have observed that as our ability to detect subtle toxic effects improves, especially on behavior and other neurological functions, we lower the level of acceptable exposure. In fact, Dr, Sinks brings up that exact point, using lead as an example. He notes that as our neurobehavioral testing improved, we lowered the acceptable dose considerably and continues to do so. Dr. Johnson had the audacity to add, " The smarter we get, the lower the threshold." Yet, neither he, nor the other participants seem to be getting any smarter concerning this issue.

Dr. Robert Chen, Chief of Vaccine Safety and Development at the National Immunization Program at the CDC, then reveals why they refuse to act on this issue, he says, "the issue is that it is impossible, unethical to leave kids unimmunized, so you will never, ever resolve that issue. So then we have to refer back from that." (page 169) In essence, immunization of the kids takes precedence over safety concerns with the vaccines themselves. If the problem of vaccine toxicity cannot be solved, he seems to be saying, then we must accept that some kids will be harmed by the vaccines.

Dr. Brent makes the statement that he knows of no known genetic susceptibility data on mercury and therefore assumes there is a fixed threshold of toxicity. That is, that everyone is susceptible to the same dose of mercury and there are no genetically hypersensitive groups of people. In fact, a recent study found just such a genetic susceptibility in mice. In this study they found that mice susceptible to autoimmunity developed neurotoxic effects to their hippocampus, including excitotoxicity, not seen in other strains of mice. They even hypothesize that the same may be true in humans, since familial autoimmunity increases the likelihood of autism in offspring. (Hornig M, Chian D, Lipkin WI. Neurotoxic effects of postnatal thimerosal are mouse strain dependent. Mol Psychiatry 2004; (in press).

For the next quotation you need a little discussion to be able to appreciate the meaning. They are discussing the fact that in Dr. Verstraeten study frightening correlations were found between the higher doses of thimerosal and problems with neurodevelopment, including ADD and autism. The problem with the study was that there were so few children who had received no thimerosal-containing vaccines that a true control group could not be used. Instead they had to use children getting 12.5ug of mercury as the control and some even wanted to use the control dose as 37.5ug. So the controls had mercury levels that could indeed cause neurodevelopmental problems. Even with this basic flaw, a strong positive correlation was found between the dose of mercury given and these neurodevelopmental problems.

It was proposed that they compare a group of children receiving non-thimerosal vaccines to those who had. In fact, we later lean that they had a large group of children who could have been used as a thimerosal-free control. It seems that for two years before this conference the Bethesda Naval Hospital had been using only thimerosal-free vaccines to immunize the children. They knew this and I would assume someone would have told Dr. Verstraeten of this important fact before he did his study.

So, now to the quote. Dr. Braun responds to the idea of starting a new study using such thimerosal-free controls by saying, "Sure we will have the answer in five years. The question is what can we do now with the data we have?" (page 170). Well, we have the answer to that, they simply covered this study up, declare that thimerosal is of no concern and continue the unaltered policy. That is, they can suggest the pharmaceutical manufacturers of vaccines remove the thimerosal but not making it mandatory or examining the vaccine to make sure they have removed it.

Lets us take a small peak at just how much we can trust the pharmaceutical manufacturers to do the right thing. Several reports of major violations of vaccine manufacturing policy have been cited by the regulatory agencies have surfaced. This includes obtaining plasma donations without taking adequate histories on donors as to disease exposures and previous health problems, poor record keeping on these donors, improper procedures and improper handing of specimens.

That these are not minor violations is emphasized by the discovery that a woman with variant Mad Cow Disease was allowed to given plasma to be used in vaccines in England. In fact, it was learned only after the contaminated plasma was pooled and used to make millions of doses of vaccines that her disease was discovered. British health officials told the millions of vaccinated not to worry, since we have no idea if it will really spread the disease.

Contamination of vaccines is a major concern in this country as well, as these regulatory violations make plain. It is also important to note that no fines were given, just warnings.

Conclusions By The Study Group

At the end of the conference, a poll was taken asking two questions. One was do you think that there is sufficient data to make a causal connection between the use of thimerosal-containing vaccines and neurodevelopmental delays? Second, do you think further study is called for based on this study?

First, let us see some of the comments on the question of doing further studies. Dr. Paul Stehr-Green, Associate Professor of Epidemiology at the University of Washington School of Public Health and Community Medicine, who voted yes, gave as his reason, "The implications are so profound these should be examined further." (page 180) Meanwhile, Dr. Brent interjects his concern that the lawyers will get hold of this information and begin filing lawsuits. He says, "They want business and this could potentially be a lot of business." (Page 191)

Dr. Loren Koller, Pathologist and Immunotoxicologist at the College of Veterinary Medicine, Oregon State University, is to be congratulated in that he recognized that more is involved in the vaccine effects than just ethylmercury. (page 192). He mentions aluminum and even the viral agents beings used as other possibilities. This is especially important in the face of Dr. RK Gherardi's identification of macrophagic myofascitis, a condition causing profound weakness and multiple neurological syndromes, one of which closely resembled multiple sclerosis. Both human studies and animal studies have shown a strong causal relationship to the aluminum hydroxide or aluminum phosphate used as a vaccine adjuvants. More than 200 cases have been identified in European countries and the United States and has been described as an "emerging condition".

Here are some of the neurological problems seen with the use of aluminum hydroxide and aluminum phosphate in vaccines. In two children aged 3 and 5, doctors at the All Children's Hospital in St. Petersburg, Florida described chronic intestinal pseudo-obstruction, urinary retention and other findings indicative of a generalized loss of autonomic nervous system function (diffuse dysautonomia). The 3-year old had developmental delay and hypotonia (loss of muscle tone). A biopsy of the children's vaccine injection site disclosed elevated aluminum levels.

In a study of some 92 patients suffering from this emerging syndrome, eight developed a full-blown demyelinating CNS disorder (multiple sclerosis). [Authier FJ, Cherin P, et al. Central nervous system disease in patients with macrophagic myofasciitis. Brain 2001; 124: 974-983. ] This included sensory and motor symptoms, visual loss, bladder dysfunction, cerebellar signs (loss of balance and coordination) and cognitive (thinking) and behavioral disorders.

Dr. Gherardi, the French physician who first described the condition in 1998, has collected over 200 proven cases, One third of these develop an autoimmune disease, such as multiple sclerosis. Of critical importance is his finding that even in the absence of obvious autoimmune disease there is evidence of chronic immune stimulation caused by the injected aluminum, known to be a very powerful immune adjuvant.

The reason this is so important is that there is overwhelming evidence that chronic immune activation in the brain (activation of microglial cells in the brain) is a major cause of damage in numerous degenerative brain disorders, from multiple sclerosis to the classic neurodegenerative diseases (Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's and ALS). In fact, I have presented evidence that chronic immune activation of CNS microglia is a major cause of autism, attention deficit disorder and Gulf War Syndrome.

Dr. Gherardi emphasizes that once the aluminum is injected into the muscle, the immune activation persists for years. In addition, we must consider the effect of the aluminum that travels to the brain itself. Numerous studies have shown harmful effects when aluminum accumulates in the brain. A growing amount of evidence points to high brain aluminum levels as a major contributor to Alzheimer's disease and possibly Parkinson's disease and ALS (Lou Geherig's disease). This may also explain the 10X increase in Alzheimer's disease in those receiving the flu vaccine 5 years in a row. (Dr. Hugh Fudenberg, in press, Journal of Clinical Investigation). It is also interesting to note that a recent study found that aluminum phosphate produced 3X the blood level of aluminum, as did aluminum hydroxide. (Flarend RE, hem SL, et al. In vivo absorption of aluminum-containing vaccine adjuvants using 26 Al. Vaccine 1997; 15: 1314-1318.)

Of course, in this conference, our illustrious experts tell us that there is "no data showing an additive or synergistic effect between mercury and aluminum."

Dr. Rapin expressed her concern over public opinion when this information eventually gets out. She says (page 197), they are going to be captured by the public and we had better make sure that a) "We council them carefully and b) that we pursue this because of the very important public health and public implications of the data." Dr. Johnson adds. "the stakes are very high...". From this how can one conclude anything than the fact that at least these scientists were extremely concerned by what was discovered by this study examining the vaccine safety datalink material? They were obviously terrified that the information would leak out to the public. Stamped in bold letters at the top of each page of the study was the words-"DO NOT COPY OR RELEASE" and "CONFIDENTIAL."

This is not the wording one would expect on a clinical study of vaccine safety; rather you would expect it on top-secret NSA or CIA files. Why was this information being secreted? The answer is obvious-it might endanger the vaccine program and indict the federal regulatory agencies for ignoring this danger for so many years. Our society is littered with millions of children who have been harmed in one degree or another by this vaccine policy. In addition, let us not forget the millions of parents who have had to watch helplessly as their children have been destroyed by this devastating vaccine program.

Dr. Bernier on page 198 says, "the negative findings need to be pinned down and published." Why was he so insistent that the "negative findings" be published? Because he said, "other less responsible parties will treat this as a signal." By that he means, a signal of a problem with thimerosal-containing vaccines. From this, I assume he wants a paper that says only that nothing was found by the study. As we shall see, he gets his wish.

In addition, on page 198, Dr. Rapin notes that a study in California found a 300X increase in autism following the introduction of certain vaccines. She quickly attributes this to better physician recognition. Two things are critical to note at this point. She makes this assertion or better physician recognition without any data at all, just her wishful thinking. If someone pointing out the dangers of vaccines were to do that, she would scream "junk science."

Second, Dr. Weil on page 207, attacks this reasoning when he says, "the number of dose related relationships are linear and statistically significant. You can play with this all you want. They are linear. They are statistically significant." In other words, how can you argue with results that show a strong dose/response relationship between the dose of mercury and neurodevelopmental outcomes? The higher the mercury levels in the children the greater the number of neurological problems.

He continues by saying that the increase in neurobehavioral problems is probably real. He tells them that he works in a school system with special education programs and "I have to say the number of kids getting help in special education is growing nationally and state by state at a rate not seen before. So there is some kind of increase. We can argue about what it is due to." (page 207)

Dr. Johnson seems to be impressed by the findings as well. He says on page 199, "This association leads me to favor a recommendation that infants up to two years old not be immunized with thimerosal containing vaccines if suitable alternative preparations are available." In credibly, he quickly adds "I do not believe the diagnosis justified compensation in the Vaccine Compensation Program at this point." It is interesting to note that one of our experts in attendance is Dr. Vito Caserta, the Chief Officer for the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.

At this point Dr. Johnson tells the group of his concerns for his own grandchild. He says, (page 200) "Forgive this personal comment, but I got called out at eight o'clock for an emergency call and my daughter-in-law delivered a son by c-section. Our first male in the line of the next generation and I do not want that grandson to get a Thimerosal containing vaccine until we know better what is going on. It will probably take a long time. In the meantime, and I know there are probably implications for this internationally, but in the meanwhile I think I want that grandson to only be given Thimerosal-free vaccines."

So, we have a scientist sitting on this panel which will eventually make policy concerning all of the children in this country, as well as other countries, who is terrified about his new grandson getting a thimerosal-containing vaccine but he is not concerned enough about your child to speak out and try to stop this insanity. He allows a cover-up to take place after this meeting adjourns and remains silent.

It is also interesting to note that he feels the answers will be a long time coming, but in the mean time, his grandson will be protected. The American Academy of Pediatrics, The American Academy of Family Practice, the AMA, CDC and every other organization will endorse these vaccines and proclaim them to be safe as spring water, but Dr, Johnson and some of the others will keep their silence.

It is only during the last day of the conference that we learn that most of the objections concerning the positive relationship between thimerosal-containing vaccines and ADD and ADHA were bogus. For example, Dr. Rapin on page 200 notes that all children in the study were below age 6 and that ADD and ADHD are very difficult to diagnose in pre-schoolers. She also notes that some children were followed for only a short period.

Dr. Stein adds that in fact the average age for diagnosis of ADHD was 4 years and 1 month. A very difficult diagnosis to make and that the guidelines published by the American Academy of Pediatrics limits diagnosis to 6 to 12 year olds. Of course, he was implying that too many were diagnosed as ADHD. Yet, a recent study found that the famous Denmark study that led to the announcement by the Institute of Medicine that there was no relationship between autism and the MMR vaccine, used the same tactic. They cut off the age of follow-up at age six.

It is known that many cases appear after this age group, especially with ADD and ADHD. In fact, most learning problems appear as the child is called on to handle more involved intellectual material. Therefore, the chances are they failed to diagnose a number of cases by stopping the study too early.

Several of the participants tried to imply that autism was a genetic disorder and therefore could have nothing to do with vaccines. Dr. Weil put that to rest with this comment, "We don't see that kind of genetic change in 30 years." In other words, how can we suddenly see a 300% increase in a genetically related disorder over such a short period? It is also known that there are two forms of autism, one that is apparent at birth and one that develops later in childhood. The former has not changed in incidence since statistics have been kept; the other is epidemic.

In one interesting exchange, which ends up being their justification for the view that mercury is of no danger in children vaccinated with vaccines containing thimerosal, involves two studies in children born to mothers consuming high intakes of mercury contaminated fish. One study reported in the journal Neurotoxicology, examined children living in the Republic of Seychelles. In this study, they examined the effect of prenatal exposure to mercury through the mother's consumption of fish high in methylmercury.

A battery of developmental milestone tests were done and no adverse effects were reported in the study reported by Dr. Clarkson and co-workers, the very same person in this conference. He never mentions that a follow-up study of these same children did find a positive correlation between methylmercury exposure and poor performance on a memory test. In a subsequent study of children living on the Faroe Islands exposed to methylmercury, researchers did find impairments of neurodevelopment. This experiment was done by scientist from Japan.

Throughout the remainder of this discussion, Dr. Clarkson and others refer to these two studies. When they are reminded that the Faroe study did find neurological injury to the children, they counter by saying that this was prenatal exposure to mercury and not after birth as would be seen with vaccination. The idea being that prenatally the brain is undergoing neural formation and development making it more vulnerable. As I have mentioned this rapid brain growth and development continues for two years after birth and even at age 6 years the brain is only 80% formed.

Dr. Clarkson keeps referring to the Seychelles study, which demonstrated that the children reached normal neurodevelopmental milestones as shown by a number of tests. Dr Weil points out on page 216 that this tells us little about these children's future brain function. He says, "I have taken a lot of histories of kids who are in trouble in school. The history is that developmental milestones were normal or advanced and they can't read at second grade, they can't write at third grade, they can't do math in the fourth grade and it has no relationship as far as I can tell to the history we get of the developmental milestones. So I think this is a very crude measure of neurodevelopment."

In other words, both of these studies tell us nothing about the actual development of these children's brain function except that they reached the most basic of milestones. To put this another way, your child may be able to stack blocks, recognize shapes and have basic language skills but later in life they could be significantly impaired when it came to higher math, more advanced language skills (comprehension) and ability to compete in a very competitive intellectual environment, like college or advanced schooling. Their future would be limited to the more mundane and intellectually limited jobs.

Post-natal brain development, that is from birth to age six or seven, involves the fine tuning of synaptic connections, dendritic development and pathway refinement, all of which prepare the brain for more complex thinking. These brain elements are very sensitive to toxins and excessive immune stimulation during this period. This is never mentioned in this conference.

In addition, it must be remembered that the children in these two studies were exposed only to methylmercury and not the combined neurotoxic effect of mercury, aluminum and excessive and chronic activation of the brain's immune system (microgia). This is what makes it so incredible, that several of these "vaccinologists" and so-called experts would express doubt about the "biological plausibility" of thimerosal or any vaccine component causing neurodevelopmental problems. The medical literature is exploding with such studies. The biological plausibility is very powerful.

Mercury, for example, even in low concentrations, is known to impair energy production by mitochondrial enzymes. The brain has one of the highest metabolic rates of any organ and impairment of its energy supply, especially during development, can have devastating consequences. In addition, mercury, even oin lower concentrations, is known to damage DNA and impair DNA repair enzymes, which again, plays a vital role in brain development. Mercury is known to impair neurotubule stability, even in very low concentrations. Neurotubules are absolutely essential to normal brain cell function. Mercury activates microglial cells, which increases excitotoxicity and brain free radical production as well as lipid peroxidation, central mechanisms in brain injury. In addition, even in doses below that which can cause obvious cell injury, mercury impairs the glutamate transport system, which in turn triggers excitotoxicity, a central mechanism in autism and other neurological disorders. Ironically, aluminum also paralyzes this system.

On page 228, we see another admission that the government has had no interest in demonstrating the safety of thimerosal-containing vaccines despite over 2000 articles showing harmful effects of mercury. Here we see a reference to the fact that the FDA "has a wonderful facility in Arkansas with hundreds of thousands of animals" available for any study needed to supply these answers on safety. The big question to be asked is -So, why has the government ignored the need for research to answer these questions concerning thimerosal safety. You will recall in the beginning the participants of this conference complained that there were just so few studies or no studies concerning this "problem."

Again, on page 229 Dr, Brent rails about the lawsuit problem. He tells the others that he has been involved in three lawsuits related to vaccine injuries leading to birth defects and concluded "If you want to see junk science, look at those cases...". He then complains about the type of scientists testifying in these cases. He adds, "But the fact is those scientist are out there in the United States." In essence, he labels anyone who opposes the "official policy" on vaccines as a junk scientist. We have seen in the discussion who the "junk scientists" really are.

Knowing that what they have found can cause them a great deal of problems he adds, "The medical/legal findings in this study, causal or not, are horrendous...If an allegation was made that a child's neurobehavioral findings were caused by thimerosal-containing vaccines, you could readily fins a junk scientist who will support the claim with a reasonable degree of certainty." On page 229 he then admits that they are in a bad position because they have no data for their defense. Now, who are the junk scientists?

Is a "real scientist" one who has no data, just wishful thinking and a "feeling" that everything will be all right? Are real scientists the ones who omit recognized experts on the problem in question during a conference because it might endanger the "program"? Or are they the ones who make statements that they don't want their grandson to get thimerosal-containing vaccines until the problem is worked out, but then tell millions of parents that the vaccines are perfectly safe for their children and grandchildren?

Dr. Meyers on page 231 put it this way, "My own concern, and a couple of you said it, there is an association between vaccines and outcomes that worries both parents and pediatricians." He sites other possible connections to vaccine-related neurobehavioral and neurodevelopmental problems including the number of vaccines being given, the types of antigens being used and other vaccine additives.

Dr. Caserta tells the group that he attended the aluminum conference the previous years and learned that often metals could act differently in biological systems than as an ion. This is interesting in the face of the finding that fluoride when combined to aluminum forms a compound that can destroy numerous hippocampal neurons at a concentration of 0.5 ppm in drinking water. It seems that aluminum readily combines with fluoride to form this toxic compound. With over 60% of communities having fluoridated drinking water this becomes a major concern.

It has also been learned that fluroaluminum compounds mimic the phosphate compound and can activate G-proteins. G-proteins play a major role in numerous biological systems, including endocrine, neurotransmitters, and as cellular second messengers. Some of the glutamate receptors are operated by a G-protein mechanism.

Over the next ten to fifteen pages, they discuss how to control this information so that it will not get out and if it does how to control the damage. On page 248 Dr. Clements has this to say:

"But there is now the point at which the research results have to be handled, and even if this committee decides that there is no association and that information gets out, the work has been done and through the freedom of information that will be taken by others and will be used in other ways beyond the control of this group. And I am very concerned about that as I suspect that it is already too late to do anything regardless of any professional body and what they say."

In other words, he wants this information kept not only from the public but also from other scientists and pediatricians until they can be properly counseled. In the next statement he spills the beans as to why he is determined that no outsider get hold of this damaging information. He says,

"My mandate as I sit here in this group is to make sure at the end of the day that 100,000,000 are immunized with DTP, Hepatitis B and if possible Hib, this year, next year and for many years to come, and that will have to be with thimerosal containing vaccines unless a miracle occurs and an alternative is found quickly and is tried and found to be safe."

This is one of the most shocking statements I have ever heard. In essence, he is saying, I don't care if the vaccines are found to be harmful and destroying the development of children's brains, these vaccines will be given now and forever. His only concern by his own admission is to protect the vaccine program even if it is not safe. Dr. Brent refers to this as an "eloquent statement."
On page 253, we again see that these scientists have a double standard when it comes to their children and grandchildren. Dr. Rapin raises the point about a loss of an IQ point caused by thimerosal exposure. She says, "Can we measure the IQ that accurately, that this one little point is relevant?" Then she answers her own question by saying, "Even in my grandchildren, one IQ point I am going to fight about." Yet, they are saying in unison, in essence-TO HELL WITH YOUR CHILDREN- to the rest of America.

It is also interesting that they bring up the history of lead as a neurobehavioral toxin. Dr. Weil noted that the neurotoxicologists and regulatory agencies have lowered the acceptable level from 10 to 5 ug. In fact, some feel that even lower levels are neurotoxic to the developing brain. Before the toxicologists began to look at lead as a brain toxin in children most "experts" assumed it was not toxic even at very high levels. Again, it shows that "experts" can be wrong and it is the public who pays the price.

Dr. Chen on page 256 expresses his concern about this information reaching the public. He remarks, "We have been privileged so far that given the sensitivity of information, we have been able to manage to keep it out of, lets say, less responsible hands..." Dr. Bernier agrees and notes, "This information has been held fairly tightly." Later he calls it "embargoed information" and "very highly protected information."

That they knew the implications of what they had discovered was illustrated by Dr. Chen's statement on page 258. He says, "I think overall there was this aura that we were engaged in something as important as anything else we have ever done. So I think that this was another element to this that made this a special meeting." You may remember, Dr. Weil emphasized that the data analysis left no doubt that there was a strong correlation between neurodevelopmental problems and exposure to thimerosal-containing vaccines. So if they understood the importance of this finding and this was the most important thing they have ever dealt with-why was this being kept from the public? In fact, it gets even worse.

Just so you will not doubt my statement that this audience of experts was not objective, I give you the words of Dr. Walter Orenstein, Director of the National Immunization Program at the CDC, on page 259. He tells the group, "I have seen him (Verstraeten) in audience after audience deal with exceedingly skeptical individuals..." "Exceedingly skeptical individuals" does that sound like objective scientists who wanted to look at the data with a clear mind or were they scientists who were convinced before the meeting was held that there was no danger to children from thimerosal or any other vaccine component?

In one of the closing remarks by Dr. Bernier (page 257) says, "the other thing I was struck by was the science," meaning the science expressed by the attendees of the meeting. Then Dr, Orenstein adds, "I would also like to thank Roger Bernier who pulled off this meeting in rather short notice..." Here is a meeting that has been called one of the most important they have ever dealt with and we learn that it was pulled off on short notice. In addition, we were told that the results of this meeting would lead to eventual vaccine policy.

He then has the nerve to add:

"In a sense this meeting addresses some of the concerns we had last summer when we were trying to make policy in the absence of a careful scientific review. I think this time we have gotten it straight."

Well, I hate to be the one to break the news, but he didn't get it straight. There was little or no science in this meeting; rather it was composed of a lot of haggling and nit picking over epidemiological methodology and statistical minutia in an effort to discredit the data without success. In fact, the so-called mercury experts admitted they had to do some quick homework to refresh their memories and learn something about the subject.
Conclusions

This top secret meeting was held to discuss a study done by Dr. Thomas Verstraeten and his co-workers using Vaccine Safety Datalink data as a project collaboration between the CDC's National Immunization Program (NIP) and four HMOs. The study examined the records of 110,000 children. Within the limits of the data, they did a very through study and found the following:

Exposure to thimerosal-containing vaccines at one month was associated significantly with the misery and unhappiness disorder that was dose related. That is, the higher the child's exposure to thimerosal the higher the incidence of the disorder. This disorder is characterized by a baby that cries uncontrollably and is fretful more so than that see in normal babies.

Found a nearly significant increased risk of ADD with 12.5ug exposure at one month.

With exposure at 3 months, they found an increasing risk of neurodevelopmental disorder with increasing exposure to thimerosal. This was statistically significant. This included speech disorders.

It is important to remember that the control group was not children without thimerosal exposure, but rather those at 12.5ug exposure. This means that there is a significant likelihood that even more neurodevelopmental problems would have been seen had they used a real control population. No one disagreed that these findings were significant and troubling. Yet when the final study was published in the journal Pediatrics Dr. Verstraeten and co-workers reported no consistent associations were found between thimerosal-containing vaccine exposure and neurodevelopmental problems. In addition, he list himself as an employee of the CDC, not disclosing the fact that at the time the article was accepted, he worked for GlaxoSmithKline, a vaccine manufacturing company.
So how did they do this bit of prestidigitation? They simply added another HMO to the data, the Harvard Pilgrimage. Congressman Dave Weldon noted in his letter to the CDC Director that this HMO had been in receivership by the state of Massachusetts because its records were in shambles. Yet, this study was able to make the embarrassing data from his previous study disappear. Attempts by Congressman Weldon to force the CDC to release the data to an independent researcher, Dr. Mark Geier, a researcher with impeccable credentials and widely published in peer-reviewed journals, have failed repeatedly.

It is obvious that a massive cover-up is in progress, as we have seen with so many other scandals-fluoride, food-based excitotoxins, pesticides, aluminum and now vaccines. I would caution those critical of the present vaccine policy not to put all their eggs in one basket, that is, with thimerosal as being the main culprit. There is no question that it plays a major role, but there are other factors that are also critical, including aluminum, fluoroaluminum complexes, and chronic immune activation of brain microglia.

In fact, excessive, chronic microglial activation can explain many of the effects of excessive vaccine exposure as I point out in two recently published articles. One property of both aluminum and mercury is microglial activation. With chronic microglial activation large concentrations of excitotoxins are released as well as neurotoxic cytokines. These have been shown to destroy synaptic connections, dendrites and cause abnormal pathway development in the developing brain as well as adult brain.

In essence, too many vaccines are being given to children during the brain's most rapid growth period. Known toxic metals are beings used in the vaccines that interfere with brain metabolism, antioxidant enzymes, damage DNA and DNA repair enzymes and trigger excitotoxicity. Removing the mercury will help but will not solve the problem because overactivation of the brain's immune system will cause varying degrees of neurological damage to the highly-vulnerable developing brain.

References For This Article

Lorscheider,FL; Vimy,MJ; Pendergrass,JC; Haley,BE. Mercury vapor exposure inhibits tubulin binding to GTP in rat brain: A molecular lesion also present in human Alzheimer brain From: FASEB J. 9(4): A-3845. FASEB Annual Meeting, Atlanta, Georgia, 10 March 1995.

Grandjean P, Budtz-Jorgensen E, White RF, Jorgensen PJ, Weihe P, Debes F, Keiding N Methylmercury exposure biomarkers as indicators of neurotoxicity in children aged 7 years. From: Am J Epidemiol 1999 Aug 1;150(3):301-5.

Albers JW, Kallenbach LR, Fine LJ, Langolf GD, Wolfe RA, Donofrio PD, Alessi AG, Stolp-Smith KA, Bromberg MB Neurological abnormalities associated with remote occupational elemental mercury exposure. Ann Neurol 1988 Nov;24(5):651-9.

Aschner M, Lorscheider FL, Cowan KS, Conklin DR, Vimy MJ, Lash LH Metallothionein induction in fetal rat brain and neonatal primary astrocyte cultures by in utero exposure to elemental mercury vapor (Hg0). From: Brain Res 1997 Dec 5;778(1):222-32.

Soederstroem S, Fredriksson A, Dencker L & Ebendal T The effect of mercury vapour on cholinergic neurons in the fetal brain: studies on the expression of nerve growth factor and its low- and high-affinity receptors. Developmental Brain Research 85(1):96-108 (1995).

Drasch G, Schupp I, Hofl H, Reinke R & Roider G. Mercury burden of human fetal and infant tissues. Eur J Pediatr 153:607-610 (1994).

Szucs A, Angiello C, Salanki J, Carpenter DO Effects of inorganic mercury and methylmercury on the ionic currents of cultured rat hippocampal neurons. Cell Mol Neurobiol 1997 Jun;17(3):273-88.

Low-Level Exposure to Methylmercury Modifies Muscarinic Cholinergic Receptor Binding Characteristics in Rat Brain and Lymphocytes: Physiologic Implications and New Opportunities in Biologic Monitoring Teresa Coccini,1 Giovanna Randine,2 Stefano M. Candura,1,3 Rossella E. Nappi,2,3 Leon D. Prockop,4 and Luigi Manzo.

Sorg O, Schilter B, Honegger P, Monnet-Tschudi F Increased vulnerability of neurones and glial cells to low concentrations of methylmercury in a prooxidant situation. Acta Neuropathol (Berl) 1998 Dec;96(6):621-7.

Liang YX, Sun RK, Sun Y, Chen ZQ, Li LH Psychological effects of low exposure to mercury vapor: application of a computer-administered neurobehavioral evaluation system. Environ Res 1993 Feb;60(2):320-7.

Sundberg J, Jonsson S, Karlsson MO, Oskarsson A Lactational exposure and neonatal kinetics of methylmercury and inorganic mercury in mice. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 1999 Jan 15;154(2):160-9.

Inouye M., Murao K., Kajiwara Y., Behavorial and neuropathological effects of prenatal methyl Mercury exposure in mice.. Neurobehav.Toxicol Teratol. ,1985:7;227-232.

Koos et al., Mercury toxicity in pregnant women, fetus and newborn infant. Am J Obstet And Gynecol., 1976:126;390-409.

Khera et al., Teratogenic and genetic effects of Mercury toxicity. The biochemistry of Mercury in the environment. Nriagu, J.O.Ed Amsterdam Elsevier, 503-18,1979.

Drasch G, Schupp I, Hofl H, Reinke R, Roider G Mercury burden of human fetal and infant tissues. Eur J Pediatr 1994 Aug;153(8):607-10.

Yoshida M, Yamamura Y, Satoh H Distribution of mercury in guinea pig offspring after in utero exposure to mercury vapor during late gestation Arch Toxicol 1986 Apr;58(4):225-8.

Yuan,Y; Atchison,WD. Comparative effects of inorganic divalent mercury, methylmercury and phenylmercury on membrance excitability and synaptic transmission of CA1 neurons in hippocampal slices of the rat Neurotoxicology. 14(2):403-411, 1994.

Desi I, Nagymajtenyi L, Schulz H Effect of subchronic mercury exposure on electrocorticogram of rats. Neurotoxicology 1996 Fall-Winter;17(3-4):719-23.

Bucio L, Garcia C, Souza V, Hernandez E, Gonzalez C, Betancourt M, Gutierrez-Ruiz MC Uptake, cellular distribution and DNA damage produced by mercuric chloride. Mutat Res 1999 Jan 25;423(1-2):65-72.

Hua MS, Huang CC, Yang YJ Chronic elemental mercury intoxication: neuropsychological follow-up case study. Brain Inj 1996 May;10(5):377-84.

Grandjean P, Weihe P, White RF, Debes F Cognitive performance of children prenatally exposed to "safe" levels of methylmercury. Environ Res 1998 May;77(2):165-72.

Hock C, Drasch G, Golombowski S, Muller-Spahn F, Willershausen-Zonnchen B, Schwarz P, Hock U, Growdon JH, Nitsch RM Increased blood mercury levels in patients with Alzheimer's disease. J Neural Transm 1998;105(1):59-68.

Oskarsson A, Palminger Hallen I & Sundberg J. Exposure to toxic elements via breast milk. Analyst 120(3):765-770 (1995).

Hock C, Drasch G, Golombowski S, Muller-Spahn F, Willershausen-Zonnchen B, Schwarz P, Hock U, Growdon JH, Nitsch RM Increased blood mercury levels in patients with Alzheimer's disease. J Neural Transm 1998;105(1):59-68.

Wenstrup D, Ehmann WD, Markesbery WR Trace element imbalances in isolated subcellular fractions of Alzheimer's disease brains. Brain Res 1990 Nov 12;533(1):125-31

Basun H, Forssell LG, Wetterberg L, Winblad B Metals and trace elements in plasma and cerebrospinal fluid in normal aging and Alzheimer's disease. J Neural Transm Park Dis Dement Sect 1991;3(4):231-58.

Hock C, Drasch G, Golombowski S, Muller-Spahn F, Willershausen-Zonnchen B, Schwarz P, Hock U, Growdon JH, Nitsch RM Increased blood mercury levels in patients with Alzheimer's disease. J Neural Transm 1998;105(1):59-68.

Pendergrass JC, Haley BE, Vimy MJ, Winfield SA, Lorscheider FL Mercury vapor inhalation inhibits binding of GTP to tubulin in rat brain: similarity to a molecular lesion in Alzheimer diseased brain. Neurotoxicology 1997;18(2):315-24.

Opitz H, Schweinsberg F, Grossmann T, Wendt-Gallitelli MF, Meyermann R Demonstration of mercury in the human brain and other organs 17 years after metallic mercury exposure. Clin Neuropathol 1996 May-Jun;15(3):139-44.

Sanfeliu C, Sebastia J, Cristofol R, Rodriguez-Farre E. Neurotoxicity of organomercurial compounds. Neurotox Res. 2003;5(4):283-305.

el-Fawal HA, Gong Z, Little AR, Evans HL Exposure to methylmercury results in serum autoantibodies to neurotypic and gliotypic proteins.Neurotoxicology 1996 Summer;17(2):531-9.

Faustman EM, Ponce RA, Ou YC, Mendoza MA, Lewandowski T, Kavanagh T. Investigations of methylmercury-induced alterations in neurogenesis. Environ Health Perspect. 2002 Oct;110 Suppl 5:859-64.

Reading R. Thimerosal and the occurrence of autism: negative ecological evidence from Danish population-based data. Child Care Health Dev. 2004 Jan;30(1):90-1.

Qvarnstrom J, Lambertsson L, Havarinasab S, Hultman P, Frech W. Determination of methylmercury, ethylmercury, and inorganic mercury in mouse tissues, following administration of thimerosal, by species-specific isotope dilution GC-inductively coupled plasma-MS. Anal Chem. 2003 Aug 15;75(16):4120-4.

Shanker G, Syversen T, Aschner M. Astrocyte-mediated methylmercury neurotoxicity. Biol Trace Elem Res. 2003 Oct;95(1):1-10.

Zheng W, Aschner M, Ghersi-Egea JF. Brain barrier systems: a new frontier in metal neurotoxicological research. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol. 2003 Oct 1;192(1):1-11.

Kawase T, Ishikawa I, Orikasa M, Suzuki A. An assessment of the impact of thimerosal on childhood neurodevelopmental disorders. Geier DA, Geier MR. J Biochem (Tokyo). 1989 Jul; 106(1): 8-10. Aluminum enhances the stimulatory effect of NaF on prostaglandin E2 synthesis in a clonal osteoblast-like cell line, MOB 3-4, in vitro. Pediatr Rehabil. 2003 Apr-Jun;6(2):97-102.

Geier MR, Geier DA. Thimerosal in childhood vaccines, neurodevelopmental disorders, and heart disease in the United States. J Amer Physc Surg 8: 6-11, 2003.

Allen JW, Shanker G, Tan KH, Aschner M. The consequences of methylmercury exposure on interactive functions between astrocytes and neurons. Neurotoxicology 23: 755-759, 2002.

Hansen JC, Reske-Nielsen E, et al. Distribution of dietary mercury in a dog. Quantitation and localization of total mercury in organs and central nervous system. Sci Total Environ 78: 23-43, 1989.

Zanoli P, Cannazza G, Baraldi M. Prenatal exposure to methyl mercury in rats: focus on changes in kyrenine pathway. Brain Res Bull 55: 235-238, 2001.

Olivieri G, Brack C, et al. Mercury induces cell cytotoxicity and oxidative stress and increases beta-amyloid secretion and tau phosphorylation in SHY5Y neuroblastoma cells. J Neurochem 74: 231-236, 2000.

Juarez BI, Mattinez M, et al. Methylmercury increases glutamate extracellular levels in frontal cortex of awake rats. Neurotoxicology and Teratology 24: 767-771, 2002.

Geier DA, Geier MR. An assessment of the impact of thimerosal on childhood neurodevelopmental disorders. Pediatric Rehabil 6: 97-102, 2003.

Geier DA, Geier MR. A comparative evaluation of the effects of MMR immunization and mercury doses from thimerosal-containing childhood vaccines on the population prevalence of autism. Med Sci Monit 10: P133-139, 2004.

Baskin DS, Ngo H, Didenko VV. Thimerosal indices DNA breaks, caspase-3 activation, membrane damage, and cell death in cultured human neurons and fibroblast. Toxicol Sci 74: 361-368, 2003.

Pichichero ME, et al. Mercury concentrations and metabolism in infants receiving vaccines containing thimerosal: a descriptive study. Lancet 360: 1737-1741, 2002.

Murata K, Dakeishi M. Impact of prenatal methylmercury exposure on child neurodevelopment in the Faroe Islands. Nippon Eiseigaku Zasshi 57: 564-570, 2002.

Davidson PW, Myers GJ, et al (Clarkson TW-member of panel) Effects of prenatal and postnatal exposure from fish consumption on neurodevelopment: outcomes at 66 months of age in the Seychelles Child Development Study. JAMA 280: 701-707, 1998.

Palumbo DR, Cox C, et al. (ClarksonTW) Association between prenatal exposure to methylmercury and cognitive functioning in Seychellois children: a reanalysis of the McCarthy Scales of Children's Ability from the main cohort study. Environ Res 84: 81-88, 2000.

Hornig M, Chian D, Lipkin WI. Neurotoxic effects of postnatal thimerosal are mouse strain dependent. Mol Psychiatry (In press).

Ueha-Ishibashi T, et al. Property of thimerosal-induced decrease in cellular content of gluatathione in rat thymocytes: a flow cytometric study with 5-chloromethylfluorescein. Toxicol in Vitro 18: 563-569, 2004.

Ueha-Ishibaschi T, et al. Effect of thimerosal, a preservative in vaccines, on intracellular Ca+2 concentration of ra cerebellar neurons. Toxicology 195: 77-84, 2004.

Havarinasab S, Lambertsson L, et al. Dose-response study of thimerosal-induced murine systemic autoimmunity. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 194: 169-179, 2004.

Verstraeten T, Davis RL, DeStefano F, et al. Safety of thimerosal-containing vaccines: a two-phase study of computerized health maintenance organization databases. Pediatrics 112: 1039-1048, 2003. (This is the published study that was discussed in the conference. Her the damaging data is erased and the public is told the thimerosal-containing vaccines are perfectly safe. In this paper Dr. Verstraeten identified himself as working for the CDC, but in fact he is working for GlaxoSmithKline. The editors of the journal Pediatrics should have been willing to disclose this information once it was brought to their attention but they would not.).

Aluminum References

Murayama H, Shin RW, Higuchi J, Shibuya S, Muramoto T, Kitamoto T. Interaction of aluminum with PHFtau in Alzheimer's disease neurofibrillary degeneration evidenced by desferrioxamine-assisted chelating autoclave method.Am J Pathol. 1999 Sep;155(3):877-85.

Shin RW, Kruck TP, Murayama H, Kitamoto T. A novel trivalent cation chelator Feralex dissociates binding of aluminum and iron associated with hyperphosphorylated tau of Alzheimer's disease. Brain Res. 2003 Jan 24;961(1):139-46.

Li W, Ma KK, Sun W, Paudel HK. Phosphorylation sensitizes microtubule-associated protein tau to Al(3+)-induced aggregation. Neurochem Res. 1998 Dec;23(12):1467-76.

Singer SM, Chambers CB, Newfry GA, Norlund MA, Muma NA. Tau in aluminum-induced neurofibrillary tangles. Neurotoxicology. 1997;18(1):63-76.

Toda S, Yase Y. Effect of aluminum on iron-induced lipid peroxidation and protein oxidative modification of mouse brain homogenate. Biol Trace Elem Res. 1998 Feb;61(2):207-17.

Sayre LM, Perry G, Harris PL, Liu Y, Schubert KA, Smith MA. In situ oxidative catalysis by neurofibrillary tangles and senile plaques in Alzheimer's disease: a central role for bound transition metals. J Neurochem. 2000 Jan;74(1):270-9.

Xie CX, Yokel RA. Aluminum facilitation of iron-mediated lipid peroxidation is dependent on substrate, pH and aluminum and iron concentrations. Arch Biochem Biophys. 1996 Mar 15;327(2):222-6.

Kawase T, Ishikawa I, Orikasa M, Suzuki A. Aluminum enhances the stimulatory effect of NaF on prostaglandin E2 synthesis in a clonal osteoblast-like cell line, MOB 3-4, in vitro. J Biochem (Tokyo). 1989 Jul; 106(1): 8-10.

Jope RS. Modulation of phosphoinositide hydrolysis by NaF and aluminum in rat cortical slices. J Neurochem. 1988 Dec; 51(6): 1731-6.

Blair HC, Finch JL, Avioli R, Crouch EC, Slatopolsky E, Teitelbaum SL. Micromolar aluminum levels reduce 3H-thymidine incorporation by cell line UMR 106-01. Kidney Int. 1989 May; 35(5): 1119-25.

Shainkin-Kestenbaum R, Adler AJ, Berlyne GM, Caruso C. Effect of aluminium on superoxide dismutase. Clin Sci (Lond). 1989 Nov; 77(5): 463-6.

Kawase T, Orikasa M, Suzuki A. Aluminofluoride- and epidermal growth factor-stimulated DNA synthesis in MOB 3-4-F2 cells. Pharmacol Toxicol. 1991 Nov; 69(5): 330-7.

Gomes MG, Moreira CA, Mill JG, Massaroni L, Oliveira EM, Stefanon I, Vassallo DV. Effects of aluminum on the mechanical and electrical activity of the Langendorff-perfused rat heart. Braz J Med Biol Res. 1994 Jan; 27(1): 95-100.

Jope RS. Modulation of phosphoinositide hydrolysis by NaF and aluminum in rat cortical slices. J Neurochem. 1988 Dec; 51(6): 1731-6.

Husaini Y, Rai LC, Mallick N. Impact of aluminium, fluoride and fluoroaluminate complex on ATPase activity of Nostoc linckia and Chlorella vulgaris. Biometals. 1996 Jul; 9(3): 277-83.

Blair HC, Finch JL, Avioli R, Crouch EC, Slatopolsky E, Teitelbaum SL. Micromolar aluminum levels reduce 3H-thymidine incorporation by cell line UMR 106-01. Kidney Int. 1989 May; 35(5): 1119-25.

Lai JC, Lim L, Davison AN. Effects of Cd2+, Mn2+, and Al3+ on rat brain synaptosomal uptake of noradrenaline and serotonin. J Inorg Biochem. 1982 Nov; 17(3): 215-25.

Shainkin-Kestenbaum R, Adler AJ, Berlyne GM, Caruso C. Effect of aluminium on superoxide dismutase. Clin Sci (Lond). 1989 Nov; 77(5): 463-6.

Department of Health and Human Services National Vaccine Program Office Presents: Workshop on Aluminum in Vaccines. Caribe Hilton International Hotel, San Juan, Puerto Rico: Jointly sponsored by: task Force for Child Survival and Development. May 12, 200.

Varner JA, Jenson KF, Harvath W, Isaacson RL. Chronic administration of aliminum-fluoride or sodium-fluoride to rats in drinking water: alterations in neuronal and cerebrovascular integrity. Brain Res 784: 284-298, 1998.

Strunecka A, Pataocka J. Aluminofluoride complexes: new phosphate analogues for laboratory investigations and potential danger for living organisms. http://www.fluoridation.com/brain3.htm

Candura SM, Castildi AF, et al. Interaction of aluminum ions with phosphoinositide metabolism in rat cerebral cortical membranes. Life Sci 49: 1245-1252, 1991.

Publicover SJ. Brief exposure to the G-protein activator NaF/ AlCl3 induces prolonged enhancement of synaptic transmission in area of rat hippocampal slices. Expl Brain Res 84: 680-684, 1991.

Brenner A. Macrophagic myofascitiitis: a summery of Dr. Gherardi's presentations. Vaccine 20ï��Supp 3): S5-6, 2002.

Lacson AG, D'Cruz CA, et al. Aluminum phagocytosis in quadriceps muscle following vaccination in children: relationship to macrophagic myofasciitis. Pediatr Dev Pathol 5: 151-158, 2002.

Flarend RE, Hem SL, et al. In vivo absorption of aluminum-containing vaccine adjuvants using 26 Al. Vaccine 15: 131401318, 1997.

Authier FJ Cherin P, et al. Central nervous system disease in patients with macrophagic myofasciitis. Brain 124: 974-983, 2001.

Gherardi RK. Lessons from macrophagic myofasciitis: towards definition of a vaccine adjuvant-related syndrome. Rev Neurol (Paris) 159: 162-164, 2003.

Bergfors E, Trollfors B, Inerot A. Unexpectantly high incidence of persistent itching and delayed hypersensitivity to aluminum in children after the used of absorbed vaccines from a single manufacturer. Vaccine 22: 64-69, 2003.

Deloncle R, Fauconneau B, et al. Aluminum L-glutamate complexes in rat brain cortex: in vivo prevention of aluminum deposit by magnesium D-aspartate. Brain Res 946: 247-252, 2002.

Mundy WR, Freudenrich TM, Kodavanti PR. Aluminum potentates glutamate-induced calcium accumulation and iron-induced oxygen free radical formation in primary neuronal cultures. Mol Chem Neuropathol 32: 41-57, 1997.

References Concerning Lead

Naatala JT, Loikkanen JJ, et al. Lead amplifies glutamate-induced oxidative stress. Free Radical Biology Medicine 19: 689-693, 1995.

Morgan RE, Garavan H, et al. Early lead exposure produces lasting changes in sustained attention, response initiation, and reactivity to errors. Neurotoxicology and Teratology 23: 519-531, 2001.

Needleman HL, McFarland C, et al. Bone lead levels in adjudicated delinquents: A case control study. Neurotoxicology and Teratology 24: 711-717, 2002.

Dietrich KN, Ris MD, et al. Early exposure to lead and juvenile delinquency. Neurotoxicology and Teratology 23: 511-518, 2001.

Dr. Russell Blaylock, M.D. References

Blaylock R. Interaction of cytokines, excitotoxins, and reactive nitrogen and oxygen species in autism spectrum disorders. J. Amer Nutr Assoc 6: 21-35, 2003.

Blaylock RL. The central role of excitotoxicity in autism spectrum disorders. J Amer Nutra Assoc 6: 7-19, 2003.

Blaylock RL. Chronic microglial activation and excitotoxicity secondary to excessive immune stimulation: possible factors in Gulf War Syndrome and autism. J Amer Phys Surg 9: 46-51, 2004.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

1991 Memo Warned of Mercury in Children's Vaccines

2011-07-10T13:36:00.000-07:00

1991 Memo Warned of Mercury in Children's Vaccines

Los Angeles Times
February 8, 2005
By Myron Levin, Times Staff Writer

A memo from the drug maker Merck & Co. shows that, nearly a decade before the first public disclosure, senior executives were concerned that infants were getting an elevated dose of mercury in vaccinations containing a widely used sterilizing agent.

The March 1991 memo, obtained by The Times, said that 6-month-old children who received their shots on schedule would get a mercury dose up to 87 times higher than guidelines for the maximum daily consumption of mercury from fish.

"When viewed in this way, the mercury load appears rather large," said the memo from Dr. Maurice R. Hilleman, an internationally renowned vaccinologist. It was written to the president of Merck's vaccine division.

The memo was prepared at a time when U.S. health authorities were aggressively expanding their immunization schedule by adding five new shots for children in their first six months. Many of these shots, as well as some previously included on the vaccine schedule, contained thimerosal, an antibacterial compound that is nearly 50% ethyl mercury, a neurotoxin.

Federal health officials disclosed for the first time in 1999 that many infants were being exposed to mercury above health guidelines through routine vaccinations. The announcement followed a review by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration that was described at the time as a first effort to assess the cumulative mercury dose.

But the Merck memo shows that at least one major manufacturer was aware of the concern much earlier.

"The key issue is whether thimerosal, in the amount given with the vaccine, does or does not constitute a safety hazard," the memo said. "However, perception of hazard may be equally important."

Merck officials would not discuss the contents of the memo, citing pending litigation.

Separately, the drug giant is trying to fend off a legal onslaught over Vioxx, the popular painkiller it introduced in 1999. The company, based in Whitehouse Station, N.J., faces hundreds of lawsuits claiming that the drug caused heart problems and that Merck concealed the risks. Merck, which in September pulled Vioxx off the market, has denied the allegations.

The legacy of thimerosal, meanwhile, also is causing problems for Merck and other drug companies.

More than 4,200 claims have been filed in a special federal tribunal, the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, by parents asserting that their children suffered autism or other neurodevelopmental disorders from mercury in vaccines. A handful of similar claims are awaiting trial in civil courts. The plaintiffs cite various scientific studies that they say prove the dangers of thimerosal, including at the levels found in vaccines.

Thimerosal has been largely removed from pediatric vaccines in recent years in what health officials have described as a precautionary measure. (This has been accomplished as drug makers have voluntarily switched from multi-dose vials of vaccine, which require a chemical preservative like thimerosal, to single-dose containers.)

In September, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed legislation prohibiting vaccines with more than trace amounts of thimerosal from being given to babies and pregnant women. Iowa has a similar ban.

For their part, Merck and other vaccine makers, along with many government health officials and scientists, say there is no credible evidence of harm from the amounts of mercury once widely present in kids' shots. They cite a report in May by a committee of the national Institute of Medicine concluding that the evidence "favors rejection of a causal relationship" between vaccines and autism.

The seven-page Merck memo was provided to The Times by James A. Moody, a Washington lawyer who works with parent groups on vaccine safety issues. He said he obtained it from a whistle-blower whom he would not name.

The memo provides the "first hard evidence that the companies knew — or at least Merck knew — that the children were getting significantly more mercury" than the generally accepted dose, the lawyer said.

He also provided a copy to attorneys for Vera Easter, a Texas woman who blames thimerosal for the condition of her 7-year-old son, Jordan, who is autistic and mentally retarded. The Easter lawsuit is pending in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The defendants include Merck; rival vaccine makers GlaxoSmithKline, Aventis Pasteur Inc. and Wyeth; and thimerosal developer Eli Lilly & Co.

Easter's lawyer, Andy Waters, described the memo as "incredibly damning and incredibly significant." After receiving it in the fall, he confronted Merck lawyers about why he hadn't seen it earlier.

In a letter to Waters in October, Merck attorneys said they had in fact made available 32 boxes of records, but that the copying service hired by the plaintiffs for some reason had failed to copy several of the boxes — including the one with the Hilleman memo.

"The memo," said company spokeswoman Mary Elizabeth Blake, "was produced voluntarily by Merck in the ordinary course of discovery proceedings."

Hilleman is a former senior vice president of Merck who developed numerous vaccines for the company. A 1999 profile in the Philadelphia Inquirer said that "it is no exaggeration to assert, as many scientists do, that Maurice Hilleman has saved more lives than any other living scientist."

Hilleman, 85, currently director of the Merck Institute for Vaccinology, had officially retired and was a consultant to Merck when he wrote the '91 memo. He declined to be interviewed.

The memo was sent to Dr. Gordon Douglas, then head of Merck's vaccine division and now a consultant for the Vaccine Research Center at the National Institutes of Health. Douglas also declined to comment.

The memo stated that regulators in several countries had raised concerns about thimerosal, including in Sweden, where the chemical was being removed from vaccines.

"The public awareness has been raised by the sequential wave of experiences in Sweden including mercury exposure from additives, fish, contaminated air, bird deaths from eating mercury-treated seed grains, dental amalgam leakage, mercury allergy, etc.," the memo said.

It noted that Sweden had set a daily maximum allowance of mercury from fish of 30 micrograms for a 160-pound adult, roughly the same guideline used by the FDA. Adjusting for the body weight of infants, Hilleman calculated that babies who received their shots on schedule could get 87 times the mercury allowance.

The Swedish and FDA guidelines work out to about four-tenths of a microgram of mercury per kilogram of body weight. A stricter standard of one-tenth of a microgram per kilogram has been adopted by the Environmental Protection Agency and endorsed by the National Research Council.

These standards are based on methyl mercury, the type found in fish and airborne emissions from power plants. Though toxic, the ethyl mercury in thimerosal may be less hazardous than methyl mercury, some scientists say, because it is more quickly purged from the body.

"It appears essentially impossible, based on current information, to ascertain whether thimerosal in vaccines constitutes or does not constitute a significant addition to the normal daily input of mercury from diverse sources," the memo said.

"It is reasonable to conclude" that it should be eliminated where possible, he said, "especially where use in infants and young children is anticipated."

In the U.S., however, thimerosal continued to be added throughout the '90s to a number of widely used pediatric vaccines for hepatitis B, bacterial meningitis, diphtheria, whooping cough and tetanus.

It was added to multi-dose vials of vaccine to prevent contamination from repeated insertion of needles to extract the medicine. It was not needed in single-dose vials, but most doctors and clinics preferred to order vaccine in multi-dose containers because of the lower cost and easier storage.

The Hilleman memo said that unlike regulators in Sweden and some other countries, "the U.S. Food and Drug Administration … does not have this concern for thimerosal."

A turning point came in 1997 when Congress passed a bill ordering an FDA review of mercury ingredients in food and drugs.

Completed in 1999, the review revealed the high level of mercury exposure from pediatric vaccines and raised a furor. In e-mails later released at a congressional hearing, an FDA official said health authorities could be criticized for "being 'asleep at the switch' for decades by allowing a potentially hazardous compound to remain in many childhood vaccines, and not forcing manufacturers to exclude it from new products."

It would not have taken "rocket science" to add up the amount of exposure as the prescribed number of shots was increasing, one of the e-mails said.

While asserting that there was no proof of harm, the U.S. Public Health Service in July 1999 called on manufacturers to go mercury-free by switching to single-dose vials. Soon after, Merck introduced a mercury-free version of its hepatitis B vaccine, replacing the only thimerosal-containing vaccine it was still marketing at the time, a company spokesman said.

By 2002, thimerosal had been eliminated or reduced to trace levels in nearly all childhood vaccines. One exception is the pediatric flu vaccine made by Aventis and still sold mainly in multi-dose vials.

WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT VACCINE LAWS IN AMERICA

2011-07-10T13:25:00.001-07:00

WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT
VACCINE LAWS IN AMERICA
The National Vaccine Information Center
(NVIC) is a non-profit charity founded in 1982
by parents of vaccine injured children to
prevent vaccine injuries and deaths through
public education and defend the ethical
principle of informed consent to medical
risk-taking.
NVIC and Mercola.com are partners in presenting
you with accurate information about
heath and vaccination and encouraging you
to stand up for your right to make informed,
voluntary vaccination decisions.
I am joining with Barbara Loe Fisher, cofounder
and president of the National Vaccine
Information Center, to urge you to remember three basic facts when you are
taking control of your health by making vaccine and other health care choices for
yourself or your child:
1
2
INFORMED CONSENT IS A HUMAN RIGHT
The right to voluntary, informed consent to a medical intervention, including
use of a pharmaceutical product such as a vaccine that can injure
or kill you or your child, is a human right.
While the State may have the legal authority to mandate use of vaccines,
nobody has the moral authority to FORCE you to get vaccinated or vaccinate
your child without your voluntary, informed consent.
VACCINE LAWS HAVE EXEMPTIONS
In 1905, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the legal authority of state
governments to pass laws requiring citizens residing in the state to use
certain vaccines.
Today, all 50 states have enacted vaccine laws that require proof of vaccination
for children to attend daycare, elementary, junior and high school
and college.
Vaccine requirements vary from state to state and all 50 states allow a
medical exemption to vaccination; 48 states allow a religious exemption
1
to vaccination; and 18 states allow a personal, philosophical or conscientious
belief exemption to vaccination.
To look at a map of the U.S. and find out what your state vaccine law says
and which exemptions you may take and how to take them, click here.
3 FREEDOM IS NOT FREE: BECOME A VACCINE CHOICE ADVOCATE
Many state governments now require nearly three dozen doses of more
than a dozen vaccines to attend school. Medical and religious exemptions
are becoming harder to get and exemptions for reasons of conscience
are under attack by proponents of forced vaccination.
The National Vaccine Information Center is working with citizens in all
states to expand or protect legal exemptions to vaccination. To register
for NVIC’s Advocacy Portal and take action in YOUR state, click here.
SIX PRINCIPLES FOR PROTECTING
VACCINE CHOICES
FIRST PRINCIPLE: It’s Your CHOICE
When exercising your right to voluntary, informed consent to vaccination for
yourself or your child, remember that state vaccine laws contain:
(1) Legal requirements which school and health officials are responsible for enforcing;
and
(2) Legal exemptions which you have the legal right to choose to exercise. (Public
schools must al low vaccine exemptions outlined outlined in state vaccine laws,
but private religious or other non-state operated schools may reject vaccine
exemptions.)
Most state vaccine laws do not allow unvaccinated students with vaccine exemptions
to attend school during confirmed outbreaks of certain infectious diseases
for defined periods of time.
Remember: Nobody has the moral authority to force you or your child to be
injected with a vaccine without your voluntary, informed consent and you have
the legal right to exercise exemptions to vaccination according to the laws in your
state.
2
SECOND PRINCIPLE: You Have the Right to KNOW
You have the legal right to know the risks and complications of vaccines BEFORE
you make the choice of whether or not to allow your child to be vaccinated.
The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 directed all doctors and
other vaccine providers to give parents written information about vaccines BEFORE
children are vaccinated.
Remember: All vaccines and other pharmaceutical
products carry a risk of injury or death and those
risks can be greater for some than others.
Never agree to use a vaccine, drug or other product
without fully informing yourself about ALL risks.
The product information insert, which drug companies
by law must include with every vial of vaccine
provided to public health clinics and private doctors’
offices, includes a description of the vaccine’s
reported reactions and precautions.
You can ask for a copy of that vaccine information
insert from your doctor or state health department
or go to www.NVIC.org or www.NVICadvocacy.org
for copies of vaccine product information inserts.
THIRD PRINCIPLE: Be INFORMED and Prepared
Knowledge is power. Arm yourself with accurate information about vaccination
and health. Do your own research and talk to one or more trusted health care
professionals before you make any health care decision.
Become an educated consumer and you will be empowered to defend your right
to freely make voluntary choices about health, including vaccination, for yourself
and your children. Visit the National Vaccine Information Center website at www.
NVIC.org or www.NVICadvocacy.org for more information about vaccines and
health.
Remember: If you arm yourself with accurate information about vaccines and
health, you will be prepared to intelligently and rationally discuss your vaccine
choices with your family, friends, colleagues, doctors, elected officials and others
in your community.
3
FOURTH PRINCIPLE: Take RESPONSIBILITY for Your Words and Actions
When you are standing up for
your right to know, and freedom to
choose, whether or not to vaccinate
yourself or your child, how you go
about exercising your rights will
determine whether or not you will
succeed.
In your contact with doctors, school
or government health officials,
remain calm but politely firm when
explaining and defending the vaccine choice you have made.
If you are treated with disrespect or are harassed in any way by a doctor or
government official, do not engage in an unproductive argument. You may want
to contact an attorney, your elected state representatives or local media if you or
your child are threatened.
To publicly post a report of harassment for your vaccine choice, click here.
Remember: Treat others as you want to be treated, even if you are being attacked
or harassed for the vaccine choice you have made.
Protect yourself and your family by seeking legal or other expert counsel, if necessary.
Serve as an example for others in your community whenever you defend your
right to exercise voluntary, informed consent to vaccination, including the right to
decline to use one or more vaccines for yourself or your child.
FIFTH PRINCIPLE: Keep WRITTEN Records
Be sure to ask your doctor for copies of your medical records or your child’s medical
records, including recorded information about vaccinations and illnesses. Under
the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, doctors and other vaccine
providers are required by federal law to:
write down any serious health problems that occur after
vaccination in a child’s permanent medical record;
keep a permanent record of all vaccines given, including the
manufacturer’s name and lot number; and
Report serious health problems, hospitalizations injuries and deaths
that occur after vaccination to the federal Vaccine Adverse Events
Reporting System (VAERS). (If your doctor won’t report, you have the
4
SIXTH PRINCIPLE: Be COURAGEOUS
It is not easy to stand up for the right to make informed, voluntary choices about
vaccination when public health officials, the pharmaceutical industry and many
medical doctors are putting pressure on all Americans, especially parents, to use
every government recommended vaccine.
The fact that the numbers of doses of government mandated vaccines have tripled
in the past quarter century, while the numbers of chronically ill and disabled
children have also tripled, offers an opportunity to have a long overdue public
conversation about the effects of vaccination on individual and public health.
Remember: Freedom of thought and exercise of free speech is protected under
the US Constitution.
You have the right to talk privately and publicly about any concerns you have
about vaccine necessity, safety and effectiveness, and to work with your elected
officials to modify the vaccine laws in your state.
Become an engaged, courageous citizen activist and protect your right to make
vaccine choices.
right to make a vaccine reaction report to VAERS).
Remember: It is wise to keep written records of your interactions with doctors,
school and health officials that involve vaccine choices you make, as well as
Medical Exemptions: All 50 states allow
medical exemption to vaccination.
Medical exemptions to vaccination must be
written by a medical doctor (M.D.) or doctor of
osteopathy (D.O.) and are usually reviewed annually
by school or state health officials.
Since 1986, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC)
and American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) have
eliminated most officially recognized medical reasons for withholding vaccination
(contraindications) so that almost no medical condition qualifies for a medical
exemption to vaccination.
In most states, school or state public health officials can question or even deny a
VACCINATION AND U.S. LAW
A BRIEF SUMMARY
5
medical exemption to vaccination written by a doctor if it does not strictly conform
to CDC and AAP contraindication guidelines.
The National Vaccine Information Center is committed to working with citizens
who want to change vaccine laws to prevent state school or health officials from
questioning or denying a medical exemption to vaccination written by a doctor,
nurse practitioner or physician’s assistant. If you want to take action in your state
to modify the medical exemption to vaccination, register for the NVIC Advocacy
Portal at www.NVICadvocacy.org
Religious Exemptions: All but two states (West Virginia and Mississippi)
allow religious exemption to vaccination.
These exemptions are worded differently in different states and require different
forms of written documentation that must be submitted to state governments
supporting a sincerely held religious belief opposing vaccination.
Some states require a notarized affidavit or letter from a spiritual advisor attesting
to the sincerity of a person’s religious beliefs about vaccination. The religious
exemption is under attack and, in some states like New York, parents are being
grilled about the sincerity of their religious beliefs by state officials and denied
religious exemptions to vaccination so their partially or completely unvaccinated
children cannot attend public schools.
The National Vaccine Information Center is committed to working with citizens,
who want to protect their right to religious exemption to vaccination, to add or
re-write the religious exemption in state vaccine laws. If you would like to work in
your state to protect or strengthen the religious exemption to vaccination, register
for the NVIC Advocacy Portal at www.NVICadvocacy.org
Conscientious Belief Exemptions: 18 states allow conscientious, personal
or philosophical belief exemption to vaccination. These states come the
closest to protecting a citizen’s right to exercise voluntary, informed consent to
vaccination in America. They are: Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Louisiana,
Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode
Island, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Washington and Wisconsin
This exemption, like the religious exemption, is under attack by forced vaccination
proponents who want to eliminate non-medical exemptions to vaccination in
America.
The National Vaccine Information Center is committed to working with citizens
who want to protect or add conscientious belief exemption in state vaccine laws.
If you want to take action in your state to protect or add the conscientious belief
exemption to vaccine laws in your state, register for the NVIC Advocacy Portal at
www.NVICadvocacy.org
6
Vaccine Exemptions for Military Personnel: All branches of the U.S.
Armed Services provide medical and
religious exemptions to vaccination, but
those exemptions must be first declared
before enlistment in the military.
If a military recruit does not clearly state a
medical or religious objection to vaccination
BEFORE joining the military, he or she
gives up the right to object to vaccination
Other Vaccine Exemption Issues: Vaccine choices also can affect adoption,
immigration, child custody arrangements during divorce proceedings,
eligibility for health insurance and government entitlement programs, and medical
care.
Children adopted from foreign countries as well as in the U.S. may be required by
US law and adoption agencies to receive certain government mandated vaccines.
Immigration laws also contain vaccine requirement provisions.
In cases of divorce, one parent may attempt to gain full custody of a minor child
by using the vaccine choice issue as leverage.
Some families have been dropped from medical insurance plans or barred from
eligibility for government funded medical care and food supplement programs if
children are not given all government recommended vaccines.
Increasingly, pediatricians are refusing to treat children who are not fully vaccinated
and, in some instances, medical personnel in hospital emergency rooms and
physicians’ offices have reported parents to state child social services agencies
for child medical neglect for refusing to vaccinate their children. In these circumstances,
you may need to consult to protect informed consent rights.
LEGAL OPTION
The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 was passed by Congress to
protect vaccine manufacturers and vaccine providers from liability for vaccine
injuries and deaths in civil court.
If a child is injured by a government recommended or mandated vaccine, the
child must sue the Secretary of Health for damages under the Act in the U.S. Court
of Claims in Washington, D.C.
If the vaccine injured child is turned down for federal compensation or offered
too little to provide for the child’s lifetime care, a lawsuit may be filed in civil court
7
against a vaccine manufacturer or negligent doctor with certain restrictions.
By 2010, more than $2 billion had been awarded to vaccine victims for brain
inflammation and immune system damage leading to permanent injury or death,
even though two out of three children are turned away for federal compensation.
When you or your child is injured
by a vaccine, the risks are 100 percent,
and you will be left to deal
with the consequences.
Those who make and give vaccines
are protected from liability
in civil court, and federal vaccine
injury compensation is very difficult
to get.
There is no guarantee that a vaccine will, in fact, protect against an infectious
disease or that exposure to an infectious disease will cause a complication,
injury or death. Good health is about so much more than vaccination
and preventing experience with infectious disease.
Vaccines are pharmaceutical products that carry a risk of injury or death
that is greater for some than others. The right to informed consent to medical
risk-taking is a human right.
Empowering ourselves with information and taking responsible action to
protect the right to exercise voluntary, informed consent to vaccination
in America is one of the most important actions we can take as citizens to
protect our freedom.
Don’t let anyone force you or your child to take a vaccine without your
voluntary, informed consent.
If a doctor denies you or your child medical care because you want to make
vaccine choices, find another doctor.
If a doctor threatens you, or if a government official denies a medical or
religious exemption that you have legally filed, find an attorney to help you.
If you don’t like the vaccine laws in your state, contact your elected officials
and work to change them.
Together, we can educate the public and reform vaccine laws in America
to protect the right to make informed, voluntary vaccination decisions for
ourselves and our children.
THE BOTTOM LINE
8
FOR MORE INFORMATION:
On the website of the National Vaccine Information Center under Diseases
& Vaccines there is information and links to resources that will educate you
about infectious diseases and vaccines.
Vaccines.Mercola.com
State Laws & Vaccine Exemption Information
Become a Vaccine Choice Advocate in your state to protect vaccine exemptions.
Register for NVIC’s Advocacy Portal at www.NVICadvocacy.org
If you have been harassed for your vaccine choices, make a report here
9

Laws

2011-07-10T13:16:00.000-07:00

California Department of Health Services, Division of Communicable Disease Control- Immunization Branch:

EDUCATION CODE
TITLE 2. ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION
DIVISION 4. Instruction and Services
PART 27. Pupils
CHAPTER 2. Compulsory Education Law
ARTICLE 2. Persons Excluded

Cal Ed Code § 48216 (2006)

§ 48216. Exclusion of pupil who has not been immunized; Notice to parents

(a) The county office of education or the governing board of the school district of attendance shall exclude any pupil who has not been immunized properly pursuant to Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 120325) of Part 2 of Division 105 of the Health and Safety Code.

(b) The governing board of the district shall notify the parent or guardian of the pupil that they have two weeks to supply evidence either that the pupil has been properly immunized, or that the pupil is exempted from the immunization requirement pursuant to Section 120365 or 120370 of the Health and Safety Code

(c) The governing board of the district, in the notice, shall refer the parent or guardian of the pupil to the pupil's usual source of medical care to obtain the immunization, or if no usual source exists, either refer the parent or guardian to the county health department, or notify the parent or guardian that the immunizations will be administered at a school of the district.

HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE
DIVISION 105. Communicable Disease Prevention And Control
PART 2. Immunizations
CHAPTER 1. Educational and Child Care Facility Immunization Requirements

Cal Health & Saf Code § 120325 (2006)

§ 120325. Legislative intent

In enacting Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 120325, but excluding Section 120380) and in enacting Sections 120400, 120405, 120410, and 120415, it is the intent of the Legislature to provide:

(a) A means for the eventual achievement of total immunization of appropriate age groups against the following childhood diseases:

(1) Diphtheria.
(2) Hepatitis B.
(3) Haemophilus influenzae type b.
(4) Measles.
(5) Mumps.
(6) Pertussis (whooping cough).
(7) Poliomyelitis.
(8) Rubella.
(9) Tetanus.
(10) Varicella (chickenpox). This paragraph shall be operative only to the extent that funds for this purpose are appropriated in the annual Budget Act.
(11) Any other disease that is consistent with the most current recommendations of the United States Public Health Services' Centers for Disease Control Immunization Practices Advisory Committee and the American Academy of Pediatrics Committee of Infectious Diseases, and deemed appropriate by the department.

(b) That the persons required to be immunized be allowed to obtain immunizations from whatever medical source they so desire, subject only to the condition that the immunization be performed in accordance with the regulations of the department and that a record of the immunization is made in accordance with the regulations.

(c) Exemptions from immunization for medical reasons or because of personal beliefs.

(d) For the keeping of adequate records of immunization so that health departments, schools, and other institutions, parents or guardians, and the persons immunized will be able to ascertain that a child is fully or only partially immunized, and so that appropriate public agencies will be able to ascertain the immunization needs of groups of children in schools or other institutions.

(e) Incentives to public health authorities to design innovative and creative programs that will promote and achieve full and timely immunization of children

Cal Health & Saf Code § 120335 (2006)

§ 120335. "Governing authority"; Unconditional admission; Immunization requirements; Documentation; Specification of immunizing agents

(a) As used in Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 120325, but excluding Section 120380), and as used in Sections 120400, 120405, 120410, and 120415, the term "governing authority" means the governing board of each school district or the authority of each other private or public institution responsible for the operation and control of the institution or the principal or administrator of each school or institution.

(b) The governing authority shall not unconditionally admit any person as a pupil of any private or public elementary or secondary school, child care center, day nursery, nursery school, family day care home, or development center, unless prior to his or her first admission to that institution he or she has been fully immunized. The following are the diseases for which immunizations shall be documented:

(1) Diphtheria.
(2) Haemophilus influenzae type b, except for children who have reached the age of four years and six months.
(3) Measles.
(4) Mumps, except for children who have reached the age of seven years.
(5) Pertussis (whooping cough), except for children who have reached the age of seven years.
(6) Poliomyelitis.
(7) Rubella.
(8) Tetanus.
(9) Hepatitis B for all children entering the institutions listed in this subdivision at the kindergarten level or below on or after August 1, 1997.
(10) Varicella (chickenpox), effective July 1, 2001. Persons already admitted into California public or private schools at the kindergarten level or above before July 1, 2001, shall be exempt from the varicella immunization requirement for school entry. This paragraph shall be operative only to the extent that funds for this purpose are appropriated in the annual Budget Act.

The department may adopt emergency regulations to implement this paragraph including, but not limited to, requirements for documentation and immunization status reports, in accordance with the rulemaking provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 11340) of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code). The initial adoption of emergency regulations shall be deemed to be an emergency and considered by the Office of Administrative Law as necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health and safety, or general welfare. Emergency regulations adopted pursuant to this paragraph shall remain in effect for no more than 180 days.

(11) Any other disease deemed appropriate by the department, taking into consideration the recommendations of the United States Public Health Services' Centers for Disease Control Immunization Practices Advisory Committee and the American Academy of Pediatrics Committee of Infectious Diseases.

(c) On and after July 1, 1999, the governing authority shall not unconditionally admit any pupil to the 7th grade level, nor unconditionally advance any pupil to the 7th grade level, of any of the institutions listed in subdivision (b) unless the pupil has been fully immunized against hepatitis B.

(d) The department may specify the immunizing agents which may be utilized and the manner in which immunizations are administered

Cal Health & Saf Code § 120360 (2006)

§ 120360. Exceptions

The requirements of Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 120325, but excluding Section 120380) and of Sections 120400, 120405, 120410, and 120415 shall not apply to any person 18 years of age or older, or to any person seeking admission to a community college.

Cal Health & Saf Code § 120365 (2006)

§ 120365. Letter or affidavit stating beliefs opposed to immunization; Temporary exclusion from school

Immunization of a person shall not be required for admission to a school or other institution listed in Section 120335 if the parent or guardian or adult who has assumed responsibility for his or her care and custody in the case of a minor, or the person seeking admission if an emancipated minor, files with the governing authority a letter or affidavit stating that the immunization is contrary to his or her beliefs. However, whenever there is good cause to believe that the person has been exposed to one of the communicable diseases listed in subdivision (a) of Section 120325, that person may be temporarily excluded from the school or institution until the local health officer is satisfied that the person is no longer at risk of developing the disease.

Cal Health & Saf Code § 120370 (2006)

§ 120370. Statement by physicians contraindicating immunization

If the parent or guardian files with the governing authority a written statement by a licensed physician to the effect that the physical condition of the child is such, or medical circumstances relating to the child are such, that immunization is not considered safe, indicating the specific nature and probable duration of the medical condition or circumstances that contraindicate immunization, that person shall be exempt from the requirements of Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 120325, but excluding Section 120380) and Sections 120400, 120405, 120410, and 120415 to the extent indicated by the physician's statement.

TITLE 17. PUBLIC HEALTH
DIVISION 1. STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES
CHAPTER 4. PREVENTIVE MEDICAL SERVICE
SUBCHAPTER 8. IMMUNIZATION AGAINST POLIOMYELITIS, DIPHTHERIA, PERTUSSIS, TETANUS, MEASLES (RUBEOLA), RUBELLA, HAEMOPHILUS INFLUENZAE TYPE B (HIB), MUMPS, AND HEPATITIS B
ARTICLE 1. DEFINITIONS

17 CCR 6000 (2006)

§ 6000. Admission

"Admission" means a pupil's first entry in a given public or private elementary or secondary school, child care center, day nursery, nursery school, family day care home, or development center. "Admission" also denotes a pupil's re-entry to one of these institutions after withdrawing from a previous enrollment.

(a) "Unconditional admission" is admission based upon documentation of receipt of all required immunizations or upon documentation of a permanent medical exemption or of a personal beliefs exemption to immunization in accordance with Section 6051.

(b) "Conditional admission" is admission based upon either documentation of having received some but not all required immunizations and of not being due for any vaccine dose at the time of entry or upon documentation of a temporary medical exemption to immunization in accordance with Section 6050. Continued attendance after conditional admission is contingent upon receipt of the remaining required immunizations in accordance with Sections 6020 and 6035.

17 CCR 6020 (2006)

§ 6020. Required Immunizations

(a) The required immunizations for admission to and attendance at a public or private elementary or secondary school, child care center, day nursery, nursery school, family day care home, or developmental center shall be those set forth, according to age, in Table 1.

(b) In Table 1 of Section 6020 and in Table 2 of Section 6035, DTP (or DPT) means diphtheria and tetanus toxoids and pertussis vaccine, including DTaP vaccine. DT (or TD) and Td (or dT) means diphtheria and tetanus toxoids.

(c) For pupils who have reached their seventh birthday, a history of any preparations containing both diphtheria and tetanus toxoids (DTP, DT, Td, etc.) shall be acceptable as meeting the requirement for tetanus and diphtheria toxoids that is set forth in Table 1.

(d) Pupils who have reached their seventh birthday shall be exempt from the pertussis and mumps immunization requirements.

(e) Combination vaccines that include measles, mumps, and rubella components shall be acceptable as meeting the requirements for these vaccines that are set forth in Table 1.

(f) For pupils entering or advancing to the seventh grade, immunization requirements are set forth in Table 1.

(g) Pupils already admitted to California public and private schools at the Kindergarten level or above before July 1, 2001 are exempt from the Varicella (chickenpox) requirement as set forth in Table 1.

17 CCR 6025 (2006)

§ 6025. Unconditional Admission

Any pupil age 18 months or older who has received all the immunizations against poliomyelitis, diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, measles (rubeola), rubella, Haemophilus influenzae type B, mumps, hepatitis B and varicella (chickenpox) required for his or her age, as defined in Table 1, Section 6020, or who has documented a permanent medical exemption or a personal beliefs exemption to immunization in accordance with Section 6051, shall be admitted unconditionally as a pupil to a given public or private elementary or secondary school, child care center, day nursery, nursery school, family day care home, or development center. However, for some pupils admitted unconditionally to a child care center, day nursery, nursery school, family day care home, or development center, an additional dose of DTP and/or polio vaccine will be required for admission to school at kindergarten level and above, as indicated in Table 1, Section 6020.

17 CCR 6051 (2006)

§ 6051. Unconditional Admission with Permanent Medical Exemption or Personal Beliefs Exemption

A pupil with a permanent medical exemption or a personal beliefs exemption to immunization shall be admitted unconditionally. A permanent medical exemption shall be granted upon the filing with the governing authority of a written statement from a licensed physician to the effect that the physical condition of the pupil or medical circumstances relating to the pupil are such that immunization is permanently not indicated. The fact of the permanent medical exemption shall be recorded on the California School Immunization Record, PM 286 (1/02) as provided in Section 6070. A permanent medical exemption may be provided for one or more vaccines. A physician may provide a written statement that the pupil is medically exempt from the measles (rubeola) and/or varicella (chickenpox) requirements as a result of having had measles (rubeola) and/or varicella (chickenpox) disease, respectively. A physician may provide a written statement that the pupil is medically exempt from the rubella and/or mumps requirement as a result of having had laboratory confirmed illness with the corresponding disease. A personal beliefs exemption shall be granted upon the filing with the governing authority of a letter or affidavit from the pupil's parent or guardian or adult who has assumed responsibility for his or her care and custody in the case of a minor, or the person seeking admission if an emancipated minor, that such immunization is contrary to his or her beliefs. The fact of the personal beliefs exemption shall be recorded on the California School Immunization Record, PM 286 (1/02). A pupil with an exemption which is not based on pre-existing immunity to disease may be subject to exclusion pursuant to Section 6060.

§ 6051. Pupil Not Completely Immunized and Exposed to Communicable Disease.

Whenever the governing authority has good cause to believe that a pupil who is not completely immunized against a particular communicable disease may have been exposed to that disease, that information shall be reported by the governing authority immediately by telephone to the local health officer. The local health officer shall determine whether the pupil is at risk of developing the disease and, if so, may require the exclusion of the pupil from that school, child care center, day nursery, nursery school, family day care home, or development center until the completion of the incubation period and the period of communicability of the disease.

HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE
DIVISION 105. COMMUNICABLE DISEASE PREVENTION AND CONTROL
PART 2. IMMUNIZATIONS
CHAPTER 1.5 IMMUNIZATION OF COLLEGE-AGE STUDENTS

Cal. Health & Saf. Code §§ 120390-120390.7(2006)

120390. The department, in consultation with the Trustees of the California State University, and the Regents of the University of California, shall adopt and enforce all regulations necessary to carry out this chapter.

120390.5.

(a) Except as provided in subdivisions (b), (c), and (d), on or after January 1, 2000, the Trustees of the California State University, and the Regents of the University of California shall require the first-time enrollees at those institutions who are 18 years of age or younger to provide proof of full immunization against the hepatitis B virus prior to enrollment.

(b) A person who has not been fully immunized against the hepatitis B virus, as required by subdivision (a), may be admitted by the governing body of any of the institutions of higher education to which subdivision (a) is applicable on condition that, within a designated time period, the person will provide proof of full immunization against hepatitis B.

(c) Immunization of a person shall not be required for admission to an institution of higher education to which subdivision (a) is applicable if any of the following persons files with the governing body of the educational institution a letter or affidavit stating that the immunization is contrary to the beliefs of either of the following:

(1) The parent, guardian, or adult who has assumed responsibility for the care and custody of the person seeking admission, if that applicant is a minor who is not emancipated or who is 17 years of age or younger.

(2) The person seeking admission, if that applicant is an emancipated minor or is 18 years of age.

(d) If a person seeking enrollment in an institution of higher education to which subdivision (a) is applicable, or the parent or guardian of a person seeking enrollment, files with the governing body a written statement by a physician and surgeon that the physical condition of the person or medical circumstances relating to the person are such that immunization is not considered safe, indicating the specific nature and probable duration of the medical condition or circumstances that contraindicate immunization, that person shall be exempt from the requirements of subdivision (a).

120390.7. No provision of this chapter shall apply to the University of California except to the extent that the Regents of the University of California, by appropriate resolution, make that provision applicable.

C A L I F O R N I A S C H O O L I M M U N I Z A T I O N L A W

2011-07-10T13:08:00.000-07:00

C A L I F O R N I A S C H O O L I M M U N I Z A T I O N L A W
EXEMPTIONS INFORMATION SHEET
Here is information about exemptions from the immunizations required by the California School Immunization Law.
The Law allows these exemptions.
*1. PERMANENT MEDICAL EXEMPTION: If your child has a medical condition which permanently
rules out one or more vaccines, your child can be exempted from that immunization(s)
requirement. A written statement from a physician must be presented at registration. It
must state that there is a medical condition which permanently rules out immunization(s),
and which immunization(s) your child cannot receive. It must be signed by the physician.
*2. TEMPORARY MEDICAL EXEMPTION: If your child has a temporary medical condition which
rules out one or more immunizations, or your physician wishes to delay an immunization,
your child can be temporarily exempted from the requirement. A written statement from
the physician must be presented at registration. This statement must indicate that there is a
medical condition which rules out immunization(s) temporarily, how long it will last, and
which immunization(s) must be postponed. It must be signed by the physician.
3. MEASLES DISEASE EXEMPTION: If a physician provides a written statement that your child
has had measles disease, your child can be exempted from the measles requirement. The
signed statement must be presented at registration.
4. RUBELLA DISEASE EXEMPTION: If a physician provides a written statement that your child
has had laboratory-confirmed rubella disease, your child can be exempted from the rubella
requirement. The signed statement must be presented at registration.
5. MUMPS DISEASE EXEMPTION: If a physician provides a written statement that your child
has had laboratory-confirmed mumps disease, your child can be exempted from the mumps
requirement. The signed statement must be presented at registration.
6. VARICELLA (CHICKENPOX) EXEMPTION: If a physician has documented that your child
has had chickenpox disease, your child can be exempted from the varicella requirement.
The immunization record showing physician documentation must be presented
at registration.
*7. PERSONAL BELIEFS EXEMPTION: If immunization is against your religious or personal
beliefs, you will be asked to sign an affidavit at the time of registration. Your child will then
be exempt from the immunization requirements.
*NOTE: If your child is exempt because of 1, 2, or 7 above, and there is a disease outbreak, the school may be
ordered by the Health Department to temporarily exclude your child for his/her protection.
The California Health and Safety Code, Division 105, Part 2, Chapter 1, Sections 120325-120380 establishes the
immunizations required and exemptions. Regulations to implement the law are contained in the California
Code of Regulations, Title 17, Division 1, Chapter 4, Subchapter 8, 6000-6075.
IMM-488E (5/02)

Use of human subjects for testing of chemical or biological agents!!!!!!

2010-11-14T20:57:00.000-08:00

TITLE 50 > CHAPTER 32 > § 1520a
Prev | Next
§ 1520a. Restrictions on use of human subjects for testing of chemical or biological agents
(a) Prohibited activities
The Secretary of Defense may not conduct (directly or by contract)—
(1) any test or experiment involving the use of a chemical agent or biological agent on a civilian population; or
(2) any other testing of a chemical agent or biological agent on human subjects.
(b) Exceptions
Subject to subsections (c), (d), and (e) of this section, the prohibition in subsection (a) of this section does not apply to a test or experiment carried out for any of the following purposes:
(1) Any peaceful purpose that is related to a medical, therapeutic, pharmaceutical, agricultural, industrial, or research activity.
(2) Any purpose that is directly related to protection against toxic chemicals or biological weapons and agents.
(3) Any law enforcement purpose, including any purpose related to riot control.
(c) Informed consent required
The Secretary of Defense may conduct a test or experiment described in subsection (b) of this section only if informed consent to the testing was obtained from each human subject in advance of the testing on that subject.
(d) Prior notice to Congress
Not later than 30 days after the date of final approval within the Department of Defense of plans for any experiment or study to be conducted by the Department of Defense (whether directly or under contract) involving the use of human subjects for the testing of a chemical agent or a biological agent, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate and the Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives a report setting forth a full accounting of those plans, and the experiment or study may then be conducted only after the end of the 30-day period beginning on the date such report is received by those committees.
(e) “Biological agent” defined
In this section, the term “biological agent” means any micro-organism (including bacteria, viruses, fungi, rickettsiac, or protozoa), pathogen, or infectious substance, and any naturally occurring, bioengineered, or synthesized component of any such micro-organism, pathogen, or infectious substance, whatever its origin or method of production, that is capable of causing—
(1) death, disease, or other biological malfunction in a human, an animal, a plant, or another living organism;
(2) deterioration of food, water, equipment, supplies, or materials of any kind; or
(3) deleterious alteration of the environment.

TITLE 50 > CHAPTER 32 > § 1524
Prev | Next
§ 1524. Agreements to provide support to vaccination programs of Department of Health and Human Services
How Current is This?
(a) Agreements authorized
The Secretary of Defense may enter into agreements with the Secretary of Health and Human Services to provide support for vaccination programs of the Secretary of Health and Human Services in the United States through use of the excess peacetime biological weapons defense capability of the Department of Defense.
(b) Report
Not later than February 1, 1994, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the congressional defense committees a report on the feasibility of providing Department of Defense support for vaccination programs under subsection (a) of this section and shall identify resource requirements that are not within the Department’s capability.

US Code Title 50 Chapter 32 Subsection 1520 A Paragraph B
________________________________________
CODE, TITLE 50, CHAPTER 32
§1520 & 1524

Chemical and Biological Warfare

§ 1520. Use of human subjects for testing of chemical or biological agents by Department of Defense; accounting to to congressional committees with respect to experiments and studies; notification of local civilian officials

(a) Not later than thirty days after final approval within the Department of Defense of plans for any experiment or study to be conducted by the Department of Defense, whether directly or under contract, involving the use of human subjects for the testing of chemical or biological agents, the Secretary of Defense shall supply the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and House of Representatives with a full accounting of such plans for such experiment or study, and such experiment or study may then be conducted only after the expiration of the thirty-day period beginning on the date such accounting is received by such committees.

(b)(1) The Secretary of Defense may not conduct any test or experiment involving the use of any chemical or biological agent on civilian populations unless local civilian officials in the area in which the test or experiment is to be conducted are notified in advance of such test or experiment, and such test or experiment may then be conducted only after the expiration of the thirty-day period beginning on the date of such notification.

(2) Paragraph (1) shall apply to tests and experiments conducted by Department of Defense personnel and tests and experiments conducted on behalf of the Department of Defense by contractors.

§1524. Agreements to provide support to vaccination programs of Department of Health and Human Services.

(a) Agreements authorized. The Secretary of Defense may enter into agreements with the Secretary of Health and Human Services to provide support for vaccination programs of the Secretary of Health and Human Services in the United States through use of the excess peacetime biological weapons defense capability of the Department of Defense.

Changes made to title 50 in April, 2000

§1520a. Restrictions on the use of human subjects for testing of chemical or biological agents.
(a) Prohibited activities
The Secretary of Defense may not conduct (directly or by contract)---
(1) any test or experiment involving the use of a chemical agent or biological agent on a civilian population/ or
(2) any other testing of a chemical agent or biological agent on human subjects.
(b) Exceptions
Subject to subsections (c),(d), and (e) of this section, the prohibition in subsection (a)
of this section does not apply to a test or experiment carried out for any of the following purposes.
(1) Any peaceful purpose that is related to a medical, therapeutic, pharmaceutical, agricultural, industrial, or research activity.
(2) Any purpose that is directly related protection against toxic chemicals or biological weapons and agents.
(3) Any law enforcement purpose, including any purpose related to riot control.

http://www.drcarley.com/Title%2050%20US%20Code.htm

Climate Film Depicts Children Assassinated For Not Reducing Carbon Footprint

2010-10-03T14:37:00.000-07:00

- Infowars - http://www.infowars.com -

Climate Film Depicts Children Assassinated For Not Reducing Carbon Footprint

Posted By kurtnimmo On October 1, 2010 @ 2:15 pm In Featured Stories | 248 Comments

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
October 1, 2010

Climate Film Depicts Children Assassinated For Not Reducing Carbon Footprint 011010top2

RELATED: Climate Cult Indoctrinating Our Kids With Depraved Death Wish

UPDATE: The 10:10 Global organization has been forced to remove the video from their website and issue an apology. Given the fact that the clip was pulled hours after it first appeared and yet involved the contribution of dozens of actors and film professionals, the backlash must have been instantaneous and overwhelming. Too late for apologies – the damage has already been done. This is one of the final nails in the coffin of the increasingly desperate, threatening and unscientific global warming propaganda machine.

A new climate change infomercial released by a prominent global warming activist organization depicts children being assassinated for not reducing their carbon footprint, as AGW skeptics are grotesquely blown up with innards and blood splattering everywhere, a frightening reminder of the fact that the environmental agenda is merely a veil for a hideous religion of death, and that the vehemently discredited and increasingly desperate global warming movement is in the last death throws of its existence.

Entitled “No Pressure,” the clip begins by showing a teacher brainwashing children about CO2 emissions, before blowing up two kids who do not go along with the mantra and refuse to lower their “carbon footprint”.

The video continues in the same vein, as climate skeptics are liquidated and their bodies horribly ripped apart for having the temerity to hold a different viewpoint, in scenes that wouldn’t look out of place in the most stomach-churning horror movie.

Watch the clip.

Stunned by the massive backlash the video has generated in just the first few hours of its release, the organization behind the stunt, 10:10 Global (email them), pulled the clip from their own website. “Sorry, we’ve taken this video down for now. More info coming very soon,” reads the text on the page where the video formerly appeared.

This video represents one of the last major death throws of the global warming movement. The sheer level of desperation, vitriol and idiocy contained in the four minute clip is indicative of an ideological group who are losing the scientific debate and are therefore forced to resort to crass and vile propaganda in a bid to shove their discredited message down people’s throats.

“What were they thinking? They weren’t, because this is going to have the exact opposite effect they intended it to have. I don’t have words to describe my disgust with the video,” wrote prominent climate change skeptic Anthony Watts.

“This is hate speech, pure and simple. It legitimizes almost any action against or characterization of those who do not agree with the most hysterical version of Catastrophic and Cataclysmic Climate Change–shoot ‘em all and let God sort ‘em out,” writes Thomas Fuller.

Using ten-year-old kids as both props and victims is a particularly nice touch.

When DDB created an ad for the WWF showing planes crashing into the World Trade Center as an advertisement asking for support for green activism, it was grotesque, tasteless and an insult to all who suffered losses on September 11th, 2001. It would have been impossible to imagine a cruder, less sensitive call to green action.

Until now.

For any of those on the activist side who wonder why skeptics (and lukewarmers) don’t trust the communications put forward by their team, they might wonder just how much any sign of reason might be contaminated by the stench from garbage like this.

Czech Physicist Luboš Motl goes even further in his condemnation of the clip, unloading on X-files actress Gillian Anderson who provided the voiceover for the video. “is she really such a disgusting bloody Nazi bitch?” he asks.

It was the choice of the 10:10 movement to openly promote genocide. They are not just promoting it….they are planning it. They are genuinely planning ways how to reduce the global CO2 emissions by 10% a year. And indeed, genocide similar to what they present in the video is the only plausible way how something of the sort may be achieved.

The CIA, FBI, and others should go after the neck of the inhuman scum behind the 10:10 movement and those who harbor them. These people are a genuine threat not only for your well-being but for your health (or life), too.

“James Lee killed himself too early: he would have surely been delighted by this film,” adds Motl, referring to the gunman who entered a Discovery Channel building with explosives and took hostages in a protest against lack of attention on global warming before being killed by police.

Like the characters in the video, Lee expressed his penchant for killing babies and children in an online screed posted before his planned rampage.

* A d v e r t i s e m e n t
*

The 10:10 Global organization’s sick and twisted vision of murdering climate skeptics and indeed anyone who refuses to adopt their belief system is one shared by the vast majority of prominent climate change alarmists.

As we have exhaustively documented, the global warming movement is merely a front for the religion of death – neo-eugenics – and the agenda to impose draconian population control measures and eco-fascism in the name of saving the earth.

Leaders of this new cult include people like Finnish environmentalist guru Pentti Linkola, who has called for climate change deniers be “re-educated” in eco-gulags and that the vast majority of humans be killed with the rest enslaved and controlled by a green police state, with people forcibly sterilized, cars confiscated and travel restricted to members of the elite.

Linkola would feverishly enjoy using the red button depicted in the climate ad to liquidate skeptics, since he once observed that another world war would be “a happy occasion for the planet” because it would eradicate tens of millions of people.

As we have documented, although not going quite as far as Linkola, the eco-fascist movement is attracting prominent advocates, including James Lovelock, the creator of the Gaia hypothesis. Lovelock told the Guardian earlier this year that “democracy must be put on hold” to combat global warming and that “a few people with authority” should be allowed to run the planet.

This sentiment was echoed by author and environmentalist Keith Farnish, who in a recent book called for acts of sabotage and environmental terrorism in blowing up dams and demolishing cities in order to return the planet to the agrarian age. Prominent NASA global warming alarmist and Al Gore ally Dr. James Hansen endorsed Farnish’s book.

Another prominent figure in the climate change debate who exemplifies the violent and death-obsessed belief system of the movement is Dr. Eric R. Pianka, an American biologist based at the University of Texas in Austin. During a speech to the Texas Academy of Science in March 2006, Pianka advocated the need to exterminate 90% of the world’s population through the airborne ebola virus. The reaction from scores of top scientists and professors in attendance was not one of shock or revulsion – they stood and applauded Pianka’s call for mass genocide.

The current White House science czar John P. Holdren also advocates the most obscenely dictatorial, eco-fascist, and inhumane practices in the name of environmentalism. In his 1977 Ecoscience textbook, Holdren calls for a “planetary regime” to carry out forced abortions and mandatory sterilization procedures, as well as drugging the water supply, in an effort to cull the human surplus.

Given that these are the individuals at the forefront of the environmental movement, is it any surprise that we are now seeing their talking points appear in depraved and debauched infomercials like the 10:10 Global film, which openly promotes the idea of a “final solution” for dissenters who refuse to be brainwashed by the climate cult?

This movie proves beyond all doubt that the AGW alarmists have well and truly lost any rational scientific debate as to the causes of climate change and have just resorted to barbarous veiled threats about mutilating and killing anyone who disagrees with them.

Fresh food that lasts from eFoods Direct (Ad)

Although the organization behind this film hoped to mark down the 10th of October as a date on which their eco-fascist message would be widely broadcast and swallowed whole, as a direct result of the vulgar and frightening tone of this movie, all they’ve actually achieved is to plant the seed of their own destruction, and a guarantee that 10:10 will go down as another nail in the coffin of global warming alarmism.

—

Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Prison Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a fill-in host for The Alex Jones Show. Watson has been interviewed by many publications and radio shows, including Vanity Fair and Coast to Coast AM, America’s most listened to late night talk show.

Article printed from Infowars: http://www.infowars.com

URL to article: http://www.infowars.com/climate-film-depicts-children-assassinated-for-not-reducing-carbon-footprint/

Click here to print.

Copyright © 2010 Infowars. All rights reserved.

The 7 Most Dangerous Lies Your Doctor's Telling You (even if he doesn't know it)...

2010-10-03T14:23:00.000-07:00

The 7 Most Dangerous Lies Your Doctor's Telling You
(even if he doesn't know it)...
by Dr. Jenny Thompson, Health Sciences Institute

In the next 22 minutes, 100 Americans will die under the care of sincere conventional MDs. But during that time, you can discover the safe, natural, yet virtually unknown alternatives that could have saved 95 of them...
And one of them might be YOU.
Save yourself a lot of pain, money-and maybe even your own life.
Get the real story here, right now. . .
In the next few minutes, you could LOSE ALL FEAR of...
• Heart Disease/Stroke
• Cancer
• High Blood Pressure
• Diabetes
• Arthritis
• Obesity
• Alzheimer's
There's a simple first step to defeating all of these killers and more: Stop listening to the lies of mainstream medicine
Dear Misled Friend,
They're lying to you.
Your doctors, the drug companies, your HMO...
They're all perpetuating dangerous medical myths, and for all the wrong reasons. Sometimes it's to cut costs. Sometimes it's to sell more drugs. And sometimes it's just because they don't know any better. Think about it: Just because a doctor doesn't know he's wrong doesn't mean it can't kill you.
In fact, in the next 22 minutes, 100 people just like you across America will have died from the 7 most dangerous lies the mainstream medical establishment tells to patients every day. They aren't just 'little white lies,' either-they involve big-league killers like cancer, heart disease, stroke, diabetes, Alzheimer's and more...
You may have even already been told one or more of these 'killer' lies yourself!
But even if you have, there's no reason you have to succumb to it. If you keep reading, you'll discover these '7 deadly lies' of mainstream medicine-straight from the archives of the Health Sciences Institute (HSI), the one health organization that can save you from the fate so many of your misled neighbors have succumbed to because of these lies...
LIE #1
'Chemo and radiation are your best hope.'
'Your tests are showing that the cancer has metastasized to your lymph nodes.'
I'm going to have to start you on chemotherapy and radiation this week...'
I desperately hope you will never hear these words. We work night and day to make sure you'll have every weapon you need to stay cancer-free for the rest of your life. And even if you were to discover tomorrow morning that you already have cancer, you could still get well simply and naturally-without drugs, radiation, or chemotherapy. We've heard reports of success from our members all over the world. There are literally dozens of methods of knocking cancer out of your system...
The problem is that your doctor doesn't know about them. He's hopelessly stuck with the outdated cancer treatments he learned in medical school-many of which are now proven NOT TO WORK. But only a small sliver of the medical community knows the REAL CURES. You are now about to discover what may be the most remarkable cure of them all.
An 86% Cure Rate for
Hopeless Cancer Patients
In 1999, a leading doctor in cancer treatment was sought out by a number of cancer patients who were so far gone that their bodies weren't responding to any of the standard therapies. Because they were classified as 'untreatable,' he decided to give them a new therapy that showed promise-a non-sugar component of a glycoside group called AGS.
Five years later, all of these patients were supposed to be dead, but 86% of them were still alive and kicking. So we know AGS works!
Since then, he has been seeing more successes, and his biopsy technicians are rubbing their eyes in disbelief at how fast it works.
The 24-Hour Miracle
It kills cancer cells in one day. Researchers have used AGS on deadly melanoma tumors, and cancer cell death comes at high speed-reported results have been in as little as 24 hours. Remarkable, huh? No, it's stupendous. Imagine: If you were diagnosed with cancer next Tuesday, wouldn't it be terrific to find out on Wednesday that it's definitely going away?
AGS shuts down tumors without dissolving them chemically. One of the hottest fields in cancer research is the tactic of 'starving' tumors to death by shutting off their blood supply-a gentle solution that beats chemotherapy by a mile and a half. Researchers used AGS on cancer cells that had spread to patients' lungs (once it's there, it usually goes everywhere), and incredibly, it shrank the lung tumors and stopped the disease in its tracks!
It beats even the new super-cancers. Here's the dirty little secret of chemo: It's rapidly creating new kinds of cancer that don't respond to conventional treatment at all. Just as germs become resistant to antibiotics, these new cancers are multiple-drug resistant. Near-frantic authorities are predicting four million people worldwide will soon die of these super-cancers. But insiders at a biotech firm investigating AGS recently leaked the incredible news that AGS has also been found to be effective in drug-resistant cancers. If the medical establishment would only wise up and get behind AGS, they could save three times more lives than have been lost in all the wars in U.S. history combined.
It has zero side effects. You've seen women lose every strand of their beautiful hair. That's because chemo and radiation attack growing cells, hair follicles being the first target. You've seen patients choose to die rather than continue to face the terror of nauseating treatments. But all this could be over with. Tests of AGS have concluded that it is non-toxic and carries with it no adverse effects. If you're quick on the trigger, you've spotted the meaning of this: AGS is so gentle that you can start taking it regularly as a preventive, to keep yourself cancer-free forever.
Hard to believe, but new studies are starting to show that AGS works on colon, lung, ovarian, kidney, and brain cancers. And another physician, Dr. Paul Ling Tai, is now seeing amazing results in patients with the deadliest cancer of all: Pancreatic.
The Bad News, the Good News
A prominent biotech firm (I can't mention the name) is pulling out all the stops to develop a drug based on AGS. But first, they have to take AGS apart molecule by molecule, and then reconstruct the main ingredients artificially so they can patent it. After that comes the maddening, slow approval process. In a decade, it might be in the pharmacy.
You'll find out more cancer cures like this one in your free bonus collection, The 50 Very Best Solutions to the Worst Health Problems of Today. Keep reading and you'll get the real, original AGS-at a fraction of the cost you'll pay for the drug version once it's even available!
LIE #2
'Your heart's a ticking time bomb...'
'You can't just walk out of here. Why, you're a ticking time bomb! You could have a heart attack in the parking lot before you even reach your car. I'm scheduling you for a bypass operation first thing in the morning...'
That's the famous 'time bomb' speech that has been used so successfully on thousands of people-few of whom actually needed any kind of operation. Some doctors aren't this aggressive. They give you a kinder, gentler version of the speech:
'You could go at any time if you're not careful. But we can manage your condition pretty easily with medication. I'm putting you on a daily dose of...'
Of course, 'managing' your condition isn't even remotely like curing it. If you knuckle under to this advice, you'll be taking Lipitor, Mevacor, Zocor, Lescol, Crestor, Advicor, Coumadin, aspirin, or various prostaglandins for the rest of your life. But the speech doesn't mention that, does it?
But in just a minute, I'll show you a dozen ways of actually curing your problem with cholesterol or high blood pressure. The fastest, cheapest, and most
powerful is what I call...
The 44-cent Preventive for Dropping Dead
Most of the medical profession is in distress about cardiovascular disease because they have no good solutions for it. That's why, over the next 20 to 30 years, hundreds of people you've met will die of myocardial infarctions, strokes, and so forth. The victims have something in common-they all believe anything they hear from someone in a white lab coat.
You, however, aren't one of these people. Just follow through on the simple information that follows and your blood vessels can stay open and flowing like the Nile. Best of all, you'll do this without drugs or their dreaded side effects. The solution to blood clots is a food, an inexpensive Asian food (also available in pill form). If you can afford 44 cents a day, you've just added a lot of healthy years to your life.
How the University of Chicago is Saving Millions with a Japanese Delicacy
A researcher at University of Chicago's Medical School has discovered that an extremely inexpensive natural food is more effective at healing and preventing heart disease and strokes than the best medical treatments costing $20,000 per dose.
Dr. Hiroyuki Sumi found that a traditional Japanese dish made from fermented soybeans dissolves blood clots with unmatched speed. He identified an enzyme in the cheese-like food that prevents heart attacks, strokes, and angina (plus plain old-fashioned senility) without any of the horrid side effects of drugs. (If a clot goes to your brain, you have a stroke; if it goes to your heart, you have a heart attack.)
To his great surprise, he found that when he put one drop of this food onto a blood clot in his lab, it dissolved the entire clot in only 18 hours. That's a stark contrast to the $20,000 substance (Urokinase), which fizzles out quickly and has a half-life of just 20 minutes at best.
Proven for You and Fido, Too
This incredible edible is not just a laboratory wonder. Get the latest on how well it works in the real world.
Researchers began with animal studies. In a single-blind study on male dogs with blood clots, a single serving dissolved the clots completely in five hours! After 18 hours, the clots in the dogs that got a placebo were as big as ever.
Then they tried rats, the soy derivative bested plasmin, the natural clot-fighting substance you have in your own arteries, by four times over.
In human studies, it was again a success: It cut in half the time required for the subjects' bodies to dissolve clots. That means your blood approaches the ideal condition quite rapidly.
No Side Effects Here
Instead of side effects, like drugs, this all-natural cure typically furnishes a bouquet of side benefits:
• Stimulates your body to produce more of its own clot-dissolving plasmin. In contrast, most drugs weaken your body's ability to fight its own battles.
• Lowers blood pressure. In human tests, blood pressure fell 10% in four days.
• May ward off osteoporosis.
• Proven to combat senility.
• Works strongly to prevent heart attacks and strokes-with just one small 100-milligram capsule per day.
• Has a 100% safety record. Unlike the commonly prescribed drug Coumadin, it won't make your blood too thin, no matter how much of it you eat.
Potent But Fun
This isn't a novelty or a lightweight remedy. In fact, one noted naturopathic doctor says that this product represents the most exciting new development and treatment of cardiovascular disease. Many of his patients had tried everything else, even bypass surgery-they came to him as a last resort to stay alive.
Eating this cure-all is nothing like taking a drug. If you have a taste for Asian food, you'll enjoy it. (Try it with hot mustard.) A dried variety is even served now by Japan Airlines with in-flight meals and as a snack with beer.
Saving your life was never so simple!
To learn more heart disease treatments, consult your free special collection, The 50 Very Best Solutions to the Worst Health Problems of Today. Keep reading to get yours today...
LIE #3
'It's just a normal
part of aging...'
'There's nothing you can do about your (insert mainstream-baffling medical problem here). You'll just have to learn to live with it...'
The best weapon for fighting this kind of medical incompetence is your coat: When you hear such nonsense, grab it and run. Instead, I'd like to tell you about...
The 160-year-old Rat, the 400-year-old Caterpillar, and Your 130th Birthday Party
Yes, modern science can actually make certain species live to these ages, at least in 'animal years'-while remaining in great health. In fact, scientists have gotten a few roundworms past the 500-year mark. Regular Methuselahs!
No one, of course, wants to live an extra 40 years in a wheelchair, wheezing and unable to add 2 + 2. But that's not what they're finding in experiments on animals. We're finding we can extend middle age, not old age. We're making it possible to keep playing golf and tennis, not to keep driving ourselves to the proctologist's office.
Just from current trends, your grandchildren will likely have an average life expectancy of 100 years. But that doesn't begin to take into account the incredible advances you'll soon be learning about in your FREE collection of The 50 Very Best Solutions to the Worst Health Problems of Today. It's just one of the 9 anti-aging weapons you'll get if you follow my advice below. And here's the biggest one right now...
The Granddaddy of All Hormones
There is wide and growing agreement among both conventional and alternative doctors that one hormone is the golden key-the magic mechanism that runs your biological clock and drives all your body systems like nitro-methane propels a top-fuel dragster. Can you guess what it is?
It's not melatonin. Take melatonin, you live longer. It's that simple, and many studies have proven it. Yet melatonin is not the master key.
It's not DHEA. By volume, it's the main hormone in your body. Yet by age 80, you'll have just 5% of the amount you had at 20. That's not enough. What do people with cancer, heart disease, high blood pressure, obesity, diabetes, and Alzheimer's all have in common? Low levels of DHEA in their blood. Still, DHEA is far less of a variable in your longevity than the key hormone below.
It's not testosterone, thymosin, pregnenolone, and other helpful hormones. They all take a back seat to...
HGH
In case you're new to natural medicine, that's Human Growth Hormone, and it's a blockbuster. For power and sheer longevity, nothing even comes close.
In the classic 1990 study (reported in the New England Journal of Medicine), Daniel Rudman, M.D., gave HGH to 21 men between 61 and 81 years old. The average man gained 8.8% in lean muscle (without any extra exercise) and lost 14.4% in fat.
In addition, they had new interest in sex (and with better performance), thicker skin, and lots of other differences. Dr. Rudman summarized the subjects' improvements as equivalent in magnitude to the changes incurred during 10 to 20 years of aging. One subject said, 'I get up and look in the mirror in the morning, and there's a 35-year-old man staring back at me!'
Sadly, though, HGH costs $10,000 to $30,000 a year for the injections.
50-Something Forever
Yes, with HGH, a comfortable, vigorous life at 120 is now in sight. Soon, people will live to be 150 or more...
But how? Aren't the costs too high for ordinary budgets?
It doesn't have to be - not if you avail yourself to the incredible health resource I'm about to introduce you to. They have an effective, yet low-cost solution - a specific solution based on one encouraging medical fact: Your faithful pituitary gland is still making plenty of HGH and will likely continue to do so for the rest of your life.
In 1997, new ground was plowed when a myth-shattering report was presented to the American College for Advancement in Medicine by Drs. James Jamieson and L.E. Dorman. They announced their findings that the pituitary continues to produce plenty of HGH well into a person's 70s and 80s. That means we wouldn't need expensive injections if only we could find a way to coax all that perfectly good HGH out of its hiding place in the middle of our brains.
In other words, you've likely got plenty of HGH stacked up in your pituitary gland. It's just not being excreted into your bloodstream. By age 65, only 15% to 20% of it gets out (compared to what got out when you were 25).
That Jamieson-Dorman report was a loud sound of opportunity knocking on the minds of lots of medical pioneers. And did they ever answer the door! In a short time, dozens of formulations hit the market, each promising to make the pituitary cough up its hidden store of HGH on a daily basis...
Only one problem: They don't all work. In fact, a lot of them don't work, to put it kindly.
But you'll know which ones do, if you keep reading. The best we've found here at HSI is a formula sold out of Oregon in the form of effervescent tablets. It was tested on 36 subjects and found to exceed the benefits of HGH injection treatments! Without any side effects.
Plop, Plop, Fizz, Fizz, and They Lost 10 to 20 Years!
Some doctors who are prescribing the Oregon formula claim it's 3 to 4 times more effective than human growth hormone itself. And the remarkable thing is that it doesn't contain one molecule of HGH; it's simply a clever blend of proteins, botanical extracts, amino acids, and other pituitary-kicking ingredients.
In the test, all subjects had more energy, endurance, and muscle (with less fat) after just 4 weeks. After just 8 weeks, they reported new hair growth, a restoration of former hair color, and improved skin texture, among other things. Further testing showed reduced LDL cholesterol, sharper vision, improved memory, and better sex. Still with no side effects.
And if you're as skeptical as I am about taking things that could mess up your body long term, you'll be happy to know that whereas HGH shots eventually make your pituitary lazy and reduce its output, the Oregon formula actually increases your own natural production of HGH.
Respond now and get it in your FREE collection of The 50 Very Best Solutions to the Worst Health Problems of Today, concise reports on exactly how you can roll back your calendar to better days-and learn to really 'live in the past!' You'll also discover the dedicated group who's making this formula available to thousands. You could be one of them...
The Oregon formula costs more than a typical supplement, but it is far cheaper than the $1,000 to $2,500 typical monthly cost of HGH injections. And though we have no financial ties to the distributor, we have arranged for a limited time for our member to purchase the formula at a discount. To find out how to take advantage of this exclusive members-only offer, turn to page 23 for details on how to join the Health Sciences Institute.

LIE #4
'You have to start on insulin right away...'
'I'm sorry, but your hypoglycemia has blown up into full diabetes, and there's no cure for that. You're going to have to start on daily injections of insulin, or you're looking at kidney failure, blindness, stroke, or amputations...'
The diabetes epidemic has snuck up on us and become the sixth-leading cause of U.S. deaths: Over 200,000 in 2002. And it's only getting worse.
Are you between 40 and 74? Then there's a 30% chance you're already diabetic or pre-diabetic. If a 30% risk doesn't disturb you, check your pulse. If you eat like an average American, chances are 8% that you already have full-blown diabetes-and about 40% that you're pre-diabetic...and barreling full speed down the highway to sugar hell.
Unfortunately, you have a lot of company: 20.8 million fellow Americans with diabetes. Also, the government estimates that 41 million Americans have pre-diabetes, meaning blood sugar high enough to dramatically increase their risk of getting the real thing in 5 to 10 years. And according to Dr. Francine Kaufman, past president of the American Diabetes Association, most of these people have no idea they're at risk.
There Is a Way Out
Yes, a strict diet of veggies would keep you free from diabetes.
But you don't have to go to that extreme. Unknown to the public and most doctors, there are proven plant nutrients you can take in pill form that maintain blood sugar at levels close to the ideal-even if you sometimes fall off the sugar 'wagon.'
After considerable research-wading through countless scientific papers, home remedy reports, and testimonials-HSI's group of dedicated health pioneers (you'll meet them in a minute) has found a bouquet of 4 herbal and plant extracts that does the impossible. It not only keeps your blood sugar in check (as drugs do), it actually helps your body rebuild the organs that control your blood sugar.
Do you buckle up?
That's good. But what if I told you that your chances of dying from diabetes are 4.7 times higher than dying in a car crash.
Four Miracles in One
The four are fenugreek, gymnema sylvestre, konjac mannan, and the nopal cactus.
In the right proportions, they work together like a dream. As one physician reported to me, this mix produced results that doctors have not seen before, even with hard-core drugs. For instance, one 56-year-old patient in Indiana had scored 9.0 on the standard A1C diabetes test (severely diabetic). After just 6 weeks on this proprietary blend of herbals and cactus, she scored 5.7 (under 6 is considered healthy) and got off insulin for the first time in 10 years. Ask any diabetic: That's terrific!
It's Out of Hand!
Individually, each of these 4 ingredients shows good results. (Notably, one of them has been found to actually regenerate cells in the pancreas.) The literature abounds with reductions in blood sugar by averages like 30%, 54%, 52%, 53%, 84%, etc. But acting together, they do even better. Six months of testing on humans showed that in almost every case, blood sugar dropped into the normal range-without side effects.
One test subject, for example, saw his blood sugar fall 500 points in only 2 weeks. This 'cactus cocktail' yields similar dramatic declines in blood pressure, cholesterol, triglycerides, and other key indicators. Unlike a pharmaceutical drug, it's very body-friendly stuff!
Find out about it in your free bonus collection, The 50 Very Best Solutions for the Worst Health Problems of Today. Let us send it to you right away-learn how to get it below...
LIE #5
'Only a calcium channel blocker can control your high blood pressure...'
'You're 135 over 95, which puts you in dangerous territory. But we can bring that right down with a calcium channel blocker...'
High Blood Pressure! Flaky Memory! Saggy Skin! Hard Arteries! Brittle bones! What's Going on Here?
If you have 4 or 5 of these problems, it may not be your heart at all-you probably have a calcium deficiency. How is that possible? After all, you eat the right food. And you take extra calcium...
Fine. But your precious calcium isn't tooling around in your bloodstream like it's supposed to. Instead, it takes the first off-ramp it finds...and buries itself into your artery walls and muscle cells. Millions and millions of calcium ions jam into those cells as if they were in a phone-booth-stuffing contest. So after 40 years of leaking calcium:
• Your calcium-logged cells are putting increased pressure on surrounding tissues, especially your arteries. This squeeze on your arteries begins to hike your blood pressure.
• Your capillaries stiffen and lose their ability to pass enough blood. Little bags appear below your eyes. Wrinkles sprout here and there. Varicose veins pop up.
• Your blood-brain barrier (which is supposed to guard your brain from pathogens) becomes a Berlin Wall. The squished capillaries in your head won't pass enough blood to enable you to remember why you just walked into the living room.
• Your bones lose out in the intrabody competition for calcium and begin to honeycomb-even if you guzzle enough milk to drain a herd of Holsteins.
Dozens of spin-off problems begin to subtly slow you down. You may even get ambushed by diabetes or breast cancer. But the main symptom is . . .
High Blood Pressure
If you have even a little bit of hypertension, the U.S. government wants to put you on drugs for the rest of your life. Until last year, blood pressure of 130/90 was no great cause for alarm-just a notch above the ideal of 120/80. Now it sets off bells like a three-alarm fire!
Visit a conventional M.D. today, and he will want you to start taking a calcium channel blocker drug even if you're showing just 130/90. He won't mention anything about when you'll stop taking it. (People don't usually stop taking hypertension drugs because the doctor pronounces them cured; they stop because they're sick and tired of all the side effects.)
About 25% of Americans now are categorized as having high blood pressure. More and more victims are trapped on the treadmill to oblivion. What's the real problem here? Too much salt on the steak? Too much stress? (If that were the case, we could wipe out hypertension nationwide in 6 months just by getting everyone to cut back on the salt and start off the morning with an LP of Montovani instead of The New York Times.)
No, the root problem for salt-sensitive souls is something quite different.
How 88% of All the Hypertension Cases in North America Could Be Wiped Out Immediately
When your body produces too much of two natural hormones, they play tag-team havoc in your system. Parathyroid hormone (PH) is good for you, but an excess of it is becoming quite common for environmental reasons. And when it occurs, it triggers an excess of parathyroid hyperintensive factor (PHF), which is bad stuff. The extra PHF drives your calcium out of your bloodstream and into the mischief zones.
That's where the doctors come in with their calcium channel blocking drugs to artificially keep the calcium out of mischief. But alas, the drugs often cause as much mischief as they prevent. Now the good news:
An all-natural solution has been found. The discoverer
of PHF, the head of the Department of Physiology at the University of Alberta, has put together a simple compound that works in a startling 88% of cases. When combined with a change-of-lifestyle regimen, test subjects had an average drop in blood pressure from 171/108 to 126/83!
By any measure, that is dramatic. Through equal amounts of lab experiment work and blind luck, Dr. Peter Pang's Vancouver research team stumbled onto a mix of just 2 ingredients, an ancient Tibetan mushroom extract and a new fish by-product, that work together like magic to begin knocking down your blood pressure in 10 to 30 days-without side effects.
It could transform your health in more ways than you can count. To learn more ways to control your blood pressure check out your free collection, The 50 Very Best Solutions to the Worst Health Problems of Today.
Some of today's 'health gurus' put out excellent newsletters. In fact, they couldn't be finer-given their one common limitation: They draw on the knowledge and expertise of only one mind...
But here at the Health Sciences Institute, we're a horse of 19 different colors. We are a medical think tank, worldwide in scope, with 19 expert pairs of eyes and ears.
In contrast, consider the others in the alternative health field. If you were to subscribe to, say, the 10 best known newsletters, you'd no doubt eventually make the shocking discovery that the new wonder-cures announced by one 'guru' often aren't even mentioned in the other 9 letters! That's because the universe of real, natural cures that work is vast (even though your doctor and the medical establishment don't know about it)-far too vast for any one person to know...
We're different. Because we're a team of 19 world-class alternative medicine minds, each with a distinct and diverse discipline of expertise, very little escapes our attention!
No Organization in Complementary Medicine Will Bring You as Broad a Range of Information as HSI
You can join the Institute with the confidence that you will receive the world's widest range of vital, life-saving advice-alternatives to the mainstream's myths that no other information service in this field can offer you.
LIE #6
'Nothing can help your Alzheimer's...'
'I'm sorry, but your CT scan shows early-stage Alzheimer's. We can slow your decline somewhat, but there is no cure. You should begin to arrange for your long-term care...'
Alzheimer's Can Be Stopped-but The
Ortho-Docs Don't Know It
Please pardon the shouting type here, but we must say this as loudly as we can: If you or a friend begins to show any symptoms of Alzheimer's, head straight for an alternative-medicine physician. Do not even think about wasting your time on an establishment 'McDoctor.'
Alzheimer's is a serious condition, now nearing pandemic stages, and you cannot afford to waste time on conventional, white bread physicians who will tell you that you can't prevent it or stop it. We can and we have.
Don't Be Faked Out
It's true that Alzheimer's is a slow-growing disorder. The trouble is, by the time the victim (or his family) admits that it's not just ordinary forgetfulness, it's usually late in the game. So if it's Alzheimer's, you don't have a moment to spare. You must pounce on it promptly.
But how? Extremely few people know that it can be contained, stopped in its tracks...and often reversed. At the Health Sciences Institute, we have recommended a number of non-drug, non-
invasive treatment protocols for Alzheimer's in recent years. Today we would like to present you with the 4 best. Because the matter is so urgent, we are revealing the full names of these remedies in the discussion below.
Dramatic Results at UCLA
A recent press release from neuroscientists at UCLA announced that DHA (docosahexaenoic acid), an omega-3 fatty acid, holds Alzheimer's at bay in mice.
They induced Alzheimer's in several groups of lab mice to the point where they had brain lesions. Half those mice then got a DHA-deficient diet for 5 months. The other half got plenty of DHA. Then they put the mice into a tank of water and trained them to swim to a raised platform in it to rest on. After that, they submerged the platform slightly out of sight, so the mice had to recall where it was...
The DHA-fed mice usually located it with no trouble. But the DHA-deprived mice, more often than not, couldn't find it at all! They swam in circles at the edge of the tank, says a co-author of the study. (Sounds to us like the mouse-world equivalent of not being able to find your car keys.)
• Step One for preventing or stopping Alzheimer's: Go to your health food store and buy a bottle of DHA.
• Step Two for preventing or stopping Alzheimer's: Go to a local health food store and get some alpha-lipoic acid capsules. ALA is widely recognized as the king of antioxidants. So even if you aren't in any danger of mental decline, it will still do you good in dozens of ways. Here's the proof...
They Stopped the Enemy at the Rhine
At German universities in Hannover, Wurzburg, and Leipzig, researchers took another major step ahead in the fight against Alzheimer's in 2000.
They gave 600 mg a day of ALA (alpha-lipoic acid) to 9 human subjects (average age, 67) with Alzheimer's. After 337 days, the extremely encouraging results: None of the patients showed any decline in that time. Now, this isn't a huge number of subjects, but if you've ever had to watch a loved one sinking with Alzheimer's for a year, you know that's an incredible outcome. No drug on the market today has done that.
Moreover, they weren't guessing-they tested before and after with Germanic precision, using the standard MMSE and the cognitive subscale ADASCog (Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale). The results are real.
Going Beyond Stability to Marked Improvement
The reason you are able to read this is that you have healthy quantities of a neurotransmitter called acetylcholine throughout your brain.
But if you develop Alzheimer's, that acetylcholine declines and gets broken down rapidly by an enzyme called acetyl cholinesterase (AChE). Bad news. Soon thereafter, you start to punctuate conversations with, 'Let's see, what I was talking about?' And it's downhill from there.
However, in the late '80s, a research team found that Huperzine-A, an extract of the ancient Chinese herb Huperzia serrata, easily goes through the blood-brain barrier and stops AChE from destroying your precious acetylcholine. Then, in a landmark study (placebo-controlled and double-blind) they discovered that 58% of Alzheimer's-patient subjects had a 'significant improvement in cognitive and memory function' when they got a mere 0.2 mg of Huperzine a day.
In case you missed it that means THEY GOT BETTER. That's right: Alzheimer's can now be halted AND sometimes even reversed.

• Step Three for reversing Alzheimer's: Stock up on Huperzine-A before you lose any more buttons.
Snowdrops and Daffodils
Those 2 dainty flowers yield an extract called galantamine, which stops Alzheimer's rapidly by boosting your acetylcholine noticeably.
A 5-part study in Belgium concluded unanimously that Alzheimer's patients given galantamine lost none of their mental abilities, while the control subjects given placebos fell apart rapidly, just as you would expect. In another study, doctors at the Helsinki University Central Hospital in Finland started giving 24 mg of galantamine to 359 of 537 Alzheimer's patients each day (the rest got placebos)...
After 6 months, the placebo group was allowed to switch to galantamine.
At the end of a year, both groups were given 3 brain tests. On 2 of the tests, the fortunate ones who had been on galantamine for the whole 12 months scored twice as high as those who had started with placebos? On the third test, they equaled or beat their own scores from 12 months before. Try to get those kinds of results from any medical drug. You can't do it. So take Step Four for reversing Alzheimer's and get a bottle of galantamine.
THE BOTTOM LINE FOR ALL THE ABOVE: Take this advice and you will most likely NOT be among the 50% of North Americans who will have Alzheimer's by age 85.
But to keep up with the constant new discoveries about Alzheimer's (which you won't find in the popular press), you must become a member of the only organization dedicated to unraveling the medical establishment's tapestry of lies-and bringing you the cures your doctor doesn't know about. Almost 100,000 others just like you have already joined, and are feeling and looking younger and more pain-free than they ever thought possible. Just complete the simple enrollment form on the last page to become one of them yourself...
LIE #7
'Everybody gets
arthritis...'
'It happens to the best of us. Why, I even have a touch of arthritis myself. There's no cure, but we still have a few pain drugs that haven't been pulled off the shelves.'
New Arthritis Blocker
Beats Everything Else
New Zealand Import Blows Away All the Leading Prescription Remedies
It has long been the 'impossible dream' of researchers: a harmless natural extract powerful enough to really erase the pain and swelling of lifelong, crippling arthritis.
Celebrex, Vioxx, Bextra, and other drugs that have run into legal and PR troubles in recent months, throwing the medical profession into disarray and confusion about arthritis treatment. For 20 years, alternative medicine research teams in Japan, France, and Australia sweated and struggled to find an answer for arthritis that wouldn't cause more problems than it solved. Finally, they've found it in a remote spot that big-name drug firms never thought to look-on the shoreline of faraway New Zealand.
The Maori natives there are fond of gourmet dishes made from the green-lipped mussel. They credit this mussel with their legendary ability to jog, scamper up rocks, and do teenage-type moves well into their 80s and 90s. They feel sorry for us old folks who can't even climb a tree!
Early Proof in Scotland and France
The first lab tests were pretty crude. They simply ground up some mussels and fed the powder to arthritis patients.
But even that was a modest success: Tests in Scotland in 1980 helped 39% of those with osteoarthritis and 68% of those with rheumatoid arthritis. (All the poor wretches who were assigned placebos had to have surgery at the end of the 6-month study to repair their joints, which by then were badly damaged!)
Another early trial study (1986, France) reduced pain by 62%. (The unfortunates on placebos had a 20% increase in pain for 6 months!)
Finally, after almost 20 years of step-by-step research, researchers zeroed in on a specific group of compounds in powdered mussel extract that actually do all the work of restoring your lost youth. They're called ETA's (EicosaTetraenoic Acids). The process of discovering and isolating ETA was so arduous that the researchers were given patents on the process-very hard to get on a natural, non-drug substance!
Arthritic Joints Shrink 97%
Starting with animals, they found this ETA mix reduces swelling in arthritic paws more than 90%.
Then in humans, they pitted the ETAs against the mainstream drug of choice, which at that time was indomethacin. The result: Indomethacin was 83% effective in reducing painful swelling of joints. The ETAs were 97% effective! They also beat aspirin and ibuprofen.
Even more important: ETAs are non-toxic. And there are virtually no side effects. You certainly can't say that about drugs. Even the most recent drugs may trigger rebound inflammation, eventually making your pain worse than ever.
As to toxicity, don't even think about doubling or tripling your dosage of Celebrex in an attempt to get more relief. On the other hand, ETAs are totally safe to take-even if you're allergic to shellfish.
Good News if You're a Purist
Finally, they got around to testing ETAs against other natural compounds. If you're a devotee of alternative medicine, you probably know that flax oil, evening primrose oil, and Norwegian salmon oil have all been used to alleviate arthritis pain while avoiding side effects.
ETAs have now been tested against all of them. The best of the 'contenders' proved to be a specific brand of high potency fish oil. In a recent test, this oil reduced swelling by 50% in the time allotted. The ETA mix reduced it by 79%.
That's a hefty victory. But here's the untold story: To get that 50% reduction from the fishy stuff, they had to give the test subjects 200 times as much of it. So if you weigh, say, 121 pounds, you'd have to take 100,000 milligrams a day! Compare that to one 500-milligram capsule of ETAs.
Now, we recommend this particular brand of fish oil for general health for a number of reasons. But frankly, when it comes to arthritis (whether rheumatoid, osteo, or viral), it just isn't batting in the same league with ETAs. And the other natural remedies are much weaker still...
End Years of Crippling Pain with this FREE Report
Even if you don't have arthritis, you probably have friends who do.
So lend them your copy of our FREE collection, The 50 Very Best Solutions for the Worst Health Problems of Today. You'll be doing them a huge favor. It'll give those brand names, sources, and dosage for the specific ETA blend discussed here-plus a rundown of other new arthritis cures. Do it and you'll have the satisfaction of knowing you saved someone you care about from years of ever-increasing pain and crippling?
Join us today, and we'll rush-ship your special collection!
Soon, you might even be able to get the lid off the pickle jar without a pipe wrench. In addition, you'll have 49 other little-known cures for every major cause of death.
Ignorance isn't bliss, its death.
As I showed you in the first half of this report, your doctor is telling you some potentially deadly lies-and he doesn't even know it.
But it isn't his fault. He simply never learned in medical school or in mainstream journals about the safe, natural miracle-cures that are all around us, but known only to an unorthodox, yet dedicated few. It's a shame, but the modern medical establishment is so dominated by the pill and scalpel that these un-patentable (read: inexpensive and difficult to regulate) cures get swept under the rug by our Big Pharma-friendly government...
However, just because most MDs aren't intentionally ignoring the real cures doesn't mean that their ignorance couldn't be killing you-or someone you love. That's why in order to stay healthy, vigorous, and long-lived in the face of both epidemic illnesses and epic medical incompetence, YOU need to get educated in ways your doctor isn't. You need a knowledgeable health source. And that source is HSI.
Why We're Different
Other alternative medical publishers are digesters. They pore through primary research journals and rake together all the good stuff they can find. Frankly, 5 or 6 of them do a strong job, in our opinion...
But HSI is a force of a different color. With our home office staff and our 19 noted doctors and researchers, we are a permanent, full-service research team. We generate the medical news every month that others may report 6 months or a year later.
Or not at all.
And of course, we monitor the mainstream medical press every day. And we'll review for you the most important advances from that forum every month in the HSI Members Alert, and weekdays in our e-mail wire service, the HSI e-Alert.
But we have our own agenda and research priorities, and they're this: Bringing you fresh news of how all of us in the field of alternative health are solving the problems that have totally stymied traditional medicine.
Give us a Chance, and We'll Make You a Know-It-All When it Comes to Health and Longevity
Join us, and just 30 days from now, you will be on your way to being a bona-fide life-saver-for yourself, your family, and many of your friends. You will have a practical answer for the health problems of 95 people out of 100.
Here are just a few of the discoveries we recently alerted our members to:
A new extract from a Brazilian mushroom that is reported to have reversed and eliminated cancer in 99.4% of guinea pigs within 5 weeks.
A newly fractionated supplement from California that studies suggest eliminates wrinkles without injections, and it greatly speeds up the healing of injuries or burns. As a plus, it gives more pain relief from arthritis than naproxen!
• A new extract of clove vine with no side effects that is transforming even mature women into sexual animals! This is a G-rated bulletin, so you'll have to wait to get the details in The 50 Very Best Solutions for the Worst Health Problems of Today.
• A new mix of 5 natural
remedies that cures 98%-99% of diarrhea and irritable bowel syndrome cases with no side effects.
• A totally different, non-invasive answer to killer heart artery blockages-which an early test has shown 100% successful.
• A recently isolated alternative to flu shots that cuts your risk of flu by up to 88%-and makes your recovery up to 9 times faster if you've already caught the flu! Read about it in The 50 Very Best Solutions for the Worst Health Problems of Today.
• An all-natural cytokine adaptogen that'll keep your energy level 52% higher all day long-which means less fibromyalgia, chronic fatigue syndrome, and brain fog. It's so powerful that you only need a few billionths of a gram!
• A new compound made from Australian ryegrass, which should have thousands of asthmatics throwing away their inhalers.
• A new 'smart pill' that increases your intelligence and memory... and even improves your coordination. Imagine a pill that could guide you to your car keys and lower your golf score!
• An antioxidant that's 80 times stronger than vitamin E at treating macular degeneration (age-related blindness).
• A few choice sugars that work by literally ordering your body to block cancer, obesity, diabetes, depression, skin aging, lupus, MS, fibromyalgia, and dozens more conditions with stunning speed.
• A wonderful new natural cure for acid reflux and chronic heartburn discovered by our panel in England. Users agree that after a few weeks, the problem just goes away, usually forever.
• A new peptide that's as safe as, well, a glass of warm milk at curing insomnia and stress. It beats the socks off kava and St. John's Wort, not to mention Xanax, Valium, or Halcion-plus, no side effects...
• The one (and only) product that will build your bones steadily-and faster than the best prescription osteoporosis drugs. HSI members were the first to be able to buy it, and are still among the only people in the world who know about it.
• A natural answer to inflammation, (bronchitis, congested lungs, carpal tunnel syndrome, varicose veins, clogged nose, rheumatoid arthritis, ulcerative colitis, various allergies and more: an enzyme reported to knock out these problems like nothing else on the planet.
Look, we're not trying to be arrogant by pulling the rug out from under all the conventional doctors out there, and we don't have all the answers...
After all, some people die from accidents-or rare diseases that have everyone buffaloed. But with all the humility we can muster, we can still confidently state this:
Through recent discoveries we've made or tracked down, we have uncovered information that we believe could prevent and/or cure the conditions and diseases that kill 95 people out of 100.
We can also now eliminate or control the vast majority of disorders that don't kill you-but annoy you just enough to take the joy out of your life.
Get the full details on all these breakthrough discoveries in our special collection, The 50 Very Best Solutions for the Worst Health Problems of Today. It's yours FREE when you join HSI. Reply today
Easy Solutions to Tough Problems
Why drug yourself into oblivion to fight mere symptoms when you can have true health - without the heavy costs and nasty side effects?
Science never stops, even if it's not being reported in USA Today.
The research juggernaut rolls on, knocking down feared illnesses and raising our lifespan. By tomorrow morning, dozens of new cures for disease will be published somewhere for some of the thousands of ills in this world.
Any good cure is welcome, of course. (Any port in a storm, right?) But 80% or more of today's new remedies are coming out of laboratories funded by pharmaceutical giants. That means they're paid to produce drugs.
Now, if you're content taking drugs, just go to any garden-variety M.D., tell him your symptoms, and he will put you on the appropriate drug to 'band-aid' those symptoms. If you can stand the usual side effects, congratulations-you just got a quick fix. (On average, doctor’s finish with you in 7 1/2 minutes-after you've sat there waiting half-naked for twice that long!)
If, however, you want to go deeper than symptoms and get rid of the underlying causes of your troubles, then you're looking for us. HSI deals with the other, unknown-by-the-mainstream 20% of new treatments, those called natural or holistic. And we're at the top of that field-we often announce cures that you won't hear about anywhere else.
We are a true think tank, an alliance of researchers in a quest for alternatives to the mainstream that actually cure disease instead of just band-aiding symptoms. And not to be too full of ourselves, but we are the wave of the future in medicine. You can be there for that healthy future, too-if you join us now.

The Cancer Triggers are in the Vaccines, the Food and the Water! They’re Not in Your ‘Bad Genes’!

2010-10-03T14:18:00.001-07:00

The Cancer Triggers are in the Vaccines, the Food and the Water! They’re Not in Your ‘Bad Genes’!
By Neil Foster, 30th July 2010
Ask anyone with half an ounce of common sense what would happen if mice with suppressed immune systems were injected with genetically altered cells known to cause cancer and I’m sure 100% of those questioned would come up with the obvious answer; Surprise, surprise! The mice would get cancer.
http://www.independent.ie/world-news/prostate-cancer-trigger-identified-2278319.html
So why is it that this is supposedly a breakthrough in prostate cancer research?
The truth is that it isn’t. It’s just another article pointing to ‘defective genes’ later in the article as the ‘real’ cause of prostate cancer and is just another eugenics promotion piece which the mainstream media has pushed over the past few months which I’ve written about before because they all follow the same pattern of ultimately blaming the root causes on ‘bad genes’ for a variety of illness.
http://www.sovereignindependent.com/?p=5397
How many of these junk science articles need to be published in the mainstream before people start to take notice that everything is being blamed on so called ‘bad genes’ and that this will become a medical diagnosis to justify sterilization and abortion?
That’s what all this bogus pseudo science is about. It will be used to target the poor and vulnerable in our society such as the mentally and physically handicapped that will be classed as ‘defective’ in the eyes of the state and be deemed a burden to society.
This is nothing new and is certainly not something that went away after the demise of Stalin and Hitler who used the same pseudo science to justify mass murder and horrific ‘medical’ experiments on those they selected as being ‘feeble minded’ or ‘unfit’.
Why do these same ‘medical’ morons never tell us that vaccines are highly toxic and play a major role in the massive increases in cancers and other diseases and illness which were virtually unheard of prior to mass vaccination campaigns? Why do they never tell us that fluoride is a highly dangerous neurotoxin added to our water supply which should not be drunk by children? Why do they never talk about the vitamins and minerals which are virtually nonexistent in our foods today as being another major cause of illness due to our suppressed immune systems?
The reason they don’t tell us these vital pieces of information is not because they don’t know, it’s because it’s not in their interests to tell you because their business relies on long term sickness which they profit from. There is no incentive for any doctor or medical expert to come up with the solution to a healthy life; that being no vaccines, real uncontaminated food and pure water complete with all the high dose vitamin and minerals we should get from them as well as basic exercise and care of our own bodies. If human were allowed to look after themselves with all the knowledge we should have been given early in life, then the medical profession and in particular big pharma would be virtually gone from our society. We would still have doctors and hospitals of course but these would not be on the scale they are not and would certainly not cost the earth to supply.
However, there’s no profit in a healthy society. The sickness business is where the money is with governments, in the case of the last ‘scary story’ of ‘swine flu’, paying billions around the world for vaccines that nobody wanted and which are now sitting on shelves in hospitals or being sent off to make people in the Third World sick with a vaccine for a nonexistent flu, in parts of the world where the local populations don’t even get flu.
Never let a good crisis go to waste the elites will tell you. They’re certainly not going to let go of a cancer giving vaccine for the Third World, where they don’t get flu, put them off. Nope they’ll just talk some psychopathic ‘doctors’ to inject it into poor people who they see as having ‘defective genes’ which make them ‘black’. I suppose they’ll come up with a cure for the defective ‘black’ gene.
Oh yes they have already, it’s called EUGENICS and every time you read one of these ridiculous articles talking about a cure for this or that because they’ve discovered the ‘bad gene’ responsible, just think for second because you might have the next ‘disease’ of the body or mind which can be ‘cured’ by identifying the ‘bad gene’ responsible.
Mass murder through the excuse of bad genes is not new. Your challenge is to stop this fraudulent pseudo science taking hold again before the lunatics that run the asylum come out in the open looking for your ‘bad gene’!

Billionaires Unite! Against Public Education and Teachers

2010-10-03T14:16:00.001-07:00

Billionaires Unite! Against Public Education and Teachers

By Shamus Cooke

URL of this article: www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=21222

Global Research, September 28, 2010

In less than a week two billionaires have joined the anti-teacher "Billionaires Club": a group of ultra-wealthy individuals hell-bent on destroying public education and teachers’ unions. The newest members of the club are Oprah Winfrey and Facebook founder Mark Zuckerburg.

Winfrey has used her show — twice in one week — as a platform against public education. She first hosted billionaire Bill Gates to discuss his "philanthropy" in education, as he promoted the new anti-public education propaganda film Waiting for Superman.

Waiting for Superman is a "documentary" focused on the types of anti-teacher school "reforms" desired by the Billionaires Club, who have used their tremendous wealth to blackmail school districts and states to institute their policies.

For example, the Facebook founder's donation of $100 million to the Newark, New Jersey school district will almost certainly require — according to The New York Times — that the school institute these reforms, much like Bill Gates' donation of $100 million to the Tampa Hillsborough County School District — and the $90 million to the Memphis school district — had the same types of strings attached.

What are the conditions for receiving this "charity" of billionaires? It's the same demands for receiving money from the federal government under Obama's badly-named Race to the Top program: creating more privately administered — or for profit — Charter schools; connecting teacher's pay with student test scores (merit pay); undermining the seniority of teachers; and other tricks to dis-empower teachers and public education.

Diane Ravitch, a former corporate-school reformer, has now dedicated her time to exposing the motives of the super-rich and their new-found interest in "reforming" public education. In her book The Death and Life of the Great American School System, Ravitch entitles a chapter “The Billionaires Boys Club.” On the radio show Democracy Now! Ravitch summarized the chapter:

“The Billionaires Boys Club is a discussion of how we’re in a new era of the [billionaire] foundations and their relation to education. We have never in the history of the United States had foundations with the wealth of the Gates Foundation and some of the other billionaire foundations — the Walton Family Foundation, The Broad Foundation. And these three foundations — Gates, Broad and Walton — are committed now to charter schools and to evaluating teachers by test scores. And that’s now the policy of the U.S. Department of Education. We have never seen anything like this, where foundations had the ambition to direct national educational policy, and in fact are succeeding."

There are some key motives for billionaires to jump in a coalition with this singular focus, none of them well meaning.

1) There are unknown billions in profits to be made in privatizing public education, either in the private administration of schools, curriculum companies, or entirely for-profit schools. There has been much talk in the investor world of this new "market.” In addition, the New York Daily News reported: “Wealthy investors and major banks have been making windfall profits by using a little-known federal tax break to finance new charter-school construction. The program, the New Markets Tax Credit, is so lucrative that a lender who uses it can almost double his money in seven years.” (May 5, 2010).

http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/education/2010/05/07/2010-05

2) The super-rich hate taxes. They would rather not pay taxes towards public education when they could instead invest their money in private schools and reap profits.

3) Billionaires hate unions (they didn't become billionaires by paying union wages): The biggest obstacle towards privatizing public education is the powerful teachers’ unions. Teacher unions are also the strongest segment of the labor movement, and thus the most powerful grouping in the U.S. working class, able to fight back most effectively against corporate school reform— the billionaires’ natural enemies.

The super-rich attacked first in this battle between teachers and billionaires. The teachers must defend themselves. Shamefully, certain segments of the teachers’ unions are having troubles labeling their attackers as enemies.

For example, the President of the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), Randy Weingarten, sent a friendly invitation to Bill Gates to address the AFT convention, where Gates was allowed to deceive the teachers about the intentions of his multi-billion dollar "investment" in "reforming" education.

Gates’ ideas about education — blaming teachers for everything — ignores what most teachers already know: the main predictor for a student’s success is social-economic background. Rich students outperform poor students for many different reasons: less stress, more resources, parental help, etc. Ignoring this obvious fact exposes the billionaires’ profit motive behind their fake charity.

Teachers must fight back. They cannot allow the media to frame the debate with the ideas of the corporate think tanks and foundations. Teachers cannot concede on the issues that help keep their unions powerful, such as seniority; merit pay must be defeated for the same reasons.

If the teachers’ unions combined with other public sector unions, parent associations, and the community at large to demand FULLY FUNDED PUBLIC EDUCATION by TAXING THE RICH, the billionaires would find themselves without allies. Their money might then be put towards something useful.

Whatever Controls Your Attention Controls You

2010-10-03T14:15:00.001-07:00

Whatever Controls Your Attention Controls You
In: Addiction|Thought Control
To control your actions you just need to control your thoughts. Sounds simple huh. Your thoughts become actions, repeated actions become habits, and habits make up your character. So why in the world is it so difficult to do this? It seems so simple yet most of us struggle to do it consistently. The main reason is because whether we realize it or not we’ve already used this process to create our current character and our current character takes time to change just like it took time to create. It especially takes time to change feelings and desires.
The simpleness of this concept frustrated me because I could not understand why I could not do something so simple. I was really being hard on myself because I was making progress, just not as fast as I wanted to. Honestly I would not have been ready for an overnight change had I received it anyway. Sure I would have enjoyed it for a time but I would not have learned how to maintain it. So mine was a gradual change of character. Not that I was a bad person but years of bad habits caused made progress slow. Yet it was progress. On the graph of life, even if you have set-backs, as long as the line is going in an upward direction, then you are progressing. We are all here to progress. Just persevere and you will succeed.
Controlling thoughts is really a two step process. First you must remember that you can’t just simply avoid or stop any bad thoughts. This is impossible and will only deepen your addiction. Everyone has thoughts enter their heads all day every day and that doesn’t make them bad. It’s what you choose to do with thoughts and temptation that counts. So the first step is simply to acknowledge you feel tempted and that it’s ok to feel tempted. Of course don’t go seek out temptation; that is completely putting down your defenses.
Second you must replace the tempting thoughts with good healthy ones. So for example, you have a temptation to look at pornography in your mind, you acknowledge that it’s a temptation and that you are not bad for feeling sexual urges. Then you decide to replace the temptation with another meaning. “I choose to control these urges because I’m a happier and more confident person. I enjoy my life more and other people can also see I’m more confident.” This is just an example so choose an alternate meaning that is powerful for you. Try not to use negative words in your positive statements, i.e. “I can’t” or “I shouldn’t”.
You have to do both steps or this won’t work. Also, don’t feel guilty if a bad thought crosses your mind and you handle it like you’re supposed to. It’s ok to have thoughts cross your mind, just don’t dwell on them or create them. I used to try to be perfect in my thought control and of course this didn’t last long. I would have a bad thought cross my mind and feel guilty even when I stopped thinking about it immediately. This unnecessary guilt would lead me to give up and my thoughts and eventually actions would spiral out of control. So don’t feel guilty if you handled a bad thought correctly, and that means just get rid of it as soon as it appears.
The second part of the thought control process is crucial. You absolutely must get your mind off the bad thought then immediately replace it with something good. This is so important because the bad thought will just return to the blank space left unfilled. Don’t dwell on porn addiction .
The mind likes to be working and engaged in interesting thoughts. A bored mind cannot endure itself and will seek pleasure as a substitute for what you are not providing it. So it is important to always be learning, working, and creating a life in which you will easily have so much to think about that you have no time to dwell on destructive thoughts. Don’t take this to the extreme and burn yourself out quickly by trying to fill every second of the day with something. Remember not to run faster than you are able in this process otherwise you will not be able to endure long enough to change.
Also, try not to focus on your weaknesses too much. It seems that when we conduct a direct and targeted campaign on our bad habits we give them much attention and thought. Giving them too much thought can give them a power they do not possess. It’s all about balance. Addiction is partly a state of mind in which we feel we cannot escape our vice and it is constantly on our minds. Once you train your brain to focus on positive aspects of life you’ve been neglecting then life will become sweeter. Don’t let addiction dominate your thoughts and ultimately dominate your life. Yes, you may be struggling, but you can climb out of this pit while beginning with the pit in your mind.
About Dreams
Dreams can have a powerful effect on our emotional state. There is the temptation to feel guilty when you have a dream that contains sexual content. Do not feel guilty and do not dwell on thoughts of these particular dreams. Dreams can sometimes have meaning but most of the time they are simply a random collection of our experiences meshed together to form stories we often don’t understand. We dream about the stresses in our life, whether past or present. The main point I want to make here is don’t feel guilty about or dwell on lustful dreams. They are out of your control so far as you are presently concerned. As you clean up your life you will perhaps have less of them but they are not necessarily a judge of your progress. When you wake up after one of these dreams, just use the above stated thought control process and move on with your day with a great attitude.

Unplug the Signal: The Truth Will Not Be Televised

2010-10-03T14:13:00.000-07:00

Unplug the Signal: The Truth Will Not Be Televised
A flow of information is constantly streaming from the television set; a bombardment of words and pictures. The speed at which this information is communicated makes it easy for the signal to take control, switching the viewer’s brain to stand-by as information is absorbed without analysis or question.
Today the television’s constant signal shapes the conclusions of the masses and produces the collective norm. The signal prescribes what news is and what is truth through the words of so-called experts and authorities, gelding the consciousness and independent thoughts of those subjected to it. Through television, the masses can be made to accept the most monstrous distortions of reality. The signal is a chill wind of continuous oppression over the minds of the masses. It controls the management of society and culture, creating uniformity across all subjects.
The fuel for this vehicle of mass deception is a technique known as perception management where arrays of psychological techniques are used to alter the truth, leading the viewer to a desired conclusion. Some call this spin or propaganda while others know it as lying. According to Joseph Goebbels, Propaganda Minister for Adolph Hitler, “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it… It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.” Most of what can be found on the nightly news is nothing but advertisements selling more government and a false reality that benefits only those in control. Television is the dictator of information; newspaper and radio are the whisper campaign of the television’s message.
It is expected that Americans will consistently prescribe to the doctrine of the television. It is subtly communicated that one should stay within the collective and never challenge the message, for doing so may be considered an aggression towards culture. The message is, “Be a good consumer; always obey authority; you know nothing; listen only to experts; be content and never question or express new ideas.” This signal is being broadcast across millions of screens, indoctrinating the unconscious minds of those who choose this as their only reality. Self-censorship occurs when these individuals become so deeply indoctrinated that they are afraid to discuss any information outside the paradigm of television-created culture; they police their thoughts to ensure they won’t conflict with this culture. Sadly, many people’s reality today does not allow any outside information to process, instead it is written off as conspiracy or blatant lies. Our consciousness has been destroyed so much that fiction has become reality. An entire lifestyle of poisonous foods, pharmaceuticals, and fluoridated water are accepted as safe and sold to us at the cost of our health and well being.
Those of the establishment are using the incredibly powerful weapon of mass psychology as a method of controlling the minds of the masses and altering the behavior of individuals. Edward Bernays, a pioneer in the field of public relations in the 20th century, applied Sigmund Freud’s theory of psychoanalysis to manipulate the masses by engineering consent. According to Bernays, “If we understand the mechanism and motives of the group mind, it is now possible to control and regiment the masses according to our will without them knowing it.” Advertisers and psychologists of the billion dollar culture creation industry manufacture trends through the proliferation of insecurities; and manipulating desires and emotions. These concepts are also employed to control how individuals think about politics, as well as the possibilities and limitations within society. Those wielding power within our streams of mass communication market their plans into each generation as individuals adopt specific ways of thinking and never suspect that all the major events and trends within their lifetime are actually planned by an elite few before they are even born. In our society today, culture is created from the top down. Virtually all forms of culture are created by the ruling class to build a false sense of reality, ensure social compliance, and control the future course of cultural evolution.
Predictive programming is a tool used by the establishment to acclimate the public to new ideas, trends, beliefs, and threats. It is used through television by including certain situations or ideas within the plots of many fictional shows, familiarizing the viewer with these concepts no matter what they may be watching. When similar situations occur or like ideas are circulated in the world we think that these particular things are quite natural for we have unknowingly been made familiar with them through television. By viewing nearly any popular show on television, one can see the same propaganda that will be aired on the nightly news. Propaganda on a wide array of subjects has been interwoven into a great number of television shows. Just a few of these subjects include global warming, vaccinations, torture, terrorism, national security, the militarization of police, and the degradation of the family unit. Through predictive programming, television shapes culture and prevents individuals from asking questions.
Crises are created on a daily basis and broadcast across the airwaves to keep individuals in a state of panic and fear. Whether it is the threat of a pandemic or terrorism, the constant state of crisis has created a form of mental illness as we are slowly acclimated into an age of crisis. By using Hegelian dialectic, the television promotes the problem, guides our reaction, and presents the solution. The problem of terrorism was exclaimed, a strong emotional response was evoked, and it was stated that our rights need be sacrificed in order to protect us from the threat. We’ve lost personal sovereignty under the guise of terrorism; we’re stopped and searched; we’re watched by cameras as we go about our lives; and we’re encouraged to spy on our neighbors. We have been trained to accept the life of a prisoner.
America is in a state of enlightened despotism where most individuals live only to satisfy selfish inner desires and remain ignorant of the state of the world around them. In most public places one can find a television transmitting propaganda around the clock ensuring the masses remain focused on trivial matters. From birth we take the world as it’s presented on television. We don’t question it and any serious criticism of TV is becoming psychologically impossible in society. Who would suspect getting born into a world where everything around you is a continuous lie? The youth of today are convinced that the experts and personalities on television are the authority of credible information while parents and older generations are foolish with dated ideas. Children are conditioned to disconnect from what is truly important to their well being and instead focus on mindless trivia, sports, celebrity gossip, and buying an array of material things. They invest their psychological worth in fantasy characters on television while ignoring or even scorning individuals contributing to the betterment of humanity. They are discouraged from getting involved in their local community and often lack the ability to think independently or to resist corruption. As their children’s minds are molded by television, there is barely a murmur from the public.
For over half a century, our society has lived under this signal of mental programming and conditioning. The message is clear: don’t be a leader, don’t engage in critical thinking, and don’t care about the people in your life. Until individuals become aware of the current information war, our standard of living and our liberties will continue to be degraded and we will continue to lose communities and meaningful relationships between people. Currently, pockets of resistance are beginning to spring up everywhere as some unplug the signal and regain control of their own thoughts. Informed individuals are canceling their cable and satellite subscriptions and instead spending time with their families and children while participating in meaningful experiences. They are seeking alternative news sources. They are reading about those who wield incredible influence over culture like Edward Bernays, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Charles Galton Darwin, Plato, Bertrand Russell, and Aldous Huxley. However, it is a continuous battle to educate the masses for the television remains our greatest threat to individual sovereignty and the largest obstacle to becoming a truly informed individual. Fortunately, unplugging from the signal is easy. The television can simply be turned off. Through doing so, you may realize nearly our entire world is now a hoax; things once known as truth are fake. We have been trained like dogs to be obedient to our television; our master has had our minds on a tight leash. Let us never forget the truth will not be televised.

TV IS A PSYCHO-SOCIAL WEAPON

2010-10-03T14:10:00.000-07:00

TV IS A PSYCHO-SOCIAL WEAPON

Ken Doyle
I think most right thinking people are agreed that physical effects aside, the content of the majority of TV programming today (I emphasize the word programming, a process that involves a passive receptor of information) is designed to instill a social worldview and value system that is self-centric and is in fact the opposite of what a healthy and enduring society requires. Individualism at any cost rules the day and it is more and more evident that empathy for one’s fellow citizen and a sense of personal responsibility are rapidly vanishing along with the morality that all healthy civilizations have known to be necessary for survival. Only recently a car I was traveling in was bumped from behind by a driver who was, I would guess, in his mid to late thirties, looked quite respectable and drove a new and expensive car. Rather than stop and offer his details for the damage done he feigned an apology and when our vehicle pulled off to park safely he took his opportunity to flee the scene, no doubt congratulating himself on avoiding a messy process involving insurance agencies etc. People today are only made to feel guilt when caught and exposed for their crimes. They have no higher authority to fear and the current direction of societal attitudes puts paid to that particular view often espoused that it is possible to remain moral and upstanding without religion or a guiding moral principal if you prefer. The crime figures, road rage and general attitude of fellow citizens would tend to indicate otherwise. I believe TV has much blame to shoulder for this.
People spend a lot of their spare time in front of the television. I don’t think it’s an exaggeration to state that TV is a major source of many people’s opinions and views on pretty much everything. Given the amount of time people spend watching television it makes perfect sense that if you want to shape public opinion the TV is the medium par excellence by which to disseminate your information. It stands to reason then that if you agree that a movement exists, and I think a lot of people of do, whose aim is to re-make the world in man’s image, albeit a skewed and perverse one, then it makes sense for such an organization to consolidate control of the TV airwaves and turn it into a propaganda video-drome. Some might say that the proof is in the pudding, that TV is so biased toward the crude, libertine, amoral lifestyle and that the portrayal of the Christian religion, the very force that created our society, is so negative, misinformed and hostile that surely such a conspiracy exists. Now to extrapolate this thought is an article unto itself but the facts are there and the conspiracy is out in the open. To give just two examples, we have the admission by the
BBC following a leaking of an internal memo wherein it was admitted that they are anti-Christ in their outlook. After complaints that BBC programming repeatedly errs on the side of sensitivity to Islam & other minorities (religious or otherwise) & bias against Christianity (especially Roman Catholicism), the British Broadcasting Corporation has admitted its guilt. A summit meeting of BBC officials culminated in admissions that “the BBC is not impartial or neutral,” as BBC political editor Andrew Marr put it. The closed-door summit’s conclusions were leaked to the British newspaper The Mail on Sunday.
Evidence also exists that governments control news output and content. On January 14, 1983 President Reagan of the USA signed into effect directive 77 which gave the CIA and government full power to determine and control the content of news that the American public receives, news which can now be uploaded and or modified in minutes with modern technology. Goebbels would be proud. Think about it. It only takes a decision made by one chief editor to determine the news received by millions and in the US it is said that upwards of 90% of all media formats including newspapers and magazines are controlled by 3 or 4 corporations, a number which is going down as more and more news agencies are bought up and amalgamated. All an agency has do to make sure the news delivered suits a particular agenda is to put a very small number of people into the right positions.
Alex Jones, a rising star in the American “Truth Movement” is an independent syndicated radio talk-show host and investigative journalist from Austin, Texas. He has had personal contact with people from many of the US’s major news agencies like FOX and CNN and he says that many people employed with these companies don’t agree with the style and content of news produced and in fact know and believe much of it to be contrived, misrepresented or simply incorrect.
The physical way in which TV affects the brain makes it a perfect vehicle for propaganda. It’s important to note that your eyes grow directly, stem-like, from the brain. They really are the window to the soul and the perfect conduit to access the brain’s inner sanctums.
The human brain works at 4 basic frequencies. These are Beta, Alpha, Theta and Delta.
Beta waves are produced when one is thinking and using one’s higher faculties and Delta is associated with sleep and/or deep trance like states. The radiant light and flicker rates of TV cause the brain to drop down to a level of activity somewhere between Alpha and Theta – essentially a sleepy dreamlike state of mind where the higher critical functions are turned off. Even if you’re reading text on a television screen the brain registers low levels of Alpha wave activity. Theta brainwaves engage inner and intuitive subconscious. You will find theta in places where you hold memories, sensations and emotions any information therefore imbibed from the TV by-passes our logical, critically thinking sieve and goes straight into those sub areas of the mind associated with more emotive response. TV then appeals more to the emotions than the mind and of course how many of us engage in lively informed debate anymore? Very few. The more common reaction to big questions is usually an emotive response followed by a quick change in subject. TV viewing is a somatic experience which means it is “of the body, not of the mind”. I’m reminded of Huxley’s book, ”Brave New World” where the drug of choice was called soma and enabled people to escape unpalatable intellectual life problems.
Psychologist Thomas Mulholland found that after just 30 seconds of watching television the brain begins to produce alpha waves, which indicates torpid (almost comatose) rates of activity. Alpha brain waves are associated with unfocused, overly receptive states of consciousness. A high occurrence of alpha wave activity does not occur normally when the eyes are open. In fact, Mulholland’s research implies that watching television is neurologically analogous to staring at a blank wall. It’s worth noting that the goal of hypnotists is to induce slow brain wave states. Alpha waves are present during the ‘light hypnotic’ state used by hypnotherapists for suggestion therapy.
The critical side of your brain is the left. As you read this you are making judgments, passing opinions and coming to conclusions which take the form of beta brain wave activity. These are the waves activated when you begin to use that left hand side, the center of logical human communication and analysis.
Researchers have found that once the television set is switched on, that left hand side and all its faculties tends to switch off. Instead the images from television go straight to the right brain. The switch from beta to alpha waves shows this. Alpha brain waves are the ones we associate with meditation and sleep. By no means does this mean that we are not taking the information in – we are taking it all in, we are just not able to critically evaluate it as we would with information coming from other sources.
Video Games have been shown to lower brain activity to below that of the Delta frequency!
The TV screen flicker rate alone is known to induce mesmerized states in people. This flicker rate is the rate at which the screen image is updated, generally about 50 or 60 times a second. DARPA is a US military funded research programmer. One of their endeavors concerned developing TV flicker rates that could be played whenever a mesmerized state was required in a given section of the population.
Endorphins are released by overexposure to light. The radiant light from televisions causes a release of endorphins. Researcher Herbert Krugman showed that while viewers are watching television, the right hemisphere is twice as active as the left, a neurological anomaly. The crossover from left to right releases a surge of the body’s natural opiates: endorphins, which include beta-endorphins and enkephalins. Endorphins are structurally identical to opium and its derivatives (morphine, codeine, heroin, etc.). Activities that release endorphins (also called opioid peptides) are usually habit-forming (we rarely call them addictive). These include cracking knuckles and strenuous exercise. External opiates act on the same receptor sites (opioid receptors) as endorphins, so there is little difference between the two.
Even casual television viewers experience such opiate-withdrawal symptoms if they stop watching TV for a prolonged period of time. An article from South Africa’s Eastern Province Herald (October 1975) described two experiments in which people from various socio-economic milieus were asked to stop watching television. In one experiment, several families volunteered to turn off their TV’s for just one month. The poorest family gave in after one week, and the others suffered from depression, saying they felt as though they had “lost a friend.” In the other experiment, 182 West Germans agreed to kick their television viewing habit for a year, with the added bonus of payment. None could resist the urge longer than six months, and over time all of the participants showed the symptoms of opiate-withdrawal: increased anxiety, frustration, and depression.
Herbert Krugman’s research proved that watching television numbs the left brain and leaves the right brain to perform all cognitive duties. This has some harrowing implications for the effects of television on brain development and health. For one, the left hemisphere is the critical region for organizing, analyzing, and judging incoming data. The right brain treats incoming data uncritically, and it does not decode or divide information into its component parts.
Researches into the effects of TV have warned that children under two years of age shouldn’t watch any at all due to the negative impact on various areas of a child’s development which include skills of observation, speech, hearing, depth perception, reading ability, inducing attention deficit type behavior, a lack of motor skills due to immobile viewing habits and so on. TV is a wholly inappropriate and ineffectual teaching tool. Its pointless having debates lamenting the demise of intellectual ability and endeavour when intellects have never even had a chance to naturally and properly grow due to the numbing effects of television on children particularly.
Conversely it’s worth noting that radio has the opposite effect and actually develops a higher rate of concentration, the audio forcing people to be stimulated to visualize what they hear. Reading of course further extends the ability to concentrate and critically examine information over longer periods.
Even the style of TV production these days is geared toward an amphetamine-like addiction people have with regard to information reception. The cadence of scene changes, that is the rate and beat at which images are changing on the screen is very fast and further inclines the mind under development to be unable to concentrate for long periods on long pieces of textual information. Average rates of attention span are down from a few decades ago to mere minutes where once it was more than one hour for deep critical thinking.
Studies have linked quality of life to high vocabulary rates which heavy TV consumption impacts negatively. If you have good communication skills you are better able to express the world you live in and how you define it and if this is a yardstick to judge by then for many of our countries’ young folk the world must be very banal indeed. A poor vocabulary means you have a myopic existence, you have a tunnel-like perception of this great planet and your quality of life is adversely affected. Just listening to pop stars in particular, the idols of the young can make one cringe with embarrassment at the vacuous and inarticulate clap-trap they come out with.
We live in a world today were people’s personalities are formed by unreal things: TV, the music industry, video games, movies, the effects of drugs (be that of the recreational or psychotropic variety). Virtual reality dominates the interests of a lot of people out there, even young adults and people of my own age group in their 30′s. All conversation is about this or that TV show, the latest new video game on the latest new console or who’s top of the Premiership. It’s a sad state of affairs.
All these negative effects on society are known; they are in fact engineered and planned for. A New World Order is coming into view. Not so long ago in India, the then British Chancellor Gordon Brown, in a speech mentioned this “New Global Order” that is being brought into existence. This New Order will be the stuff of nightmare as envisaged by Orwell. In fact I don’t think even Orwell had the vision to picture the dystopian technocratic dictatorship in store for humanity. Huxley was somewhat closer to the mark in his novel, “Brave New World “.
The TV is our soma, it keeps us mesmerized and dulled while our freedoms are revoked and laws introduced to make criminals of us all so the New World Order can get on with the business of creating a prison planet with a prison based economic system, much like modern China.
Get rid of your TV’s today. Exchange them for projection systems if you’re not yet ready to give up the video drome. We need to reclaim our personalities from the agencies and organizations that use TV to claim our minds, create our consumerist loyalties and keep us from truth, reality and a full-spectrum human life. We need to reclaim for ourselves and instill in future generations a sense of wonder at the real world and its panoply of real life heroes and people genuinely worth admiring.

SHUTTING DOWN THE INTERNET?

2010-10-03T13:51:00.001-07:00

SHUTTING DOWN THE INTERNET?

October 1, 2010 at 11:10 (Censorship, Corrupt Politics, Internet, Internet Security)
First they came for the lottery games..
I was silent as I do not play…

Then they came for sites that criticised government policies…
At that point I was FORCED to be silent.

locked-computer

Will the Justice Department Be Authorized to Shut Down Internet Sites?
by Rich Muny

On September 20th, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) introduced legislation — S. 3804, the Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act — that seeks to give the Department of Justice the power to shut down websites anywhere in the world that are found to infringe on intellectual property rights. This would be accomplished by ordering U.S. domain registrars and registries to stop resolving infringing sites’ domain names. While this bill has the noble-sounding goal of preventing online piracy, handing the federal government authority over the Internet would set a troubling precedent that would imperil Internet freedom in America and across the world.

One disquieting issue is the lack of any requirement that these sites be found to violate the laws of the countries from where they operate. In fact, under this bill sites operating perfectly legally under the laws of their own nations could be shut down by the U.S. Justice Department.

The concept that domain names of Internet sites operating legally in their home nations could be shut down by other nations for violation of their laws is one that should concern everyone. For example, a few years ago a French court ordered Yahoo.com to block French citizens from accessing portions of the site deemed to contain content unlawful under French law. Yahoo.com resisted this demand, citing free speech issues. What if French courts had the capability to shut down the domain www.yahoo.com to force compliance with that decision? What if every nation had the right to shut down Internet domains to force the entire Internet to comply with their local laws? If the Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act passes, a very dangerous precedent will be set.

Additionally, there is a threat that this power will be expanded well beyond piracy. In fact, Kentucky Governor Steve Beshear (D) is already in court seeking seizure of the domain names of 141 Internet poker and gaming websites — none based in the Commonwealth of Kentucky — with claims that these sites compete with the state lottery and with the horse racing industry.

The likelihood of this effort expanding well beyond issues of online piracy is simply too great. The Department of Justice should use its already ample tools and not resort to censoring the Internet.
Source via Uruknet

* Share this:
* StumbleUpon
* Reddit
*
*

Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)

* WHAT REALLY HAPPENED AND DESERT PEACE FEATURED IN TODAY’S JERUSALEM POST
* Massive cyber attack knocks US government websites offline on 4th of July
* Federal Web sites knocked out by cyber attack
* I’m a little less worried about our geographic borders at the moment

Background Checks Required to Visit Your Kids at School

2010-10-03T13:44:00.001-07:00

Matt Ryan
Infowars.com
October 1, 2010

Image by Kevin Dooley

Over 3,700 schools in Texas and 7,000 nationwide have implemented a system requiring parents visiting their children to undergo a background check upon arrival to the school. This check is carried out by a company called Raptor, which summarizes their services as:

Thousands of schools and community facilities across the country use Raptor’s V-soft visitor management and screening technology to help protect children from sex offenders, domestic dispute offenders and other trespassers. V-soft works in conjunction with law enforcement to add an extra layer of security and keep our kids safe.

While the mission of protecting children from sex offenders has a broad appeal, domestic dispute charges include a broad range of situations including issues as minor as loud arguments among siblings. A definition of domestic dispute from USLegal.com describes the term as including non-crimes:

A domestic dispute is generally any quarrel, which may or may not include violence, within a family or between members of the same household. Definitions are governed by local laws, which vary, and may also cover including any child or an adult or fully emancipated minor who is a spouse, former spouse, cohabitant, former cohabitant or person with whom a suspect has had a child or has or has had a dating or engagement relationship. It may or may not include criminal behavior. Local laws should be consulted for specific requirements in your area.

According to Raptor, their background check includes arrest records, which doesn’t indicate conviction or acquittal indicating that the notion of being innocent until proven guilty does not apply here. Below are the records included in a Raptor background check:

# Arrest Records (ARST)
# Administrative Office of the Courts
# Department of Corrections
# County Court
# District Court
# Superior Court
# Municipal Court
# District Clerk
# Common Pleas
# Clerk of Court

Recently, parents have begun taking legal action to defend their constitutional right to privacy, however, a federal appeals court has ruled that screening for sex offenders does not violate constitutional rights. The court failed to address the fact that Raptor screens for a much larger set of circumstances than sex offenses. Local Austin news station KXAN reported:

But a few years before, another mother, Yvonne Meadows, said, for simply wanting to see her child, Raptor seemed a little extreme, even an unconstitutional invasion of privacy.

“Don’t be asking me to fork out this information so I can go participate with my kids and their education,” Meadows told KXAN on the phone in 2008, when her case was still in the trial stage.

She has since moved away from the district, home schools her kids.

Disappointingly, teachers and faculty are being hired around the nation with often violent criminal records. Almost every week now, a story comes out about sex crimes being committed against students. While parents are being forced to reveal their entire history in order to see their own child, teachers are passed through the system.

Fresh food that lasts from eFoods Direct (Ad)

Public schools have become more and more like prisons over the years as students are issued ids allowing them to be tracked as they move from class to class, subject to aggressive and violent “training operations“, and otherwise treated more like prisoners and less like citizens. For years public schools have increased in militarism, allowing themselves to give up state’s rights for national control.

Reducing the world population through vaccines

2010-10-03T13:42:00.000-07:00

Bill Gates says vaccines can help reduce world population

Posted By kurtnimmo On October 1, 2010 @ 7:42 am In Featured Stories | 249 Comments

Mike Adams
NaturalNews
October 1, 2010

In a recent TED conference presentation, Microsoft billionaire Bill Gates, who has donated hundreds of millions of dollars to new vaccine efforts, speaks on the issue of CO2 emissions and its effects on climate change. He presents a formula for tracking CO2 emissions as follows: CO2 = P x S x E x C.

P = People
S = Services per person
E = Energy per service
C = CO2 per energy unit

Then he adds that in order to get CO2 to zero, “probably one of these numbers is going to have to get pretty close to zero.”

Following that, Bill Gates begins to describe how the first number — P (for People) — might be reduced. He says:

“The world today has 6.8 billion people… that’s headed up to about 9 billion. Now if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 percent.”

You can watch this yourself at:

http://www.naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=A…

Reducing the world population through vaccines

This statement by Bill Gates was not made with any hesitation, stuttering or other indication that it might have been a mistake. It appears to have been a deliberate, calculated part of a well developed and coherent presentation.

So what does it mean when Bill Gates says “if we do a really great job on new vaccines… we could lower [world population] by 10 or 15 percent?”

Clearly, this statement implies that vaccines are a method of population reduction. So is “health care,” which all NaturalNews readers already know to be more of a “sick care” system that actually harms more people than it helps.

Perhaps that’s the whole point of it. Given that vaccines technology help almost no one from a scientific point of view (http://www.naturalnews.com/029641_v…), it raises the question: For what purpose are vaccines being so heavily pushed in the first place?

Bill Gates seems to be saying that one of the primary purposes is to reduce the global population as a mechanism by which we can reduce CO2 emissions. Once again, watch the video yourself to hear him say it in his own words:

http://www.naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=A…

How can vaccines actually be used to reduce world population?

Let’s conduct a mental experiment on this issue. If vaccines are to be used to reduce world population, they obviously need to be accepted by the majority of the people. Otherwise the population reduction effort wouldn’t be very effective.

And in order for them to be accepted by the majority of the people, they obviously can’t just kill people outright. If everybody started dropping dead within 24 hours of receiving the flu shot, the danger of vaccines would become obvious rather quickly and the vaccines would be recalled.

Thus, if vaccines are to be used as an effective population reduction effort, there are really only three ways in which they might theoretically be “effective” from the point of view of those who wish to reduce world population:

#1) They might kill people slowly in a way that’s unnoticeable, taking effect over perhaps 10 – 30 years by accelerating degenerative diseases.

#2) They might reduce fertility and therefore dramatically lower birth rates around the world, thereby reducing the world population over successive generations. This “soft kill” method might seem more acceptable to scientists who want to see the world population fall but don’t quite have the stomach to outright kill people with conventional medicine. There is already evidence that vaccines may promote miscarriages (http://www.naturalnews.com/027512_v…).

#3) They might increase the death rate from a future pandemic. Theoretically, widespread vaccination efforts could be followed by a deliberate release of a highly virulent flu strain with a high fatality rate. This “bioweapon” approach could kill millions of people whose immune systems have been weakened by previous vaccine injections.

This is a known side effect of some vaccines, by the way. A study documenting this was published in PLoS. Read the story here: http://www.naturalnews.com/028538_s…

Here’s the study title and citation: Does Seasonal Influenza Vaccination Increase the Risk of Illness with the 2009 A/H1N1 Pandemic Virus?

Viboud C, Simonsen L (2010) Does Seasonal Influenza Vaccination Increase the Risk of Illness with the 2009 A/H1N1 Pandemic Virus? PLoS Med 7(4): e1000259. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000259

The short answer is yes, seasonal flu vaccines do cause increased susceptibility to the H1N1 pandemic virus. In other words, seasonal flu vaccines could set up the population for a “hard kill” pandemic that could wipe out a significant portion of the global population (perhaps 10 to 15 percent, as Bill Gates suggested).

* A d v e r t i s e m e n t
*

Conveniently, their deaths could be blamed on the pandemic, thereby diverting blame from those who were really responsible for the plot. As yet another beneficial side effect for the global population killers, the widespread deaths could be used as a fear tool to urge more people to get vaccinated yet again, and the entire cycle could be repeated until world population was brought down to whatever manageable level was desired… all in the name of health care!

The more people around the world are vaccinated before the release of the “hard kill” pandemic virus, the more powerful the effect of this approach.

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation

Perhaps not coincidentally, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has funneled hundreds of millions of dollars into vaccine programs targeting people all over the world. One such program is researching the development of “sweat-triggered vaccines” that could use specially-coated nano-materials to deliver vaccines to people without using injections.

More interestingly, his foundation has also invested millions in sterilization technologies that have been called a “temporary castration” solution. (http://www.naturalnews.com/028887_v…)

It seems that the actions of the Gates foundation are entirely consistent with the formula for CO2 reduction that Bill Gates eluded to in his TED conference speech: CO2 = P x S x E x C.

By reducing birth rates (through sterilization technologies) and increasing vaccine penetration throughout the world population (by using sweat-triggered nano-vaccines), his stated goal of reducing the world population by 10 to 15 percent could be reached within just a few years.

Who will be left alive? The smart people

The interesting thing about all this is that this campaign to reduce global population through vaccines will obviously not impact people who consciously avoid vaccines. And those people, by and large, tend to be the more intelligent, capable people who actually have an improved ability to move human civilization forward with thoughtful consideration.

I can only imagine that those people designing this vaccine-induced population control measure might be sitting around a table chuckling to themselves and saying, “It’s only the stupid people that are going to be killed off anyway, so this is actually helping the future of humankind!” (Their words, not mine.)

In a weird world government kind of way, this effort might actually be based on some distorted vision of philanthropy where some of the most powerful people in the world quite literally believe the way to save humanity is to kill off as many of the gullible people as possible. Vaccines are, in effect, an “evil genius” kind of way to conduct an IQ test on the population at large: If you go get vaccinated every flu season, you’re not too bright and probably don’t engage the kind of strong mental faculties that humanity will no doubt need if it is to face a future where it is now all but obvious we are not alone in the universe.

If humanity is to save itself from its own destruction and compete as an uplifted species in our universe, killing off the least intelligent members of society (or making them infertile) may appear to the world controllers to be a perfectly reasonable approach. I disagree with that approach, but it may be precisely what they are thinking.

In any case, choosing to receive a seasonal flu shot is undoubtedly an admission that you have failed some sort of universal IQ test, whether or not this is the intention of world influencers such as Bill Gates. More importantly, it is also a betrayal of your own biology, because it indicates you don’t believe in the ability of your own immune system to protect you even from mild infections.

Fresh food that lasts from eFoods Direct (Ad)

Perhaps the world vaccine conspirators figure that if people are willing to betray themselves anyway, it’s not much different for governments and institutions to betray them as well. In other words, if you don’t even care enough about your own health to take care of your health, why should any government care about protecting your health, either?

As you ponder this, also consider something else: The U.S. is going broke due to sick-care costs which are rising dramatically under the new federal health care reform guidelines. Can you guess the fastest and easiest way to reduce those health care costs? If you guessed, “unleash a hard-kill pandemic that takes out a significant portion of the weak or sick people” then you guessed right. Sadly, killing off those most vulnerable to sickness could save the U.S. government literally billions of dollars in sick-care expenditures. Plus, it would save Social Security yet more billions by avoiding ongoing monthly payouts. (Again, I am completely against such an approach because I value human life, but I also know we live in a world where the people in charge have little or no respect for human life and will readily sacrifice human lives to achieve their aims.)

As far as Bill Gates goes, consider his statement in the context of what we’ve discussed here: “The world today has 6.8 billion people… that’s headed up to about 9 billion. Now if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 percent.”

It suddenly seems to make a lot of sense when you understand that reducing the population reduces CO2 emissions, and using more vaccines on more people increases the death rate of the population.

My advice? Try to avoid being among those 10 to 15 percent who get culled through global vaccine programs. You will not only save your life, you’ll also pass the “universal IQ test” which determines whether you’re smart enough to know that injecting your body with chemicals and viral fragments in order to stop “seasonal flu” is a foolish endeavor.

Be healthy and wise, and you’ll survive the world depopulation effort that victimizes conventional thinkers who don’t have the intelligence to question what they’re being told to do by their own corrupt governments.

Article printed from Infowars: http://www.infowars.com

URL to article: http://www.infowars.com/bill-gates-says-vaccines-can-help-reduce-world-population/

Greys' Anatomy - The Aliens Responsible For Fluoride Being Forced Upon Us

2010-05-07T18:39:00.000-07:00

A long, long time ago, the Earth was used as a dumping ground by many different alien races. Spacecraft-loads of toxic waste were strewn about the planet. Aluminium was one of the main waste products that was dumped on the Earth.

While it was detrimental to the Earth to be loaded with aluminium, hazards increased dramatically when humans began refining the metal. Fluoride is an extremely toxic by-product of aluminium refining. Since industrialists were unable to safely dispose of fluoride, they called upon the ruling elite's assistance to set their propaganda machine into motion. Before long, university professors, dentists, health officers and many others were espousing the "marvel" of fluoride in reducing dental caries (tooth decay). The propaganda is so effectively spread that it is difficult to find a non-fluoridated tube of toothpaste in most supermarkets. Due to the mass propaganda campaign in support of fluoride, a huge number of communities have fluoridated their water supplies and a vast amount of drinking water now contains the toxin.

Fluoride is no ordinary toxin - it is a highly protected medication (poison). Many who know the truth realize that it would be unlikely for a coroner to report a suspicious death from fluoride poisoning because the ruling elite would not want to alert the public to the fact that fluoride is highly toxic. In fact, fluoride is a very effective rat poison. Hence, it can also kill people. However, non-lethal doses, such as those found in ordinary toothpaste tubes, are often responsible for dental fluorosis or bone fluorosis.

The dental professionals have been targeted for maximum programming to advance the "beneficial" properties of fluoride. They have the propaganda forced upon them during their university training, and they parrot back the "benefits" of fluoride to their patients, who blindly accept that their family dentists would certainly have researched the issue thoroughly before recommending fluoride to them. Those who have seriously examined the "benefits" of fluoride realize that the studies supporting the use of the toxin are at best inconclusive regarding prevention of tooth decay. When pressured, some dentists will admit that fluoride is toxic, but follow this up with a parroted response that while it is poisonous, there is an optimum amount of the poison that is "beneficial" as long as one does not overdose on it.

One concern that dentists do voice is that because children often swallow toothpaste, they should be given small doses for brushing their teeth. Dentists know that if a child swallows too much toothpaste, it can be very dangerous, or even fatal. Surprisingly, this knowledge and these warnings are insufficient to break through the Reptilian propaganda supporting rat poison (sodium fluoride) in water and toothpaste.

One ought to remember that dentists also recommend the use of amalgam fillings to seal dental cavities. Amalgam fillings contain mercury, which is also a deadly poison. Consumers have enough knowledge to realize they should not eat fish that contains mercury, but again, they blindly accept their neighbourhood dentists' recommendations to put the poison into their mouths.

Dentists have become so indoctrinated by the ruling elite's propaganda that they ardently believe and support the "benefits" of fluoride for healthy teeth. The main reason that the malicious propaganda on fluoride is so widely accepted and promoted is the subtle programming behind it. This is not so much a physical programming as it is subliminal. The culprits behind the fluoride conspiracy are the Anunnaki Reptilians.

The Reptilians are a horrible race of aliens that sit atop the Dark hierarchy in the Virtual Reality. One should realize that among Reptilians there is also a hierarchy - they have rulers and subjects amongst them. It is primarily the Anunnaki Elites' agenda to bring in the New World Order and to take total control of the Earth.

The Reptilian programming runs through the occult and other fields to brainwash people in many ways. So, too, it is with the fluoride issue. The ruling elite want people to believe that sodium fluoride is beneficial. This lie is intended to be 100 percent effective. That means that the programming is directed at everyone to accept the benefits of fluoride.

Once a person accepts any form of programming, he or she is subjected to the programming. Since the Reptilians are striving for 100 percent acceptance of fluoride, there is little conflict over the issue. While a small group of people resist the programming, they are not allowed to present their cases to the public. The media has sealed the issue "drum tight" and anti-fluoridationists are not given an opportunity to present their cases. There is no open debate on the issue because to do so would expose the ruling elite's long-standing poisoning plan. The propaganda is so powerful that anti-fluoridationists are scorned, ridiculed, rejected and abused for taking a stance against fluoride.

In contrast to sodium-fluoride programming, consider how the theory of evolution has been presented and widely accepted by academics, who in turn indoctrinate their students in universities throughout the world. Acceptance of the theory of evolution was never intended to be 100 percent effective. The ruling elite has other simultaneous programming that is in total conflict with the acceptance of the theory of evolution. One such programming is the fundamentalist doctrine of creation as it is presented in the Bible. The programmed fundamentalists and the programmed evolutionists were programmed to have conflict and strife, which suits the ruling elite's plans quite nicely. The ruling elite also programmes denominations of religions to be in conflict with one another, and for independent religions to be in conflict with one another. This also allows the ruling elite to manipulate and control by imposing strife upon the people of the Earth.

As many of you might have suspected, the ruling elite have infiltrated and/or taken over the esoteric and occult, including the Freemasons, Rosicrucians, theosophy, metaphysics, astrology, all the major religions of all cultures including Gnosticism etc. Likewise, the ruling elite have sponsored the New Age movement. These seemingly divided groups are headed by those with a single purpose - to control all the inhabitants of the Earth. Sadly, many sincere people in the movements have no idea that they are supporting the ruling elite's plan for a One World Order!

So critical is the acceptance of the brainwashing of fluoride that it is aimed at 100 percent of the population. This unusual type of programming should sound many alarms. Firstly, it shows how effective Reptilian programming is. Secondly, it demonstrates that there can be no free speech on issues that the ruling elite want to seal off. Thirdly, it shows how evil the ruling elite are. Finally, it demonstrates how few people on the planet can think for themselves and resist Reptilian programming.

The recent calls from various governments to impose draconian laws, supposedly to fight terrorism, means that in future anyone who dares speak the truth on important issues such as fluoridation will simply disappear without a trace. This is frightening! When people are totally under the control of draconian regimes, they will be even more robotic than they are now in this robot farm of Virtual Reality.

The Reptilians have only relatively recently (a few hundred years ago) decided to eliminate the human race. To bring this about, they called upon the co-operation of the Greys, who were promised by the Reptilians that their race would be used as the main hominid race on the planet. However, this promise to the Greys was never a genuine one.

Believing that they would become a major force on the Earth, the Greys began performing DNA and genetic manipulation, trying to form hybrids using human and Grey DNA. The Greys are busily perfecting these hybrids, which explains many of the human abductions for experimental purposes. Greys are doing this brutal, surreptitious, unethical work without the consent of their victims. The result is even cruel to the hybrids, who do not really fit in to either the alien or the human societies. However, some hybrids, when they encounter their human or their alien parents, will sometimes be drawn to them, and vice versa. In performing these horrific genetic manipulations, Greys are relying on the false promise from the Reptilians, but the Reptilians will never allow the hybrids to dominate the planet.

Many sceptics mockingly ask, "Where are the aliens?" Little do they know that many aliens are now in human, animal and hybrid bodies.

Now, the Greys on Earth are in great numbers and they are scattered all over the world. Unlike most Reptilians, who live in spacecrafts or on high ground where they employ invisibility techniques, the Greys who are still in alien bodies live under ground.

Owing to living underground over a long period of time, the Greys have developed a peculiar deficiency that mainly affects their sight. Even the hybrids that use Grey DNA are afflicted with this visual malady. Thus, the Greys needed to develop a medication that was readily available throughout the world. The optimum medication they found is sodium fluoride, which is most effective when diluted in minute quantities in drinking water.

"One person's tonic is another's poison." So it is with sodium fluoride. It is extremely harmful to humans, but necessary for the Greys. The effects of long-term consumption of fluoridated water by rats has resulted in structural changes in the neurones of their brains and in their blood vessels. Fluoride has been shown to effectively reduce IQ and is also tied to certain memory disorders. If users of fluoride are malnourished, they age prematurely. Fluoride is also detrimental to spiritual awareness. Interestingly, high concentrations of Greys are found in or near many places where fluoride "naturally" occurs in water.

One dramatic piece of government propaganda states:

Since 1950, opponents of water fluoridation have claimed it increased the risk for cancer, Down syndrome, heart disease, osteoporosis and bone fracture, acquired immunodeficiency syndrome, low intelligence, Alzheimer disease, allergic reactions, and other health conditions. The safety and effectiveness of water fluoridation have been re-evaluated frequently, and no credible evidence supports an association between fluoridation and any of these conditions. (Div of Oral Health, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, CDC; 22 Oct. 99).

The above proclamations are typical of fluoridation proponents. Why do the ruling elite scoff, threaten and ridicule anti-fluoridationists who present real evidence concerning the dangers of fluoride? The medication (sodium fluoride) is forced upon an unsuspecting public under the guise that it reduces tooth decay. Are they really concerned about public health or do they have another agenda?

Perhaps the worst aspect of the fluoride conspiracy is that it is practically permanent pollution. Once clean water is contaminated with sodium fluoride, almost nothing short of distillation will remove it. Distillation is time-consuming, expensive and it leaves water tasteless and lacking in nutrition. So, it is a losing proposition to fight off fluoridation by distilling water.

Even when people avoid the fluoride invasion in their water at home, they face the poison everywhere they turn. It is in cosmetics, soft drinks, prepared foods and just about any food product imaginable.

The Reptilians have an elaborate scheme to convince the Greys by maintaining the illusion of their promise to them through actively programming the world to accept sodium fluoride in drinking water. In reality, the Reptilians are more interested in re-establishing a super race of Reptilians than allowing another alien race like the Greys to have any kind of foothold anywhere.

Since the Reptilians are worried about the mess on Earth and about the proliferation of the Greys, they have come to the conclusion that the Earth must be destroyed to eliminate the huge base of Greys on the planet and hopefully to resolve the many serious problems concerning the Earth. For a long time, the Greys have been subjected to the rule of the Reptilians. But this will not continue much longer. Already, friction has occurred between them because many Greys are suspecting that the Reptilian promise is an empty one. It will not be long before many, if not all, Greys will change sides and support the Vulturites. This will manifest as a shift in politics amongst nations of the world.

As I have discussed in some of my other postings, the Reptilians currently possess the Atu-waa (the device for re-starting time), but the Atu-waa is inoperable and irreparable. For many reasons, the Atu-waa cannot be removed from the Earth at this time. Even though the Earth is an ideal planet for the location of the Atu-waa, the Reptilians are worried about the growing numbers of Greys through the hybrids. No wonder the Reptilians now plan to destroy the Earth and re-locate the Atu-waa if they can re-start time.

The Reptilians have new plans for a new world that can safely house the Atu-waa without the threats from other alien races. These plans will not succeed because the Reptilians will not be able to re-start time.

To break away from any of the enslaving programming in this Virtual Reality, one has to consciously reject the programming. This can be difficult if one is not remotely suspicious of such programming. One has to employ the will of one's True Self to reject the programming. This will enable a person to automatically break any pre-set pattern or programming. To do this, a person needs to keep his or her emotions at a reasonable level so that one can bypass them.

One's will to resist Darkness and Its Dark programming is one's strongest tool to remain in the True Light.

Global Warming - Natural or Artificial

2010-05-07T18:35:00.002-07:00

by

Amitakh Stanford

1st June 2004

There has been extensive and often controversial debate about global warming, with some scientists still arguing that it is a myth. However, the evidence of increased air and water temperatures is undeniable - global warming is happening.

The theories that have been brought forward to explain global warming are sometimes in contradiction to one another. Some scientists claim that warming temperatures will bring on a new ice age, while others claim it will bring on a considerably hotter planet. There are some that think the effects of the warming will be minimal and others that think they will be catastrophic. It is quite a spectrum.

The theories for the causes of global warming range from calling it a natural cycling phenomenon to assigning the responsibility of global warming to pollution created by industrialization and population explosion. Again, there is a wide range of speculation on the subject.

Regardless of the causes for global warming, it is a very critical issue at this time. Many people are now starting to take it seriously as they witness the climatic changes around the world and the effects of these changes.

To rationally determine why the Earth is warming, one should first consider whether global warming is natural or artificial. The vast majority of the scientific research starts from the premise that warming is a natural process brought upon by various explainable natural causes. They hypothesize that the Earth's climate goes through cyclical changes just as seasons change, and they seek to explain climatic changes with a theory similar to the one about the orbit and tilt of the Earth being the cause of the seasonal changes. Those who would go outside the conventional paradigm and seek to explain climatic changes for non-physically explainable reasons are scorned for lacking rationality and being airy-fairy.

The majority of scientists considering the issue assume there is a natural cycle of climate for the Earth. They argue that the industrial revolution has contributed greatly to pollution of the land, water and air, which have brought about, among other things, a greenhouse effect from increases in carbon dioxide. This group would argue that global warming could be reversed if people took steps to correct the problem.

However, even if people attempt to mitigate the effects of pollution on the planet, global warming will continue. In fact, if all the humans were taken off the planet tomorrow, global warming would still continue because humans are only partially responsible for it.

The real problem of global warming is artificial and beyond human solutions. It cannot be solved by human efforts in mitigating the effects of pollution because it is an artificial imposition upon the Earth by aliens.

To explain, we must digress back to the days of Lemuria and Atlantis. Both civilizations were highly advanced because they were settled and governed by the Anunnaki. The people of Lemuria and Atlantis were in a constant state of conflict because they were trying to outdo each other technologically, and they were vying for superiority. Both were populated by conquering, cruel Anunnaki beings, and both had earthling slaves.

As the conflict continued, the Atlanteans received great support from off- planet allies, and a blockade was imposed that impeded support traffic for the Lemurians. When the interference of the supply lines became obvious, the Lemurians realized that they would succumb to the more powerful Atlanteans. Hence, they secretly constructed a huge underwater "city" which phonetically sounds like "At-wo-querhe" and many of the elite of Lemuria quietly migrated there with their human slaves.

Eventually, Atlantis attacked and destroyed Lemuria, but the Anunnaki from Atlantis did not know of the secret underwater "city," so they thought that they had totally annihilated the Lemurians.

As discussed in my earlier writings, the Anunnaki Elite thereafter destroyed Atlantis and fled the Earth with most of the highly sophisticated space crafts and technology. The Anunnaki Remnants who were left for dead but survived the destruction of Atlantis are currently controlling the ruling elite of the world.

Before fleeing to At-wo-querhe, the Lemurians "parked" two mother crafts (huge space crafts) in the hills on the continent of Antarctica, where they believed they would escape detection by the Atlanteans. There was not enough time for them to build a structure underwater that was large enough to house the mother crafts.

The Lemurians did not dare try to use the mother crafts for escape because they lacked sufficient fighter support to protect them from the Atlantean allied blockade. Besides, had their enemies spotted the Lemurians' mother crafts, a search would have been made for the underwater civilization, and it would have been destroyed by the Atlanteans. The mother crafts were not discovered by anyone, however, great sheets of ice have formed over the crafts.

At-wo-querhe is surrounded by a gigantic translucent dome. Outside of the dome is water, inside is a gaseous atmosphere. There is a parameter inside the dome that is unoccupied, much like a buffer zone or a frontier. The people living inside the parameter of the domed city live very much like they would on land. These people are beige coloured, flesh-and-blood beings of the same vibrational dimension as earthlings who still live on the surface of the planet. These Anunnaki should not be confused with aliens who have gone underground or beings that are of different vibrational frequencies.

The Lemurians have secretly influenced many things on Earth from At-wo- querhe. They are always watching what is going on above them, but they are careful not to give themselves away. While remaining inconspicuous, the Lemurians, like other groups of Anunnaki, have influenced all the major religions on the surface of the Earth. They have small crafts that are moored in their underwater community which occasionally travel out of the water and into the air and over land.

The Lemurians know that the time for the Earth is short because nobody has re-started "Time," and it is quickly ticking away. The Lemurians know the date when the Earth will end, but they had expected the Anunnaki Elite to return to Earth and re-start the cycle. They also surmised that they would be safe underwater during the "re-start" of Time. However, because the Attas of Light have kept the Anunnaki Elite at bay, the cycle is counting down with no chance of a re-starting.

The Lemurians sense something has altered the Anunnaki plans to keep the Earth in an endless and pointless cycle of re-starts. Therefore, they are taking desperate measures to free their ice-encased mother crafts on Antarctica. They do not know whether the crafts will still function, but their small crafts are inadequate and impractical for deep space travel. It is so desperate that they will risk running a blockade without any support since there is no other chance of their survival. They want to make a rapid exodus from Earth and hope that their mother crafts will function despite years of "hibernation" in the ice.

The Lemurians have constructed a huge microwave device that heats the water deep under the Antarctic seas. It is a device which pulsates with whitish- purplish light. As it rises and falls it superheats the water, which rises in a bubbling fashion and spreads under the ice shelves, causing them to melt. As the ice breaks away from the shelves, the glaciers will be more exposed to the water and air temperatures, which will cause them to melt rapidly. The heated water eventually causes the rise in air temperature around the globe.

The glaciers are like crusts that are covering the mother crafts. These ice crusts are the main targets of the Lemurians because they need to be peeled away if the Lemurians are to flee the Earth before it ceases to exist. The superheated water is dispersing throughout the world's oceans, which is causing havoc by heating the water, air and land to hotter and hotter levels.

The Lemurians are now furiously running the superheater. They are unconcerned about the damage the heated water is causing because they know time is running out and that they must free their mother crafts or they will die on the Earth when it collapses. If all goes according to Lemurian plans, both mother crafts will be visible by the survivors on land. Additionally, their project is causing the production of poisonous gas on the ocean floor that will ultimately kill much of the sea life.

The Lemurian exodus plan is the main cause of the seemingly inexplicable rapid increases in air, land and water temperatures. However, there are other causes such as underwater volcanoes adding to the problem. In addition to the global warming effects brought upon the Earth by the Lemurians desperate attempt to save themselves, other catastrophes are in store for the planet.

Another reason for global warming comes from another Anunnaki group's plans on the surface to overpopulate the Earth to drain resources and for other reasons. It did this primarily by manipulating religions and cultures to encourage large families.

It is said that there are over 6 billion human beings on the planet at this time. That is not accurate. Many of the "people" on the planet are clones who are basically robots although the clones are unaware of this. They are being used to replace many of the human beings. Some are cloned from children, while others are cloned from adults. These clones are then dispersed among the unsuspecting population. In other cases, human victims are kidnapped, then murdered and clones take over their identities. This sounds like science fiction, but it goes on far more often than most could imagine. Many of the clones are in religion, politics, business, education, science, media, entertainment and medicine. This gives the alien cloners a power base to work from. One example is a well-known royal figure who has been replaced by a clone.

There will be three MAJOR cataclysmic events to befall the Earth. The first one will startle many, however, many will survive the first. The second will take out further numbers, but the third one will be horrendous and few will survive it. These will occur because Evil has reached a saturation point and it is back flushing upon itself.

Fireballs appear in the sky;
The sky cries with bloodstained eyes;
While the ocean floors give out poisonous gas,
A smooth, boulder like object is targeted at Alaska;
Many places, including Istanbul, Barcelona and several parts of Italy will be devastated;
Many of the disasters will be artificially created quakes and floods;
Alien shooting wars will be waged in the sky and on the Earth.

Those who respect Truth will be attacked even more openly. The appearance of civility by those of the Shadows will be dropped, revealing their vicious nature for all to see. The separation of the wheat from the chaff is unavoidable, but everyone has been given ample opportunity and the free will to choose where they want to be.

It is not necessary for the people or other beings to have physical knowledge of the separation process or the Message. All classes of Creation, including the animals, plants, minerals etc. are being sorted out. The spirits within all beings understand what is occurring and the respective spirits have made their choices.

The children of the Shadows will continue to mock in vain until the very end. Their scorn is of no consequence.

The Path to Liberation from Darkness is narrow, and few chose to travel it. The Path to Destruction is wide, and many chose it. Each must listen to the small, still voice within them, and not be led like sheep by those who would keep them on the Path to Destruction. Like the story of the fallen angels, the children of the Shadows want to take as many down with them as they can.

The viable ones are those who have chosen the Light. They may suffer a little longer for now, but soon they will be returning to their Pristine Home, where there is Eternal True Love, Joy, Peace and Purity.

Fairies and Pixies

2010-05-07T18:35:00.000-07:00

Fairies and Pixies

by

Thomas, P.E.

(republished from Xee-A Magazine)

Fairies and pixies are the typical inhabitants of a very different world akin to a parallel universe where they abode amidst gardens and fields, forests and mountains, rivers and seas and indeed practically anywhere they fancy. Pixies are really just another species of fairies who reside in the fairyland.

Fairyland, where pixies, gnomes, leprechauns, fairies and others of the like dwell is a "magical" place where things are simply magical and where time passes at a different pace than the human physical realm. The inhabitants of Fairyland can manifest as whirlwinds, dust storms, rainstorms, or breezes, etc. when they visit the human realm. The Australians of the aboriginal tribe of Dieri believe that the sudden whirling dust in the Australian bush are the playful act of marching armies of fairies known to them as Kutchi.

Every culture on earth has its own fairy tales. Some fairies are good while others are not. Thus, good and evil also exists in the realm of the fairies.

The best-known pixie-fairy of the Never-Never land has got to be one who was known as Currah. He presents himself as Sir Gaylord Thomas to the humans whenever he needs to make an appearance in the physical realm of humans.

Currah is a happy, fun-loving, kind pixie who is a bit like the human's legendary Robin Hood. Currah is good and helpful to well-intended humans, animals and plants but will deal harshly but justly with the black-hearted ones. He loves playing pranks at time but he is never vindictive or irresponsible with his playful tricks. In this world of unjust karma, Currah is like a gallant white knight who helps and comforts good humans/animals and other beings who are in distress.

Currah's only sweetheart was a beautiful, and equally playful pixie named Tarayakee. She now incarnates as an English "rose" in the United Kingdom. Fairies, angels and even the "gods" incarnate as humans from time to time. The argument that angels do not incarnate as humans is false.

Currah is as well known for his kindness and valour as he is for his "mischievous" tricks on the scoundrels of this world. People claim that the legendary Currah sprinkles laughter, joy and happiness wherever he scoots about. Sometimes he rings "bells" when he visits. So be ever alert to the mysterious signals that mark his presence.

Fairies and Pixies

2010-05-07T11:03:00.001-07:00

2010-05-06T20:04:00.000-07:00

AGAINST ANIMAL TESTING FROM A MEDICAL AND SCIENTIFIC PERSPECTIVE

>En Espanol

The most commonly held perception regarding animal experimentation is that it is necessary for the development of vaccines, cures and treatments for human illness. Proponents ask the important question, what will happen to research on AIDS, heart disease, and cancer if animal experimentation is completely stopped? Will the progress in cures and treatments for these types of illnesses also come to a halt?

There is a growing movement of health care professionals including doctors, scientists, and
educated members of the public who are opposed to non-human animal based experimentation on specifically medical and scientific grounds. They argue that animal research is based on a false premise, that results obtained through animal experimentation can be applied to the human body.
I have studied the question of vivisection for thirty-five years and am convinced that experiments on living animals are leading medicine further and further from the real cure of the patient. I know of no instance of animal experiment that has been necessary for the advancement of medical science; still less do I know of any animal experiment that could conceivably be necessary to save human life. -H. Fergie Woods, M.D.

Animals not only react differently than humans to different drugs, vaccines, and experiments, they also react differently from one another. Ignoring this difference has been and continues to be very costly to human health.

The most famous example of the dangers of animal testing is the Thalidomide tragedy of the 1960s and 1970s. Thalidomide, which came out on the German market late in the 1950s, had previously been safety tested on thousands of animals. It was marketed as a wonderful sedative for pregnant or breastfeeding mothers and it supposedly caused no harm to either mother or child. Despite this "safety testing", at least 10,000 children whose mothers had taken Thalidomide were born throughout the world with severe deformities.

Clioquinol is another example of a drug that was safety tested in animals and had a severely negative impact on humans. This drug, manufactured in Japan in the 1970s, was marketed as providing safe relief from diarrhea. Not only did Clioquinol not work in humans, it actually caused diarrhea. As a result of Clioquinol being administered to the public, some 30,000 cases of blindness and/or paralysis and thousands of deaths occurred.
"Giving cancer to laboratory animals has not and will not help us to understand the disease or to treat those persons suffering from it." - Dr. A. Sabin, 1986, developer of the oral polio vaccine

Are these two examples just isolated cases? Even though pharmaceuticals are routinely tested on animals, the Journal of the American Medical Association reported that 100,000 people every year are killed by prescription drugs and more than 2 million are hospitalized as a result of prescription drugs. The British Medical Journal recently reported that 4 out of every 10 patients who take a prescribed drug can expect to suffer severe or noticeable side effects, while numerous clinical observers agree that the incidence of iatrogenesis (medically induced disease) is now so great that approximately 1 in every 10 hospital beds is occupied by a patient who has been made ill by their doctor.

What about all the important breakthroughs, as a result of animal research, that have aided human health? The animal research industry cites many examples of treatments or cures for illness that have been found using animals. They claim that if animal research is discontinued, it will be at the expense of human health and life. Industry groups, such as Americans for Medical Progress credit animal research with advances such as the development of the polio vaccine, anesthesia, and the discovery of insulin. But a close examination of medical history clearly disputes these claims.
There are no alternatives to animal experimentation, for one can only talk of alternatives if these replace something of the same worth; and there is nothing quite as useless, misleading and harmful as animal experimentation. -Prof. Pietro Croce, M.D.

Dr. Jonas Salk and Dr. Albert Sabin, are credited with the development of a vaccine to combat poliomyelitis (polio). Yet in the medical industry itself there remains a dispute as to the means by which the development of the polio vaccine occurred and whether or not the vaccine even played a major role in stopping the virus. Dr. John Enders, Dr. Thomas H. Weller, and Dr. Frederick C. Robbins won the Nobel Prize in 1954 for proving for the first time that it was possible to grow poliovirus in laboratory cultures of non-nervous-system human tissue. This team stopped just short of creating the polio vaccine that would be released to the public. Around the time Enders, Weller, and Robbins won the Nobel Prize, Sabin and Salk began using monkey kidney cells to produce their polio vaccines despite the existence of better alternatives. It was unknown at the time that viruses commonly found in monkey kidney cells are now known to cause cancer in humans.

The claim that the polio vaccine was developed through the use of animal experimentation is misleading. Furthermore, as far as the benefits are concerned, there is ample evidence demonstrating the harmful effects the polio vaccine has had on human health. Deborah Blum, in her 1984 book, The Monkey Wars, wrote, "In the late 1980s, scientists tracking the life histories of 59,000 pregnant women all vaccinated with Salk polio vaccine found that their offspring had a thirteen times higher rate of brain tumors than those who did not receive the vaccine." (pg. 229) Many historians believe that the decline in cases in polio, like many epidemics of the past, must be attributed to factors such as improved hygiene and not solely vaccination.

Surgical anesthesia was discovered in the mid nineteenth century when Crawford Williamson Long observed the effects of ether on humans during "ether parties", a popular form of entertainment involving ether inhalation. Long observed that while etherized, people appeared impervious to pain. He transformed this observation into a more practical use in surgery. The discovery of anesthesia, like many other medical discoveries, came from the critical observation of humans.

At one time, due to the animal research based conclusions of Claude Bernard, diabetes was believed to be cause by liver damage. However, Thomas Crawley, in 1788 established the relationship between pancreatic damage and diabetes by performing autopsies on diabetic cadavers. Later on, Dr. M. Barron came to the conclusion that damage to the Islets of Langerhans causes diabetes in humans after studying the human pancreas. He concluded that insulin could be derived from an extract of the Islets of Langerhans. Then in 1920, Frederick Banting, using this knowledge, created the first extract that contained insulin.
Indeed, while conflicting animal tests have often delayed and hampered advances on the war on cancer, they have never produced a single substantial advance either in the prevention or treatment of human cancer. -Dr. Irwin Bros, director of Roswell Park Memorial

Animal research is not aiding the fight against cancer. In fact, it is diverting resources from
effective research and from the most obvious solution which is prevention. According to the National Cancer Institute, 80% of all cancers are preventable. Clinical observation and epidemiological studies have shown us that high fat diets, smoking, environmental pollutants, and other lifestyle factors are the main causes of cancer.

Animals are not good models for human cancer for 2 fundamental reasons:

1. Animals and humans do not get the same diseases. As a result, animal research focuses on artificially inducing symptoms of human cancer and attempting to treat those symptoms.
2. Experimental drugs and treatments that have been found effective on animal models will not necessarily work in people.

Moneim A. Fadali, M.D., in his book, Animal Experimentation: A Harvest of Shame, reports:

"Despite screening over half a million compounds as anti-cancer agents on laboratory animals between 1970-1985, only 80 compounds moved into clinical trials on humans. Of these, a mere 24 had any anti-cancer activity and only 12 appeared to have a 'substantial clinical role.' Actually, these so-called 'new' active agents were not so new: they are analogs of chemotherapeutic agents already known to work in humans." (pg.25)

With billions of dollars, countless animals, and well over 30 years spent on the war on cancer, concrete results should have been seen if animal research was actually working. On the contrary, the incidence of cancer continues to rise.

The progress that has been made in the study of AIDS has come from human clinical investigation and in vitro (cell and tissue culture) research. Animal models continue to be used even though they do not develop the human AIDS virus. The development of life saving protease inhibitors was delayed by misleading monkey data. Referring to efforts to develop an AIDS vaccine, leading AIDS researcher Dr. Mark Feinberg stated: "What good does it do you to test something in a monkey? You find five or six years from now that it works in the monkey, and then you test it in humans and you realize that humans behave totally differently from monkeys, so you've wasted five years".

Clearly, if we are going to make medical progress, a new approach is needed. Human medicine can no longer be based on veterinary medicine. It is fraudulent and dangerous to apply data from one species to another. There are endless examples of the differences between humans and non-human animals.

* PCP is a sedative for chimps
* Penicillin kills cats and guinea pigs but has saved many human lives.
* Arsenic is not poisonous to rats, mice, or sheep.
* Morphine is a sedative for humans but is a stimulant for cats, goats, and horses.
* Digitalis while dangerously raising blood pressure in dogs continues to save countless cardiac patients by lowering heart rate.

The National Institutes of Health alone pours well over five billion dollars annually into superfluous
animal experimentation. Abolishing animal research will mean these resources could be redirected into prevention and the types of research which actually have a chance of advancing human medicine and human health.
Animal experiments confuse the issues and their results will never have scientific precision. There is absolutely no connection between vivisection and human health. The general belief in the value of animal experimentation is the result of brainwashing that the public has been submitted to for a long time. Behind it are the pharmaceutical industries, which spend fortunes on publicity and finance the research institutes and the universities. -Arie Brecher, M.D.

NO CURES IN 45 YEARS
SHUT DOWN THE OHSU/OREGON PRIMATE CENTER

www.ohsukillsprimates.com
COALITION TO ABOLISH ANIMAL TESTING (CAAT)

mail@caatinfo.org

P.O. BOX 6716, PORTLAND, OR 97228

(503) 972-CAAT

2010-05-06T20:01:00.000-07:00

Rules and Regulations

Federal Laws, Regulations and Guidelines Governing Biomedical Research Using Animals

When animals are used in biomedical research, the following laws, regulations and guidelines govern their care:

U.S. Government Principles for the Utilization and Care of Vertebrate Animals Used in Testing, Research and Training.

A set of principles that underlie current federal regulations was developed in 1984 by representatives from all federal agencies that use or fund biomedical research. These include requirements that:

* procedures involving animals be relevant to human or animal health
* the minimum number of animals be used to obtain valid results
* alternatives to animals be considered
* animal pain or distress be avoided or minimized
* living conditions for animals be appropriate for their species
* research scientists and those caring for the animals be properly trained and qualified

These requirements are sometimes summarized as the 3R's:

1. Reduction-using the minimum number of animals necessary.
2. Refinement-enhancing animal welfare and ensuring the best conditions possible.
3. Replacement-using other models when appropriate.

Animal Welfare Act (AWA)
The Animal Welfare Act sets federal standards for all aspects of care for laboratory animals. It was enacted into law in 1966 and has been amended by the U.S. Congress several times. The act applies to all public and private research facilities in this country.

USDA licensing, reporting and inspection requirements: All research facilities covered by the law must be registered with the USDA and comply with the USDA animal welfare regulations. Each facility must report to the USDA each year verifying compliance and indicating the number and species of animals used. The USDA is required to inspect each facility at least once a year, unannounced, to ensure compliance with these standards. More frequent unscheduled inspections are made if significant deficiencies are identified. If the USDA inspectors find violations of any part of the act, they will allow the facility a limited time to correct them. If the violations are not corrected, the USDA can fine the institution or close the facility.

Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee: The 1985 amendments to the AWA required all research facilities using animals to establish an Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC). The committee ensures that applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations are met, reviews and approves procedures involving animals before they take place, and inspects facilities twice a year for compliance with the AWA.

IACUC.org, a resource page for IACUCs, provides a wealth of information about these important committees.

The 1996 edition of National Institutes of Health publication, Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals provides further information about the committee and its role.

Our Ohio affiliate, OSERA, provides additional information about IACUCs, including an interview with a member.

The Purpose, Procedures, and Operations Manual from the IACUC at the University of Washington is provided as an example.

Health Research Extension Act.
This 1985 federal law applies to facilities that receive funding to do research from the federal government, in contrast to the Animal Welfare Act, which applies to all facilities regardless of the source of funds. The legal and regulatory requirements of the act are very similar to those of the Animal Welfare Act, and they apply to all research supported by the U.S. Public Health Service (PHS) involving vertebrate animals, including rats, mice and birds. The PHS includes the National Institutes of Health, the Food and Drug Administration, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. PHS grants or contracts can be suspended or revoked for non-compliance with this law.

Voluntary Professional Standards. Research animals are well cared for, under the supervision of specialized veterinarians. Since 1965, the scientific community has sponsored an independent, peer review accreditation program under the auspices of the American Association for Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care (AAALAC). Visit their web site for a free copy of the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals. AAALAC promotes the highest standards of animal care and use through a program of periodic inspection of research facilities that exceeds existing laws and regulations. AAALAC accreditation is considered to be the research community equivalent of the "Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval."

Federal Requirements for Animal Testing. Several federal laws require that the public be protected from hazardous products. The federal regulations that implement these laws require animal testing. There are four main federal agencies involved in administering these regulations:

Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The FDA is responsible for administering statutes regulating human and animal food and drugs, medical devices, biological products, cosmetics, color additives and radiological products. The FDA requires that laboratory animal tests be conducted for prescription and over-the-counter drugs before these products can be tested in humans.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The EPA uses data derived from animal tests and other sources to identify and regulate substances in the environment, such as air or water pollutants and wastes that might be hazardous to humans and animals.

Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). The CPSC relies on animal data in identifying and regulating risks to consumers from household and other products.

Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). OSHA uses data from animal tests and other sources to set regulations that protect workers in the workplace.

Some information in this section was adapted with permission from the North Carolina Association for Biomedical research (NCABR).

2010-05-06T19:58:00.002-07:00

PHARMACEUTICALS
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ABOUT U.S. ANIMAL TESTING OF
What substances are considered to be pharmaceuticals?
The term “pharmaceuticals” refers to medicinal products such as generic, over-the-counter, and
prescription drugs.
Who regulates pharmaceuticals in the U.S. and under what laws?
Responsibility for the regulation of human pharmaceuticals lies with the Center for Drug Evaluation
and Research at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), while the FDA Center for Veterinary
Medicine is charged with oversight of veterinary pharmaceuticals. FDA’s statutory authority is rooted
in the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act.1
What animal tests are carried out on pharmaceuticals?
“Preclinical” testing in animals is a longstanding requirement for all human and veterinary medicinal
products. U.S. testing requirements for human2-3 and veterinary pharmaceuticals4 have largely been
harmonized with those of other major markets (i.e., the Europe and Japan) under the auspices of the
International Conference on Harmonization of Technical Requirements for Registration of
Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH) and the International Co-operation on Harmonization of
Technical Requirements for Registration of Veterinary Products (VICH), respectively. Both entities
publish guidelines specifying trilaterally agreed-upon methods for assessing safety, effectiveness and
quality of pharmaceutical products. ICH guidelines call for a wide array of pre-clinical (animal)
studies, followed by several phases of human clinical studies, before a new drug is deemed safe for
marketing.5 VICH guidelines likewise prescribe a significant battery of conventional toxicology
studies, but also provide for evaluations of target animal and environmental safety, since a major use
of veterinary drugs is in farm animals.6
Animal tests common to both ICH and VICH schemes include the following:7
 Absorption, distribution, metabolism and elimination studies in rodents and/or other species
 3 month repeated-dose general toxicity studies in rodents, dogs, and sometimes primates
 12-24 month repeated-dose general toxicity studies in rodents, dogs, and sometimes primates
 Lifetime (18-24 month) cancer studies in rats and mice (ICH allows for the substitution of
the 18-month mouse study with a shorter test in transgenic mice)
 Genetic toxicity studies of at least 2 varieties
1 http://www.fda.gov/opacom/laws/fdcact/fdctoc.htm
2 http://www.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/cfrassemble.cgi?title=200321
3 http://www.fda.gov/cder/guidance/index.htm
4 http://www.fda/gov/cvm/Guidance/published.htm
5 http://www.ich.org/cache/html/250-272-1.html
6 http://www.vichsec.org/en/guidelines2.htm
7 http://www.hsus.org/animals_in_research/animal_testing/toxicity_testing_overview.html
HSUS / HSLF Fact Sheet 2
 Reproductive toxicity study in at least 2 generations of rodents (ICH allows for this to be
broken into separate adult fertility and post-natal segments in the context of a 1-generation
study design)
 Pre-natal developmental toxicity in rodents and rabbits
 Immunotoxicity in rodents
In addition to the “core battery” above, national regulators and quality-control bodies known as
Pharmacopoeias impose additional testing requirements on a case-by-case basis. For example,
medicated skin creams are often tested in the presence of UV light to be sure they do not foster
sunlight-induced “photo”-toxicity, while drugs administered intravenously must be specially tested to
ensure that they are not contaminated with fever-causing “pyrogens.”
How many animals may be used in pharmaceutical testing?
Some of the tests above consume hundreds or thousands of animals per study, and such testing is
typically required for both the active medicinal ingredient(s) as well as each formulated
pharmaceutical product (and sometimes for each new batch of a product). Unfortunately, laboratorybred
rats and mice and non-mammalian species are not covered under the U.S. Animal Welfare Act
standards for animals used in experiments, and as such, statistics concerning their use are not
recorded or made publicly available.8 However, according to European statistics for 2005, the
“production and quality control of products for human medicine and dentistry and for veterinary
medicine” consumed approximately 15.3% of all animals used for all experimental purposes that
year.9
Are animal tests accurate predictors of pharmaceutical risks to people?
Not necessarily, as catastrophic drug failure—such as the recent TGN 1412 incident in the United
Kingdom—have revealed.10 In fact, the World Health Organization reports that in some countries,
adverse drug reactions are responsible for upwards of 10% of all hospital admissions.11 And
according to the US FDA, “a new medicinal compound entering Phase 1 testing [in humans], often
representing the culmination of upwards of a decade of preclinical screening and evaluation, is
estimated to have only an 8 percent chance of reaching the market” because animal studies so often
“fail to predict the specific safety problem that ultimately halts development.”12
What are some practical alternatives to animal testing?
A number of in vitro and other alternative methods germane to pharmaceutical safety and quality
assessment have been endorsed as scientifically valid by the European Centre for the Validation of
Alternative Methods (ECVAM) and its counterparts worldwide for endpoints including skin and eye
irritation, sunlight-induced “photo”-toxicity, genetic toxicity, fever-inducing “pyrogenicity,” toxicity
to the developing embryo, and toxicity to the blood.13
In addition, an expert group comprised of 15 international pharmaceutical companies and contract
testing facilities, together with the UK National Centre for the 3Rs, has recently concluded that “the
information obtained from conventional acute toxicity studies is of little or no value in the
pharmaceutical development process,” and has recommended that single-dose acute systemic toxicity
studies be dropped from ICH and related national guidelines for human pharmaceuticals.14
8 http://www.nal.usda.gov/awic/legislat/awa.htm
9 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/chemicals/lab_animals/pdf/staff_work_doc_sec1455.pdf
10 http://www.hsus.org/animals_in_research/animal_testing/limitations-of-animal-methods.html
11 http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs293/en/index.html
12 http://www.fda.gov/oc/initiatives/criticalpath/whitepaper.html
13 http://www.hsus.org/animals_in_research/animal_testing/alternatives.html
14 http://www.nc3rs.org.uk/news.asp?id=512
HSUS / HSLF Fact Sheet 3
Another innovative technique with the potential to not only reduce animal use, but also to obtain
much more relevant and meaningful scientific information, is called microdosing.15 By administering
a very small dose of a candidate drug to healthy human volunteers, important human-specific
information can be obtained, without the uncertainties associated with extrapolating test results from
one species to another.
What is the Humane Society doing to help animals used in pharmaceutical
testing?
The Humane Society of the United States and Humane Society Legislative Fund are actively working
to end animal testing—permanently. We are working to promote greater reliance on available nonanimal
testing methods, and are actively supporting the vision of “twenty-first century toxicology”
articulated by the U.S. National Research Council, which would see animal tests that are decades old,
costly, slow and of dubious relevance to people replaced by ultra-modern, efficient and humanrelevant
non-animal methods.16 We are calling for a “big biology” project to meet this challenge, akin
to the Human Genome Project of the 1990s, and are forging an international, multi-stakeholder
consortium to help make this landmark vision a reality as quickly as possible.
  
The Humane Society of the United States is the nation’s largest animal protection organization—backed by more than
10.5 million Americans. For over 50 years, HSUS has worked to reduce suffering and to create meaningful change for
animals in laboratories through public education, scientific outreach, legislative advocacy, and strategic partnerships.
Online at HSUS.org/research
The Humane Society Legislative Fund is a social welfare organization incorporated as a separate lobbying affiliate of
the HSUS. HSLF works to pass animal protection laws at the state and federal level, to educate the public about
animal protection issues, and to support humane candidates for office.
Online at HSLF.org
15 http://www.emea.europa.eu/pdfs/human/swp/259902en.pdf
16 http://www.hsus.org/animals_in_research/animal_testing/hsus-projects/human_toxicology_initiative.html

2010-05-06T19:58:00.000-07:00

ENDOCRINE DISRUPTORS
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ABOUT U.S. ANIMAL TESTING OF
What does the term “endocrine disruption” mean?
Endocrine disruption refers to harmful effects on reproduction, development and/or health in
general resulting from chemically-induced interactions with the body’s hormone system. Since the
1962 publication of Silent Spring, there has been concern that chemicals in the environment could be
harmful to both wildlife populations and human health. The term “endocrine disrupter” was coined
in 1991 by former World Wildlife Fund scientist Theo Colborn, who reported that some
environmental chemicals can disrupt the body’s hormone system, and that effects of exposure during
development can be permanent and severe.
What kinds of substances have been identified as suspected endocrine
disruptors?
A range of synthetic as well as naturally occurring agents have been identified as potential endocrine
disrupters, including synthetic hormones, pesticides, compounds used in the plastics industry and in
consumer products, industrial by-products and pollutants, and even some naturally occurring
substances in plants.
What is the U.S. doing to address endocrine disruptor concerns?
In 1996, the U.S. Congress enacted the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA),1 which introduced a
number of significant amendments to both the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act and Safe
Drinking Water Act, including a requirement that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
“develop a screening program, using appropriate validated test systems and other scientifically
relevant information, to determine whether certain substances may have an effect in humans that is
similar to an effect produced by a naturally occurring estrogen, or such other endocrine effect as
[EPA] may designate.” Congress further directed that EPA “shall provide for the testing of all
pesticide chemicals” and “may provide for the testing of any other substance that may have an effect
that is cumulative to an effect of a pesticide chemical if [EPA] determines that a substantial
population may be exposed to such substance.” In practical terms, this Congressional mandate will
lead to substantial additional testing of nearly 5,000 pesticide active and other ingredients, and
possibly thousands of other high production volume chemicals and environmental contaminants.
How has EPA responded to this mandate?
Responsibility for developing a “toolbox” of validated screens and tests for the emerging testing
program has been delegated to the EPA’s Office of Science Coordination and Policy. EPA began by
establishing a multi-stakeholder Endocrine Disruptor Screening and Testing Advisory Committee
(EDSTAC) to provide the Agency with recommendations regarding:
 “Methods for chemical selection and priorities for screening”
 “A set of available, validated screening assays for early application”
1 http://www.fda.gov/opacom/laws/foodqual/fqpatoc.htm
HSUS / HSLF Fact Sheet 2
 “Ways to identify new and existing screening assays and mechanisms for their validation”
 “Processes and criteria for deciding when additional tests beyond screening would be needed
and how to validate such tests.”
In its final report to EPA in September 1998, 2 EDSTAC called for the scope of the so-called
Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP)3 to be significantly expanded to encompass
chemical interactions with two or more additional endocrine hormones (androgen and thyroid, as
well as estrogen) in not only humans, but also in birds, fish, amphibians and invertebrates.
EDSTAC proposed a tiered testing framework to accommodate substances with differing amounts
of available data:
 Tier 1 would consist of a battery of relatively rapid, inexpensive, and largely mechanistic
screening assays, designed to detect chemical interactions with estrogen, androgen and
thyroid hormones in mammalian, amphibian and fish species
 In Tier 2, substances which appear, on weight-of-evidence, to be endocrine-active may then
be subject to multigenerational reproductive toxicity studies in up to five different
taxonomic groups.
Using the EDSTAC report as a road map, EPA established a Standardization and Validation Task
Force (which was later replaced by two similar committees4) to provide advice concerning the
scientific and technical work necessary to validate the recommended screens and tests. EPA has also
been working with other national governments through the Organization for Economic Cooperation
and Development (OECD) to validate endocrine screens and tests of international interest.5
What tests are being developed to identify endocrine disrupting substances?
Screens to detect chemical interactions with estrogen, androgen and/or thyroid hormones include the
following:
 Uterotrophic assay in rats or mice
 Hershberger assay in rats or mice
 Enhanced 28-day repeated dose toxicity study in rats
 Female and male pubertal assays in rats
 Intact male rat assay
 Amphibian metamorphosis assay
 Fish reproduction screen
 In vitro receptor-binding assays
 In vitro transcriptional/reporter gene activation assays
 In vitro steroidogenesis assays
 In vitro aromatase assays
Tests thought to provide more-definitive proof of harm to human and/or ecological health include
the following:
 2-generation reproduction study in rats
 2-generation reproduction study in birds
 2-generation reproduction study in frogs
 Fish full life-cycle test
 Mysid shrimp full life-cycle test
2 http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/oscpendo/pubs/edspoverview/finalrpt.htm
3 http://www.oecd.org/document/62/0,3343,en_2649_34377_2348606_1_1_1_1,00.html
4 http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/oscpendo/pubs/assayvalidation/edmvac.htm
5 http://www.oecd.org/document/62/0,3343,en_2649_34377_2348606_1_1_1_1,00.html
HSUS / HSLF Fact Sheet 3
How many animals are used in these screens and tests?
Tier 1 screening methods each consume between 20 and 80 animals6 (except for the in vitro methods,
which do not consume any animals), while Tier 2 reproduction/lifecycle tests each consume between
2,600 and 5,500 animals per chemical tested. It is estimated that for every chemical evaluated in
EPA’s Tier 1 battery, in excess of 360 animals will be consumed. Thus, to screen each of the roughly
5,000 pesticide chemicals as the FQPA requires would consume approximately 1.8 million animals.
Millions more could be consumed in follow-up Tier 2 testing of chemicals that yielded positive
results in Tier 1.
Won’t some of these tests already have been conducted on pesticides and
chemicals?
Yes. For most pesticide active ingredients, reproductive toxicity studies on rats, birds and
invertebrates, and lifecycle studies in fish, will already have been conducted, together with dozens of
other tests to characterize the substance’s potential toxicity.7 Thus, if a pesticide has already been
deemed safe on the basis of studies that are substantially equivalent to EDSP Tier 2 “definitive” tests
for endocrine disruption, it is highly doubtful that the results of Tier 1 screens (e.g., evidence of
binding to the estrogen receptor) or duplicate Tier 2 tests would lead to any change in the way a
pesticide or other substance is regulated.
Are animal tests accurate predictors of endocrine disrupting hazard to
people?
Not necessarily.8 A 2003 white paper commissioned by EPA documented that chemical effects on
the endocrine system can differ dramatically not only between animal species, but also between
strains of the same species.9 This raises serious doubt concerning the human relevance of test results
from rats or mice. Equally troubling are questions that have been raised as to whether OECD-run
studies to validate one or more animal tests has complied with the internationally agreed standards.10
What are some practical alternatives to animal testing?
A number of the screens that have been developed for use under the EDSP are in vitro (i.e., cell lines
and cellular components, such as isolated estrogen and androgen receptors), and could therefore
replace or reduce animal use in some cases if conducted as part of a “tiered” testing strategy (i.e., if
animal testing were undertaken only as a last resort). However, this is unlikely to be the case under
the EPA’s currently proposed “battery” approach, according to which all Tier 1 screens (animal and
non-animal) would be performed concurrently, thereby precluding any potential reduction in animal
use.
What is the status of testing under EPA’s EDSP?
In June 2007, EPA published a draft list of 73 chemicals to be subject to initial screening under the
EDSP, noting that “[t]he Tier 1 screening battery is expected to complete peer review and be ready
for use in early 2008.” Program implementation beyond this pilot phase (i.e., “the testing of all
pesticide chemicals,” per FQPA) will be left to the discretion of EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs.
6 This estimate does not include the 270 or more mother rats and “surplus” offspring produced in for each pubertal assay,
nor the hundreds of eggs produced in the fish reproduction screens.
7 http://www.hsus.org/web-files/PDF/ARI/pesticides.pdf
8 http://www.hsus.org/animals_in_research/animal_testing/limitations-of-animal-methods.html
9 http://www.stopanimaltests.com/pdf/strain.slides.pdf
10 http://ecvam.jrc.it/publication/Esac%20statement%20on%20uterotrophic%20assay2.doc
HSUS / HSLF Fact Sheet 4
What is the Humane Society doing to help animals used in testing?
The Humane Society of the United States and Humane Society Legislative Fund are actively working
to end animal testing—permanently. We are working to promote greater reliance on available nonanimal
testing methods, and are actively supporting the vision of “twenty-first century toxicology”
articulated by the U.S. National Research Council, which would see animal tests that are decades old,
costly, slow and of dubious relevance to people replaced by ultra-modern, efficient and humanrelevant
non-animal methods.11 We are calling for a “big biology” project to meet this challenge, akin
to the Human Genome Project of the 1990s, and are forging an international, multi-stakeholder
consortium make this landmark vision a reality as quickly as possible.
  
The Humane Society of the United States is the nation’s largest animal protection organization—backed by more than
10.5 million Americans. For over 50 years, HSUS has worked to reduce suffering and to create meaningful change for
animals in laboratories through public education, scientific outreach, legislative advocacy, and strategic partnerships.
Online at HSUS.org/research
The Humane Society Legislative Fund is a social welfare organization incorporated as a separate lobbying affiliate of
the HSUS. HSLF works to pass animal protection laws at the state and federal level, to educate the public about
animal protection issues, and to support humane candidates for office.
Online at HSLF.org
11 http://www.hsus.org/animals_in_research/animal_testing/hsus-projects/human_toxicology_initiative.html

2010-05-06T19:56:00.000-07:00

VACCINES
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ABOUT U.S. ANIMAL TESTING OF
What are vaccines?
Vaccines are a type of “biological” medicinal product—derived from living organisms—that are used
to prevent or treat certain types of infectious or other diseases. Conventional vaccines are produced
from dead or inactivated organisms (e.g., viruses) or toxic compounds, or purified products derived
from them. However, more recently, several new types of vaccines have also been developed (e.g.,
recombinant, conjugate and DNA vaccination).
Who regulates vaccines in the U.S. and under what laws?
Vaccines intended for human use are regulated by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Center
for Biologics Evaluation and Research under the authority of the Public Health Service Act,1 whereas
vaccines intended for use in other animals (e.g., pets and farm) are regulated by the Department of
Agriculture (USDA) Center for Veterinary Biologics under the authority of the Virus Serum Toxin
Act.2
What animal tests are carried out on vaccines?
“Preclinical” testing in animals is a longstanding requirement for all human and veterinary medicinal
products, including vaccines. Specifically, vaccine manufacturers are legally required demonstrate that
their products possess the following characteristics:
 Purity, meaning that it is not contaminated with viable bacteria, viruses or fungi
 Safety, meaning that it is not dangerous or harmful (which is usually determined by means of
“abnormal toxicity” or similar studies, in which groups of animals are injected with a vaccine
and monitored for clinical signs of toxicity)
 Potency, meaning that it is effective in preventing infection (which is usually determined by
means of a “challenge study,” in which groups of animals are first inoculated with a vaccine
and are then exposed to a virulent strain(s) of the organism against which the vaccine is
intended to protect.; animals are then monitored for clinical signs of the infectious disease in
question, which may involve considerable pain, suffering, and ultimately, death).
A further pre-marketing requirement for both human and veterinary vaccines is a series of clinical
trials in humans or “target” animals to demonstrate safety and effectiveness in the species of ultimate
interest. Even after a vaccine has been fully tested and licensed, it is common for manufacturers to
conduct additional animal testing of each individual batch of a vaccine, or for an agency to request
samples of each vaccine lot to undertake such testing independently.3
1 http://www.fda.gov/opacom/laws/phsvcact/sec262.htm
2 http://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_health/vet_biologics/publications/VSTA.pdf
3 http://www.fda.gov/cber/vaccine/vacappr.htm
HSUS / HSLF Fact Sheet 2
How many animals may be used in vaccine testing?
Unfortunately, laboratory-bred rats and mice and non-mammalian species are not covered under the
U.S. Animal Welfare Act standards for animals used in experiments, and as such, statistics
concerning their use are not recorded or made publicly available.4 However, according to European
statistics for 2005, the “production and quality control of products for human medicine and dentistry
and for veterinary medicine” consumed approximately 15.3% of all animals used for all experimental
purposes that year.5
Are animal tests accurate predictors of chemical risks to people?
Not necessarily. In fact, some vaccines have been causally linked to severe adverse reactions in
humans (e.g., anaphylactic shock brought on by hepatitis B vaccine; poliomyelitis in a contact of
someone who received the oral polio vaccine; arthritis in recipients of the rubella vaccine; death in
some recipients of the measles vaccine).6 According to FDA, “a new medicinal compound entering
Phase 1 testing [in humans], often representing the culmination of upwards of a decade of preclinical
screening and evaluation, is estimated to have only an 8 percent chance of reaching the market”
because animal studies so often “fail to predict the specific safety problem that ultimately halts
development.”7
What are some practical alternatives to animal testing?
Relevant alternative methods validated to date include “ELISA” batch potency tests for erysipelas
and human tetanus vaccines, as well as a “toxin binding inhibition test” for human tetanus vaccine.
The European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods has also issued a statement calling
for an end to target animal studies for batch safety testing of veterinary vaccines.8
What is the Humane Society doing to help animals used in testing?
The Humane Society of the United States and Humane Society Legislative Fund are actively working
to end animal testing—permanently. We are working to promote greater reliance on available nonanimal
testing methods, and are actively supporting the vision of “twenty-first century toxicology”
articulated by the U.S. National Research Council, which would see animal tests that are decades old,
costly, slow and of dubious relevance to people replaced by ultra-modern, efficient and humanrelevant
non-animal methods.9 We are calling for a “big biology” project to meet this challenge, akin
to the Human Genome Project of the 1990s, and are forging an international, multi-stakeholder
consortium to help make this landmark vision a reality as quickly as possible.
The Humane Society of the United States is the nation’s largest animal protection organization—backed by more than
10.5 million Americans. For over 50 years, HSUS has worked to reduce suffering and to create meaningful change for
animals in laboratories through public education, scientific outreach, legislative advocacy, and strategic partnerships.
Online at HSUS.org/research
The Humane Society Legislative Fund is a social welfare organization incorporated as a separate lobbying affiliate of
the HSUS. HSLF works to pass animal protection laws at the state and federal level, to educate the public about
animal protection issues, and to support humane candidates for office.
Online at HSLF.org
4 http://www.nal.usda.gov/awic/legislat/awa.htm
5 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/chemicals/lab_animals/pdf/staff_work_doc_sec1455.pdf
6 http://medsafe.govt.nz/Profs/PUarticles/vaccine.htm
7 http://www.fda.gov/oc/initiatives/criticalpath/whitepaper.html
8 http://ecvam.jrc.it/publication/TargetAnimalSafetyT_statement.PDF
9 http://www.hsus.org/animals_in_research/animal_testing/hsus-projects/human_toxicology_initiative.html

2010-05-06T19:55:00.001-07:00

FOOD ADDITIVES
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ABOUT U.S. ANIMAL TESTING OF
What substances are considered to be food additives?
Food additives include any substance added to food or used in the production, processing, treatment,
packaging, transportation or storage of food. Examples include natural or artificial flavorings to
improve or enhance a food’s taste, as well as other chemical additives to alter the food’s appearance
or texture, delay spoiling, and/or prevent the growth of harmful bacteria.
Who regulates food additives in the U.S. and under what laws?
Responsibility for the regulation of food additives lies with the Center for Food Safety and Applied
Nutrition at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) pursuant to the Federal Food, Drug and
Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).1 FFDCA requires that manufacturers and packagers of processed foods
demonstrate the safety (i.e., "reasonable certainty of no harm") of all chemical additives and/or other
materials that come into contact with food prior to marketing.
What animal tests are carried out on food additives?
FDA guidance for the toxicological assessment of food ingredients (also referred to as the Redbook)2
prescribes often extensive toxicological testing based on "concern levels" as determined by chemical
structure and cumulative human exposure. Commonly required study types3 include the following:
 Acute systemic toxicity in rodents
 Repeated dose (1, 3 and/or 24 month) oral toxicity studies in rodents and/or dogs
 Genetic toxicity in vitro and/or in rodents
 Carcinogenicity (including possible in utero exposure phase) in rats and/or mice
 Reproductive toxicity in at least 2 generations of rodents
 Developmental toxicity in rats and/or rabbits
 Neurotoxicity in rodents
 Immunotoxicity in rodents
 Toxicokinetics in rodents
 Human clinical and/or epidemiology
Exceptions to the above testing requirements are provided under a 1958 amendment to the FFDCA
for two broad groups of substances:
 Substances that FDA or the U.S. Department of Agriculture had determined safe for use in
food prior to 1958
 Ingredients “generally recognized as safe” based on a long history of use and/or published
scientific evidence.4
1 http://www.fda.gov/opacom/laws/fdcact/fdctoc.htm
2 http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~redbook/red-toca.html
3 http://www.hsus.org/animals_in_research/animal_testing/toxicity_testing_overview.html
4 http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/opa-noti.html
HSUS / HSLF Fact Sheet 2
How many animals may be used in the testing of food additives?
Some of the tests above consume hundreds or thousands of animals per study. Unfortunately,
laboratory-bred rats and mice and non-mammalian species are not covered under the U.S. Animal
Welfare Act standards for animals used in experiments, and as such, statistics concerning their use
are not recorded or made publicly available.5 However, according to European statistics for 2005, the
testing of food additives consumed approximately 3.7% of all animals used in toxicological and other
safety evaluations that year.6
Are animal tests accurate predictors of risks to people from food additives?
Not necessarily. Animal tests may under- or over-estimate human health hazards. For example,
studies of acute lethality and birth defects in rats have been shown to be poor predictors of such
effects in mice and rabbits—let alone the real-world health risks for people. The same is true for
rodent cancer studies and other types of animal tests. For example, both rat and rabbit tests failed to
predict the developmental hazards of PCBs, industrial solvents, and many drugs, while cancer tests in
rats and mice failed to detect the hazards of asbestos, benzene, cigarette smoke, and many other
substances—delaying consumer and worker protection measures by decades in some cases.7
What are some practical alternatives to animal testing?
A number of in vitro and other alternative methods germane to food additive safety assessment have
been endorsed as scientifically valid by the European Centre for the Validation of Alternative
Methods and its counterparts worldwide.8 These include rapid non-animal genetic toxicity tests,
animal reduction measures for acute systemic toxicity, and a cell-based screening test for toxicity to
the developing embryo.9 In addition, an independent scientific expert group10 has recommended the
deletion of certain longstanding testing requirements (e.g., 1-year dog studies and mouse
carcinogenicity studies, which would save more than 400 animals per food additive), and the
significant scaling back of other standard tests (e.g., evaluating reproductive toxicity using one, rather
than two, generations of offspring, which would save an additional 1,200 or more animals per test).
What is the Humane Society doing to help animals used in food additives
testing?
The Humane Society of the United States and Humane Society Legislative Fund are actively working
to end animal testing—permanently. We are working to promote greater reliance on available nonanimal
testing methods, and are actively supporting the vision of “twenty-first century toxicology”
articulated by the U.S. National Research Council, which would see animal tests that are decades old,
costly, slow and of dubious relevance to people replaced by ultra-modern, efficient and humanrelevant
non-animal methods.11 We are calling for a “big biology” project to meet this challenge, akin
to the Human Genome Project of the 1990s, and are forging an international, multi-stakeholder
consortium to help make this landmark vision a reality as quickly as possible.
5 http://www.nal.usda.gov/awic/legislat/awa.htm
6 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/chemicals/lab_animals/pdf/staff_work_doc_sec1455.pdf
7 http://www.hsus.org/animals_in_research/animal_testing/limitations-of-animal-methods.html
8 http://ecvam.jrc.it/f_home.cfm?voce=m&idvoce=3
9 http://www.hsus.org/animals_in_research/animal_testing/alternatives.html
10 http://www.hesiglobal.org/Committees/TechnicalCommittees/ACSA
11 http://www.hsus.org/animals_in_research/animal_testing/hsus-projects/human_toxicology_initiative.html
HSUS / HSLF Fact Sheet 3
  
The Humane Society of the United States is the nation’s largest animal protection organization—backed by more than
10.5 million Americans. For over 50 years, HSUS has worked to reduce suffering and to create meaningful change for
animals in laboratories through public education, scientific outreach, legislative advocacy, and strategic partnerships.
Online at HSUS.org/research
The Humane Society Legislative Fund is a social welfare organization incorporated as a separate lobbying affiliate of
the HSUS. HSLF works to pass animal protection laws at the state and federal level, to educate the public about
animal protection issues, and to support humane candidates for office.
Online at HSLF.org

2010-05-06T19:53:00.001-07:00

A large number of laws and regulations have been enacted to control the marketing of drugs, cosmetics, pesticides, food additives, and other products that could prove to be hazardous to human health and/or the environment. Such regulations often prescribe a specific regime of laboratory testing to generate information that will enable government regulators to determine whether the benefits of a particular substance outweigh its potential harms.

Government statistics, where available, indicate that product testing accounts for approximately 10 percent of all animal use for scientific purposes, which amounts to many millions of animals per year worldwide. Such testing calls into question the ethics and humaneness of deliberately poisoning animals (sometimes to death), the appropriateness of harming animals for the sake of marketing a new brand of mascara or moisturizer, the applicability of animal data to humans, and the possibility of sparing millions of animals by developing alternatives to a handful of widely used procedures.

The HSUS considers animal-based toxicity studies to be an ethically and scientifically questionable means of evaluating potential hazards to human beings, wildlife, or the environment we all share. We are working on a national and global level to promote greater reliance on available alternative testing methods, and are actively supporting a landmark call by the US National Research Council for fundamental changes to the way product testing is conducted—to move from animal tests that are decades old, costly, slow and of dubious relevance to people, to ultra-modern, efficient and human-relevant non-animal methods.

Visit the Humane Society International (HSI) website to learn more about animals used in experiments internationally.

Animal Testing: The Beginning of the End?

The quiet evolution of alternatives to animal testing may turn into a fast-paced revolution in testing methods. And the driving force is coming from an unlikely source—the United States, which to date has largely reacted to developments in Europe. more

Current HSUS Projects

The Humane Society's campaign to end animal testing combines political and grassroots advocacy, corporate outreach, and a strong science foundation to encourage government regulators and corporations to become more accepting of new technologies and alternatives to animal use. more

Information on Test Methods

A toxicity test is designed to generate data concerning the harmful effects of a substance on human health or the environment. more

Limitations of Animal Methods

Experiments on animals are predicated on the assumption that what is true for one animal species is most likely also true for others, including humans. Yet catastrophic drug failures, such as the TGN 1412 incident, provide a sobering reminder that animal "models" often do not correctly predict real-world consequences for people. more

Non-Animal Testing Methods

The term "alternative" in the context of animal testing is used to describe any change from present procedures that will result in the replacement of animals, a reduction in the numbers used, or a refinement of techniques to alleviate or minimize potential pain, distress and/or suffering. more

Progress

For more than a half-century, the Humane Society of the United States has worked to reduce suffering and to create meaningful change for animals in laboratories through public education, scientific outreach, legislative advocacy, and strategic partnerships. more

Resources: Scientific Publications

Humane Society scientists and policy leaders regularly contribute to the academic debate surrounding the use of animals in research and testing. more

Testing Fact Sheets

The HSUS has provided a list of factsheets on the testing of chemicals, cosmetics, endocrine disruptors, food additives, nanomaterials, pesticides, pharmaceuticals and vaccines in the United States. more

Animal Testing

2010-05-06T19:52:00.001-07:00

Animal testing (also known as vivisection) elicits strong opinions from both those for and those against the practice. Its role in developing HIV treatments and AIDS vaccines is no less controversial.

Developing therapeutic and diagnostic products for use in humans is a long and complex process. With HIV infection, the search for effective drugs and vaccines has proven particularly difficult, as HIV is exceptionally good at changing its structure and evading destruction. In an ideal world, scientists would be able to test thousands of different compounds on human participants to see if any cured, treated or vaccinated them against HIV. However, to do this would be both highly time consuming and dangerous, as most compounds would not be effective, and some might cause illness or even death.

Researchers therefore often use animals to help them test the efficacy of drugs and vaccines, and to make sure that these products are safe. There are of course many ethical implications to animal experimentation, and many people are strongly opposed to the use of animals in any sort of experiment or study that may cause them distress or harm. So is it really necessary to use animals in the production of HIV drugs and vaccines? And are there any alternatives to animal testing?
Why are tests performed on animals?

There are three reasons why animals may be used in scientific experimentation. The first is to ensure the safety of new drugs and other pharmaceutical products. The second is to see whether such products might be effective in humans. The third is for general research into the biology of an animal, or the function and action of certain diseases within its body.
Safety trials

In many countries it is a legal requirement that all drugs and vaccines (not just for HIV) are tested on animals to ensure safety. In the United Kingdom for example, the Medicines Act of 1968 1 states that all new pharmaceutical products must be tested on at least two different species of live mammal, one of which must be a large non-rodent. This legislation was introduced shortly after the discovery that the drug Thalidomide could cause serious physical deformities in babies born to mothers who had taken it during pregnancy. Thalidomide was not thoroughly tested on animals (particularly pregnant animals) before it was prescribed to women, and this case is the root of many countries’ animal testing safety laws today.
Thousands of mice and other small rodents are used in animal experiments every year

Thousands of mice and other small rodents are used in animal experiments
every year

Animal safety tests usually come at the end of a long process of safety data collection that may include testing the product ‘in vitro’ (i.e. in a test-tube) and using a computer program to simulate what might happen to the drug inside the body. The regulations on what safety data is required for a new product vary from country to country (and also from drug to drug), but most drug authorities require all three types of data - animal, in vitro and computer- generated - for trials to be allowed to continue.

All this means that at some point, all ‘antiretroviral’ (anti-AIDS) drugs will have been tested on animals for safety.

There is an argument however that animals are actually fairly poor substitutes for humans and that some compounds that may well cause no harm to a mouse, could kill a human being. This is particularly the case for drugs that interact with the complex human immune system, such as the anti-inflammatory drug that caused major organ failure in six men involved in a trial at Northwick Park Hospital in London, England in 2006. However, such occurrences are rare.
Efficacy trials

While all drugs and vaccines have to be tested on animals to establish their safety, testing them to establish their effectiveness is a different matter.

HIV is a retrovirus specific to humans (hence the name ‘Human Immunodeficiency Virus’), which means it is not naturally found in any other animal. Some African primates, such as chimpanzees and a few species of monkey, are naturally infected with SIV (Simian Immunodeficiency Virus), which is believed to be the virus from which HIV originated. Chimpanzees can also be artificially infected with HIV in a laboratory. However most monkeys and chimpanzees have very efficient immune responses to SIV (and HIV), and do not develop AIDS, even after many years of infection. This can make it very difficult to assess whether a drug or vaccine actually works, so primates are not used as widely as human substitutes as they once were.

This said, there is one primate still commonly used to conduct efficacy testing: the Rhesus macaque monkey. Because Rhesus macaques originate from Asia, rather than Africa, they have never been exposed to SIV, and thus have no natural immune responses to it. A Rhesus macaque that is infected with SIV will therefore develop AIDS type illnesses in a relatively short time 2.

For this reason (and because they are not an endangered species like some other Asian primates), macaques are often used in HIV research. A few HIV drugs, such as AZT and tenofovir (see our Introduction to Antiretroviral Treatment page for more information about these), have been tested on macaques for efficacy, though stricter rules on the use of primates in animal testing, and greater knowledge of HIV, mean that more modern antiretrovirals are generally only tested on animals for safety reasons.

Vaccine development on the other hand makes extensive use of primates. Because it could be seen as unethical to give a healthy human a vaccine, and then expose them to HIV to see if the vaccine works (if it doesn’t, they’ll end up with HIV), animals can be used as substitutes to establish whether a vaccine is effective or not. This method can also be used to test the usefulness of current AIDS drugs (such as tenofovir) in preventing HIV infection. Such work of course raises significant questions over whether it is any more ethical to give a monkey HIV than a human, when it too may become sick with AIDS and die.

A fundamental problem with using macaques in vaccine research has been that they have different immune systems to humans. This means they cannot be infected with HIV-1 (although they are susceptible to certain strains of HIV-2), however they can be infected with SIV, or an SIV-HIV combination (‘chimeric’ virus) known as SHIV. A drug or vaccine that is effective in Rhesus monkeys infected with SIV or SHIV may not therefore be effective in humans with HIV. Conversely, a drug or vaccine that may be effective in an HIV positive human may be dropped because it appears ineffective in animals. Scientists have now constructed a simian strain of HIV-1 that differs from the human virus by only one gene and mimics early HIV infection, however the infected macaques did not develop AIDS3. Further research on this genetically engineered virus is necessary, however if successful this may make testing vaccines in primates potentially more reliable.

Monkey research has yielded significant discoveries about HIV in recent years4, including major findings that have strengthened understanding of early SIV and HIV infection5.
General research

As well as the testing of new drugs and other products, animals may also be used for more general research that aims to gain a greater understanding of a disease. Rhesus macaques, chimpanzees and even cats (who can get Feline Immunodeficiency Virus) may be used as human substitutes to see how HIV-like viruses operate within the body.
Rhesus Macaques are commonly used in HIV research

Rhesus Macaques are commonly used in HIV research

They can also be used to study natural phenomena such as transmission or disease progression, and the effects of non-therapeutic substances on HIV.

One example would be a study carried out in Rhesus macaques in 2006 6. Scientists looking at the effects of alcohol on SIV found that feeding the monkeys large quantities of alcoholic beverages over a short space of time (effectively making them ‘binge’ drink) could significantly speed up the rate at which HIV progressed to AIDS. This may well lead to a greater emphasis on moderate drinking amongst HIV positive people, and a reassessment of safe levels of alcohol. However, whether the results of this experiment could have been recreated using methods that didn’t involve animals is open to debate.
Can animal testing be justified?

Animal testing is an extremely controversial and hotly debated area, and there are many groups around the world that are strongly opposed to animals being involved in any form of experiment, even if it involves simply keeping them in captivity. Equally, there are groups who say that there is no alternative to animal testing, and that animals have saved many human lives. Some of the scientific and moral arguments for and against animal testing include:

* FOR: Animal testing is justified because of the many human lives that it can save
* AGAINST: There is no firm evidence that animal testing has saved anyone’s life directly, particularly in the case of HIV – most drugs could probably have been developed without the use of animals.

* FOR: Humans are clearly unique amongst animals in our abilities and intellect. Animals do not experience pain and emotion in the same way that we do because they lack language and the power of abstract thought
* AGAINST: An animal’s life is equal to a human’s and we have no right to assume otherwise simply because animals cannot express their pain and suffering in words

* FOR: Animals are the best way to test vaccines, because it would be unethical to give a human a vaccine, and then to try to give them HIV to see if it works.
* AGAINST: It is no more ethical to give an animal a life-threatening illness than it is to give one to a human.

* FOR: SIV-infected chimps and Rhesus macaques are good substitutes for humans, and make drug and vaccine development far more simple
* AGAINST: Monkeys and chimpanzees do not have identical immune systems to humans, and may not respond to drugs or vaccines in the same way. Rhesus macaques also cannot be directly infected with HIV. No HIV vaccine has yet been developed, despite many years of animal involvement.

* FOR: Any differences between animal and human biology are generally known, and can be factored in to experiments
* AGAINST: This overlooks the effect that stress may have on the normal functioning of an animal’s body, which may in turn affect the results of the experiment

* FOR: Not testing new pharmaceutical products on animals is highly dangerous
* AGAINST: Animals are often poor substitutes for humans, and some compounds that may well cause no harm to an animal, could seriously harm a human being. Likewise, a drug that is toxic to the animal it is tested on, may have no toxicity, and even therapeutic benefits in humans.

* FOR: There are no viable alternatives to testing pharmaceutical products for safety on animals. Scientists already use in-vitro studies and computer models, and animal testing comes only after these tests have been performed. If a drug fails either test, it will not be given to animals anyway.
* AGAINST: Studies have suggested that ‘micro-dosing’ (where only a tiny amount of a product is given to a human through the skin) could be a new and very effective alternative to animal experiments 7. The recent news that scientists have grown a small piece of human liver tissue from stem cells could also mean that it may one day be possible to perform initial 'human' safety trials in a lab8.

* FOR: There are very strong laws in place to ensure that distress and pain in animals is kept to an absolute minimum
* AGAINST: Pain and suffering still occur, and simply being in captivity can cause great distress to an animal, just as it would to a human. Plus, animal testing facilities cannot be monitored at all times, so the sort of treatment animals receive on a daily basis can never truly be known.

* FOR: It is a legal requirement that drugs are tested on animals for safety in the majority of countries. Scientists have no choice in this matter.
* AGAINST: Perhaps if laws on the necessity for animal testing were relaxed, or animal safety-testing were banned, it would encourage scientists to develop other methods of testing toxicity that were equally effective. At the moment, they have no incentive to do so, so only a small handful of alternatives are being tested.

* FOR: No scientist wants to cause any more injury to an animal than is strictly necessary. Most scientists build up strong attachments to the animals they use in their experiments.
* AGAINST: This may be the case, but it is also very easy to become blasé about something that you do every day, and forget the pain and suffering your work is inflicting. Animals may well become little more than useful objects of study, rather than live creatures, and this can mean they are treated as disposable rather than indispensable.

What do HIV+ people think of animal testing?

Many HIV positive people condone, or remain neutral on animal testing because they are aware that the drugs they take to keep them alive have very likely been tested on animals at some point in the past.
Could human 'guinea pigs' be viable alternatives to real ones when testing new drugs?

Could human 'guinea pigs' be viable alternatives to real ones when testing new drugs?

In September 2005, six well-known AIDS organisations in the USA got together to form ‘Patient Advocates Against PETA’ (PAAP), a group that opposed the strong anti-animal testing stance of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) 9. Formed of ACT UP DC, ACT UP Southern California, AIDS Healthcare Foundation, AIDS/HIV Health Alternatives, AmASSI and the HIV Incarcerated Task Force, PAAP argued that PETA’s constant high-profile protests were hindering scientists in their search for effective HIV vaccines.

Their work was however opposed by a number of HIV positive individuals, who declared they were strongly opposed to animal testing, and did not condone PAAP’s actions. A consensus amongst HIV positive people themselves on the benefits of animal testing is obviously not very forthcoming.
What is the future for HIV and animal testing?

In recent years, scientists have begun to investigate the possibility of genetically altering the genes of some animals (particularly mice) to give them immune systems that more closely resemble a human’s, and are thus susceptible to HIV infection. Such small animal models could be useful, both for those developing new vaccines, and for those testing drugs for safety, but such work is strongly opposed by those who do not believe that genetically modifying animals is morally right or safe, as well as by those who oppose animal testing altogether.

Another alternative recently proposed is infecting ordinary mice with a chimeric form of HIV, similar to the 'SHIV' used to infect primates. This would allow efficacy trials of drugs and vaccines to be performed on small mammals, which could perhaps be combined with safety trials to reduce the time taken to reach regulatory approval. However, this would potentially increase rather than reduce the number of animals involved in clinical testing.10

Regulations on animal testing have been tightened considerably in recent years, and animals, particularly primates, are used in far fewer experiments than they once were. In most countries (particularly the UK, which has the tightest regulations on the use of animals for science) facilities where animals are held are inspected regularly to ensure that animals are being kept in hygienic, safe and comfortable conditions.

Nonetheless, animal testing is still very strongly opposed by many groups who believe that any form of animal exploitation is wrong. The majority of anti-vivisection groups stage peaceful protests that aim to raise awareness of the harm and pain that animal testing can inflict, and raise support amongst the public for a ban on the practice. However a small minority of animal rights activists have resorted to more extreme tactics, which have included intimidation of those directly involved in experimentation, intimidation of their families, suppliers and business partners, and criminal acts, ranging from harassment and vandalism to blackmail and arson 11, 12, 13.

Unfortunately, while such groups receive substantial media coverage, their extreme actions tend to drown out the messages of more moderate groups, who are simply calling for a reassessment of the law, or greater research and assessment of alternative methods. Their behaviour creates a counter-productive situation, whereby those who conduct experiments on animals become more determined to continue with their work because of the opposition they face, and the government refuses to launch a proper investigation into the current laws in case they are seen as ‘giving in’ to extremists. It also risks portraying all animal rights campaigners as extreme activists and all scientists as cruel animal abusers.

In reality, views on animal testing are not nearly as polarised as this. There are many moderate anti-vivisection groups, just as there are many scientists who would prefer not to test on animals if they had a choice. A meaningful debate between the two may well help to further progress into ending the reliance on animals for safety and efficacy testing, but while the issue remains connected to such controversy and extremism, discussions of this kind seem to be few and far between.

It may be that one day animal research produces a vaccine or a cure for HIV that saves millions of human lives. If this is the case, then some justification can perhaps be found in using animals for our own purposes. Until this time however, anti-vivisectionists need to remain focused on finding alternatives, informing and changing legislation and keeping testing on animals to an absolute minimum. It is only through such positive action that true progress can be made.
Where Next?
AVERT.org has more about:

* Global HIV & AIDS epidemic
* AIDS vaccine
* Microbicides
* HIV structure and life cycle

* back to top
* AddThis Social Bookmark Button What's this?

Written by Bonita de Boer
References:

1. UK Medicines Act, 1968
2. NIAID Division of AIDS "Animal Models"
3. Theodora Hatziioannou et al. (2009) 'A Macaque model of HIV-1 Infection' PNAS
4. Lackner, A.A & Veasey, R.S (2007) 'Current concepts in AIDS pathogenesis: insights from the SIV/macaque model', Annual Review of Medicine, 58:461-76
5. Veazey, R.S et al (1998) 'Gastrointestinal tract as a major site of CD4+ cell depletion and viral replication in SIV infection', Science Vol.280; 427-431
6. "Chronic Binge Ethanol Consumption Accelerates Progression of Simian Immunodeficiency Virus Disease" Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental research, October 2006, Vol. 30 Issue 10.
7. "'Safer' drug test technique hope" BBC.co.uk, 08th October 2006
8. "Liver cells grown from cord blood" BBC.co.uk, 31st October 2006
9. "AIDS Coalition Clashes with Animal Rights Activists" The New Standard, 20 September 2006
10. HADAS, Eran et al. 11 May 2007, 'Testing antiretroviral drug efficacy in conventional mice infected with chimeric HIV-1', AIDS, Vol. 21 No. 8.
11. "Man admits animal rights bombs" BBC.co.uk, 17 August 2006
12. "Four jailed in grave-theft case" BBC.co.uk, 11 May 2006
13. "3 animal-rights activists get prison time" San Francisco Chronicle, 13 September 2006

Last updated December 23, 2009
Other site information

* home
* disclaimer
* copyright
* site information
* site map
* link to us

2010-04-28T18:54:00.000-07:00

Animal Testing Alternatives

2010-04-28T18:52:00.000-07:00

The Nazarene Way of Essenic Studies
Animal Testing: Toxic & Tragic

Every year, millions of animals suffer and die in painful tests to determine the "safety" of cosmetics and household products. Substances ranging from eye shadow and soap to furniture polish and oven cleaner are tested on rabbits, rats, guinea pigs, dogs, and other animals, despite the fact that test results do not help prevent or treat human illness or injury.

Eye Irritancy Tests

In these tests, a liquid, flake, granule, or powdered substance is dropped into the eyes of a group of albino rabbits. The animals are often immobilized in stocks from which only their heads protrude. They usually receive no anesthesia during the tests.
After placing the substance in the rabbits' eyes, laboratory technicians record the damage to the eye tissue at specific intervals over an average period of 72 hours, with tests sometimes lasting 7 to 18 days. Reactions to the substances include swollen eyelids, inflamed irises, ulceration, bleeding, massive deterioration, and blindness. During the tests, the rabbits' eyelids are held open with clips. Many animals break their necks as they struggle to escape.
The results of eye irritancy tests are questionable, as they vary from laboratory to laboratory-and even from rabbit to rabbit.

Acute Toxicity Tests

Acute toxicity tests, commonly called lethal dose or poisoning tests, determine the amount of a substance that will kill a percentage, even up to 100 percent, of a group of test animals.
In these tests, a substance is forced by tube into the animals' stomachs or through holes cut into their throats. It may also be injected under the skin, into a vein, or into the lining of the abdomen; mixed into lab chow; inhaled through a gas mask; or introduced into the eyes, rectum, or vagina. Experimenters observe the animals' reactions, which can include convulsions, labored breathing, diarrhea, constipation, emaciation, skin eruptions, abnormal posture, and bleeding from the eyes, nose, or mouth.(1)

The widely used lethal dose 50 (LD50) test was developed in 1927. The LD50 testing period continues until at least 50 percent of the animals die, usually in two to four weeks.

Like eye irritancy tests, lethal dose tests are unreliable at best. Says Microbiological Associates' Rodger D. Curren, researchers looking for non-animal alternatives must prove that these in vitro models perform "at least as well as animal tests. But as we conduct these validation exercises, it's become more apparent that the animal tests themselves are highly variable."(2) The European Center for the Validation of Alternative Methods' Dr. Michael Ball puts it more strongly: "The scientific basis" for animal safety tests is "weak."(3)

Lethal But Legal

No law requires animal testing for cosmetics and household products. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) requires only that each ingredient in a cosmetics product be "adequately substantiated for safety" prior to marketing or that the product carry a warning label indicating that its safety has not been determined. The FDA does not have the authority to require any particular product test. Likewise, household products, which are regulated by the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) the agency that administers the Federal Hazardous Substances Act (FHSA) do not have to be tested on animals. A summary of the CPSC's animal-testing policy, printed in the Federal Register, states, "[I]t is important to keep in mind that neither the FHSA nor the Commission's regulations require any firm to perform animal tests. The statute and its implementing regulations only require that a product be labeled to reflect the hazards associated with that product."(4)

Testing methods, therefore, are determined by manufacturers. The very unreliability of animal tests may make them appealing to some companies, since these tests allow manufacturers to put virtually any product on the market. Companies can also use the fact that their products were tested to help defend themselves against consumer lawsuits. Others believe that testing on animals helps them compete in the marketplace: Consumers demand products with exciting new ingredients, such as alpha-hydroxy acids, and animal tests are often considered the easiest and cheapest way to "prove" that new ingredients are "safe."

Alternatives to Animal Tests

Such arguments carry little weight with the more than 500 manufacturers of cosmetics and household products that have shunned animal tests. These companies take advantage of the many alternatives available today, including cell cultures, tissue cultures, corneas from eye banks, and sophisticated computer and mathematical models. Companies can also formulate products using ingredients already determined to be safe by the FDA. Most cruelty-free companies use a combination of methods to ensure safety, such as maintaining extensive databases of ingredient and formula information and employing in vitro tests and human clinical studies.

Tom's of Maine went one step further. For seven years, the cruelty-free company petitioned the American Dental Association (ADA) to grant its seal of approval to Tom's of Maine toothpastes. Other toothpaste companies unquestioningly conducted lethal tests on rats in order to be eligible for the ADA seal (researchers brush rats' teeth for more than a month, then kill the animals and examine their teeth under a microscope). But Tom's of Maine worked with researchers to develop fluoride tests that could safely be conducted on human volunteers. The ADA finally accepted the results of these tests and granted its seal to several of the company's toothpastes in 1995.(5) The groundbreaking effort by Tom's of Maine to find a humane alternative to accepted-but cruel-practices sets a precedent that other manufacturers can follow in the future.

Compassion in Action

Caring consumers also play a vital role in eliminating cruel test methods. Spurred by public outrage, the European Union (EU) proposed banning cosmetics tests on animals by 1998; unfortunately, the EU has indefinitely delayed this ban because of complaints by animal-testing companies. But other organizations in Europe have stepped in. For example, after conducting surveys showing that four out of five of its customers are against testing cosmetics and household products on animals, the Co-op, Britain's largest retailer, launched its own campaign urging companies to end such tests.

In the United States, a survey by the American Medical Association found that 75 percent of Americans are against using animals to test cosmetics.(6) Hundreds of companies have responded by switching to animal-friendly test methods. To help consumers identify products that are truly cruelty-free, a coalition of national animal protection groups has developed the Corporate Standard of Compassion for Animals, which clarifies the non-animal- testing terminology and procedures used by manufacturers and makes available a cruelty-free logo for companies that are in compliance with the standard. Shoppers can support this initiative by purchasing products that comply with the corporate standard and boycotting those that don't and by asking local stores to carry cruelty-free items.

References

1. Rowan, A.N. Of Mice, Models, & Men: A Critical Evaluation of Animal Research (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1984).
2. Branna, Tom, "Animal Testing Alternatives: Moving Closer to Validation?" happi, February 1995.
3. Ibid.
4. Federal Register, Vol. 49, No. 105.
5. Ahrens, Frank, "Why Is This Rat Smiling?" The Washington Post, August 17, 1995.
6. Branna.

Alternatives to animal testing

2010-04-28T18:35:00.000-07:00

FAQ - Animal Testing and Alternatives to Animal Testing

As one would imagine, in today's technologically advanced world, in which science has made monstrous steps in many promising directions, that many alternatives would exist to animal testing. This assumption is absolutely true. Many alternatives exist to the use of live animals in research (vivisection). Here are some alternatives to animals currently used:

* "Synthetic skin," called Corrositex
* Computer modeling
* Improved statistical design
* The Murine Local Lymph Node Assay (LLNA)

Providing proof for this truth is that one of the top educational institutions in the world - Johns Hopkins - has a center devoted entirely to developing and promoting alternatives to animal testing - The Johns Hopkins Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing. It also managers Altweb, an on-line resource to "...serve as a gateway to alternatives news, information, and resources on the Internet and beyond [regarding alternatives to animal testing]."

More information from these resources is found below.

Another resource that exists to prove the viability and relevance of using non-animal testing methods is Fund for the Replacement of Animals in Medical Experiments (FRAME). Located in England , FRAME seeks to promote a moderate, but nonetheless determined, approach, by encouraging a realistic consideration of the ethical and scientific issues involved and the widest possible adoption of the Three Rs.

R efinement: minimize suffering and distress

R eduction: minimize number of animals used

R eplacement: avoid the use of living animals

More information from this resource is found below.

Contact Information for all three organizations just mentioned follows. Please visit their web sites for more information on their missions and for more information on alternatives to the use of animals in research. These sites should provide a more-than-adequate start to address any questions you may have regarding animal testing and alternatives to animal testing.

The Johns Hopkins Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing
Johns Hopkins School of Public Health
840-111 Market Place
Baltimore MD 21202-6709
Tel: 414-223-1693

http://caat.jhsph.edu/

From their web site at http://caat.jhsph.edu/:

The Johns Hopkins Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing (CAAT) has worked with scientists since 1981 to find new methods to replace the use of laboratory animals in experiments, reduce the number of animals tested, and refine necessary tests to eliminate pain and distress.

We are an academic, science-based center affiliated with the Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health . We believe the best science is humane science. Our programs seek to provide a better, safer, more humane future for people and animals.

We provide a variety of resources, including

* grants for scientists developing non-animal methods
* workshops on alternative methods
* books, newsletters, and other publications

We also manage Altweb , an international online clearinghouse of alternatives resources. See below.

Altweb
A Project of The Johns Hopkins Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing
Johns Hopkins School of Public Health

From the Altweb website: http://altweb.jhsph.edu/:

Altweb, the Alternatives to Animal Testing Web Site - http://altweb.jhsph.edu/, was created to serve as a gateway to alternatives news, information, and resources on the Internet and beyond [regarding alternatives to animal testing].

Altweb is intended to serve:

* Biomedical researchers
* Industry
* The international alternatives community
* The international regulatory community(ies)
* IACUCs and other institutional groups that review animal protocols
* The animal welfare community
* Individuals and groups who work with laboratory animals (technicians, veterinarians, etc.)
* Educators
* Students
* The general public

Altweb has five practical goals:

1. To assist scientists and others seeking to conduct a search for alternatives methods.
2. to serve as a CRP--"central reference point"--for alternatives information, publications, databases, calendars, and other resources.
3. to support the creation and maintenance of new alternative resources as needed, when no other organization can/will do so
4. to promote the use of alternatives resources by publicizing them on the site and through e-mail or other outreach
5. to facilitate communication and collaboration among members of the alternatives community, in particular those who work in database or information management.

Fund for the Replacement of Animals in Medical Experiments (FRAME)
Russell and Burch House
96-98 North Sherwood Street
Nottingham NG1 4EE
Tel: 44-0115-958-4740
Fax: 44-0115-950-3570
EM: frame@frame-uk.demon.co.uk
Website: http://www.frame.org.uk/

From their web site:

FRAME considers that the current scale of animal experimentation is unacceptable. However, we also recognise that immediate abolition of all animal experiments is not possible. Vital medical research must continue to find treatments for diseases which lessen the quality of human and animal life. New consumer products, medicines, and industrial and agricultural chemicals must be adequately tested in order to identify potential hazards to human and animal health, and to the environment.

FRAME advocates the Three Rs approach to this dilemma. Our long-term goal is the total elimination of laboratory animal use, through the development, validation and acceptance of replacement alternative methods. Until this goal is reached, we also support efforts to reduce the numbers of animals used through better science and better experimental design, and to refine procedures so that the suffering of any animals necessarily used is minimised. FRAME seeks to promote a moderate, but nonetheless determined, approach, by encouraging a realistic consideration of the ethical and scientific issues involved and the widest possible adoption of the Three Rs.

R efinement: minimise suffering and distress
R eduction: minimise number of animals used
R eplacement: avoid the use of living animals

Find out more on
REFINEMENT
REDUCTION
REPLACEMENT
FAQs on Animal Testing and Alternatives to Animal Testing

NOTE: All information below was derived directly from the web site from Altweb, the Alternatives to Animal Testing Web Site at http://altweb.jhsph.edu

* How are laboratory animals used?
* What does "alternatives to animal testing" mean?
* What kinds of alternatives are there?
* Why do some scientists say there are no alternatives to animal testing?
* What can I do if I am opposed to dissecting animals at school?
* What kinds of alternatives are there for the classroom?
* How can I get these alternatives at my school?
* What are some arguments against testing on animals?
* What are some arguments in favor of testing on animals?
* What are the benefits to people from animal testing? What discoveries have been made using animals?
* Are there any benefits to animals?
* Is there a list of companies that don't test on animals? What about a list of those that do?
* What do the words "cruelty-free" or "not tested on animals" on a product label really mean?
* How can I be sure my cosmetics are safe if they haven't been tested on animals?
* Why do most large companies test their products on animals, while many smaller companies can produce high-quality products without animal testing?
* What kinds of tests are done?
* What products are tested?
* What kinds of animals are used in testing?
* Where do scientists get their laboratory animals?
* Has anyone stopped using animals?
* What can I do to help?
* Will you add me to your mailing list?
* Can you send me pictures of laboratory animals?
* Where can I find information about research grants?

Q : How are laboratory animals used?

A : Laboratory animals most commonly are used in three main areas: biomedical research, product safety testing, and education. Biomedical researchers use animals in their efforts to understand the workings of the body and the processes of disease and health, and to develop new vaccines and treatments for various diseases. This sort of research isn't solely for the benefit of human health; it is aimed at developing new veterinary techniques as well.

Industry uses animals to test the safety and effectiveness of a wide range of consumer products, including drugs, cosmetics, household cleaning products, pesticides, industrial chemicals, and more.

Educators--from elementary school all the way up through graduate programs--use animals as part of the teaching process. Educational uses include dissecting earthworms or frogs in biology class, as well as advanced training in surgical techniques for veterinary and medical students.

Scientists also study animals to learn more about a given species, its biology and behavior. They may study animals as models of psychological or social behaviors. They may learn from the special skills or abilities of an animal as well. For example, Navy researchers have studied dolphin echolocation--their built-in biological sonar system--to improve the human-made sonar systems used on board ships.

In all these cases, if the animals are kept in captivity, or if they are subjected to pain or distress that is not a natural part of their environment, we are interested in finding alternative approaches to help replace the use of animals, reduce the number of animals used, or lessen any pain or distress suffered by the animals.

return to top

Q : What does "alternatives to animal testing" mean?

A : Alternative methods fall into three broad categories. These are called the 3 Rs: Replacement, Reduction, and Refinement. Replacement is what most people think of when you say "alternatives to animal testing": the animals are replaced, either by methods that don't involve animals at all (absolute replacement) or by those that use only the cells or tissues of animals (relative replacement). Many replacement alternatives involve these in vitro ("in glass") techniques, where the studies are done with cells or tissues in culture. If the cells come from human beings, it's absolute replacement. If they come from animals, it's relative replacement--the method doesn't require a living animal in the laboratory, but often the cells or tissues come from animals killed for that purpose.

Unfortunately, replacement isn't always an option. Some important kinds of testing just can't be done without animals, at least at this time. In these cases, researchers still can work to reduce the number of animals used in a given study. With careful experimental design and sophisticated statistical techniques, it is often possible to use far fewer animals and still get valid results.

Finally, for those animals that do undergo testing, scientists may refine their methods to lessen or eliminate pain, distress, or suffering and to make the animals more comfortable.

British researchers W. Russell and R. Burch formulated this notion of the 3 Rs in their 1959 book The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique, which argues that humane science is also the best science. You can find the full text of this important book on Altweb at http://altweb.jhsph.edu/publications/humane_exp/het-toc.htm .

return to top

Q : What kinds of alternatives are there?

One example of a replacement alternative is no longer considered an alternative--it has become the norm. Not too many years ago, if a woman wanted to find out if she was pregnant, she'd have to get a laboratory test that involved killing a rabbit. Now, she can buy a small kit over-the-counter that tests her urine for certain chemicals--the rabbits have been replaced.

Regulatory agencies in the United States and in Europe recently approved another sort of replacement test. This involves the use of a "synthetic skin," called Corrositex, which can be used in place of animals to test chemicals for skin corrositivity--that is, to see whether a substance will corrode or burn the skin. For an Altweb news article about this new alternative method, go to http://altweb.jhsph.edu/news/2000/march/20000322a.htm .

Computer modeling

Improved statistical design

The Murine Local Lymph Node Assay (LLNA)

Computer modeling also can replace certain kinds of animal use, particularly in education. High school biology classes, for example, might practice dissection on a computer model rather than on real, live frogs. Even medical schools are beginning to develop "virtual reality" devices for students to practice on. You can find an example of a "Virtual Frog Dissection Kit" at http://www-itg.lbl.gov/ITG.hm.pg.docs/dissect/info.html . Plastic models and realistic manikins also can take the place of live animals for some educational purposes.

People can replace animals in some kinds of research. Skin sensitivity testing of cosmetics increasingly draws on human volunteers. Human clinical studies and epidemiological studies (looking at the occurrence and distribution of diseases in various populations of people) can reveal a great deal about the processes of health and disease.

Improved statistical design represents one form of reduction alternative. With sophisticated, low cost statistical packages available for the computer these days, investigators can get the most out of the data generated by each animal they use and so need fewer animals altogether.

Another type of reduction method involves sharing research animals. If one researcher is studying rat brain tissue, for example, when it comes time to kill the rat, he may allow other researchers to use the kidneys, liver, or other parts of the animal for their own studies. Re-designing studies to collect as much information as possible from the same set of animals can also reduce animal usage. This kind of sharing can be particularly effective in reducing the number of animals used within a given institution.

The Murine Local Lymph Node Assay (LLNA), another newly accepted test used in product safety assessment, also is an example of a reduction alternative. This test, which determines the potential of chemicals to cause allergic skin reactions, requires use far fewer animals than the old method. For more details, see the Altweb news story at http://altweb.jhsph.edu/news/2000/january/20000110a.htm .

Refinement covers anything that serves to reduce the animals' pain and distress or to enhance their well-being. These alternatives may come in a great variety of forms. Giving an animal appropriate medication for pain is one example of a refinement alternative. The LLNA, mentioned above, serves as an example of refinement as well as reduction, because it is less painful than the previous method.

Techniques that are less invasive to the animal also may constitute refinement. For example, researchers can use such modern medical technologies as ultrasound or Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) to look at what is happening inside an animal without cutting into it.

Refinement also includes such things as giving animals bigger cages, offering them appropriate toys to play with so they won't get bored, and allowing them to have companions of their own kind (if that is a natural condition for the species).

The boundaries between these categories of alternatives aren't always clear-cut. For example, some alternative methods involve using lower organisms in place of species higher on the evolutionary scale. Such studies may use plants, microorganisms, invertebrate animals, or even early-stage vertebrates (e.g., chicken eggs) rather than vertebrate animals. Similarly, using frogs instead of mammals, or mice instead non-human primates, also may be considered alternative methods. However, depending on the nature of the study and the particular organisms involved--and on one's perspective regarding "lower" versus "higher" animals--such alternative methods may be viewed variously as replacement, reduction, or refinement techniques.

For more examples of alternative methods, see the Fund for Replacement of Animals in Medical Experiments (FRAME) web site at http://www.frame.org.uk/3rs/3rsintro.htm and the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) at http://www.hsus.org/ace/11388 . Also check the "Alternative Methodologies" chapter of the Animal Welfare Information Center (AWIC) book, Essentials for Animal Research: A Primer for Research Personnel. It is available online at http://www.nal.usda.gov/awic/pubs/ noawicpubs/essentia.htm#2 .

return to top

Q : Why do some scientists say there are no alternatives to animal testing?

A : In general, they are thinking only of replacement alternatives. Many scientists feel that animal testing cannot be replaced completely by non-animal methods, particularly in biomedical research. They say we simply do not yet understand the complexities of the body well enough to be able to design suitable non-animal alternatives. But if you talk about the 3Rs--reduction and refinement, as well as replacement--most would agree that alternatives are possible.

return to top

Q : What can I do if I am opposed to dissecting animals at school?

A : Some countries and several states in the U.S. have laws or regulations that allow students to choose alternatives to dissection without penalty. Some schools have similar policies. Check to see what the policies are in your area.

A number of organizations offer support and materials to students who object to dissection or who wish to establish a student choice policy. These include the Humane Society of the United States ( http://www.hsus.org/ace/11369 ) and InterNICHE ( http://www.interniche.org ).

"The Use of Animals in Higher Education: Problems, Alternatives, and Recommendations," a book written by Dr. Jonathan Balcombe and published by the Humane Society Press, is an excellent resource on the issue of dissection. It is available online free of charge at http://www.hsus.org/ace/13059 .ÊOr contact the Humane Society of the United States to purchase a print edition (e-mail ari@hsus.org or call 301-258-3041).

return to top

Q : What kinds of alternatives are there for the classroom?

A : A variety of alternatives to dissection are available, including computer simulations, 3-D models, films, and interactive videos. Even medical schools are beginning to develop "virtual reality" devices for students to practice on.

For detailed information on some 3700 alternatives or supplements to the use of animals in education, at all levels of schooling, check the NORINA database at http://oslovet.veths.no/NORINA . The Norwegian School of Veterinary Science in Oslo compiled this English-language database of audiovisual and other alternatives in the biological sciences.

The European Resource Centre for Alternatives in Higher Education (EURCA) offers a smaller but content-rich alternatives database, featuring extensive product descriptions, reviews, and user comments. See http://www.eurca.org .

return to top

Q : How can I get these alternatives at my school?

A : A number of organizations operate programs that loan up-to-date dissection alternatives to students and teachers at no cost to the borrower except return postage. These include:

* The Humane Society of the United States Humane Education Loan Program at http://www.hsus.org/ace/11378
* The International Network for Humane Education (InterNICHE): http://www.interniche.org
* The National Anti-Vivisection Society (NAVS): http://www.navs.org/education/dissection_loan_program.cfm? SectionID=Education
* Animalearn: http://www.humanestudent.org

return to top

Q : What are some arguments against testing on animals?

A : Arguments against animal testing may question the morality, the necessity, or the validity of these studies--that is, whether we have the right to perform such tests, whether we need such tests, and whether the tests actually tell us anything useful.

Animal rights advocates argue that sentient animals have a right to their own life; they are not ours to do with as we please. In its broadest form, this argues against using animals or animal products in any way--that means maintaining a vegetarian diet, not wearing leather or fur, and, at its most extreme, not even keeping animals as pets.

A more moderate animal protection or animal welfare viewpoint is concerned more with our responsibility toward animals, that we have a moral obligation not to cause them unnecessary pain and distress. This stance does not necessarily argue against all animal testing.

Arguments against the need for animal testing may take at least a couple of forms. Some may consider the object of the testing to be trivial. Is it worth blinding rabbits so we can have a new kind of mascara? Another argument is that we don't need to use animals--we can use non-animal alternatives or computer simulations or test on human volunteers.

Another form of objection argues that we can't rely on the results of animal tests anyway. Humans are different from other animals, so the results of animal testing may not apply to us. Just because one species reacts to a given drug or chemical in a particular way doesn't necessarily mean another species will respond the same way. Furthermore, the argument goes, animals kept in unnatural conditions, or animals in pain or distress, aren't going to give accurate or consistent results anyway.

Altweb doesn't object to animal testing per se; rather, we advocate the development and use of alternative methods whenever possible. By this we mean methods that reduce animal use or refine methods to make them less painful or stressful to the animal, as well as replacement methods. We do not believe that all animal use can be replaced with non-animal alternatives in the immediate future. Our web site exists to speed the development and use of new alternative methods by providing a clearinghouse of information and resources to scientists, industry, and the public.

The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) web site provides some statistics on pain and distress in laboratory animals at http://www.hsus.org/ace/11397 , plus additional information on the issue of pain and distress at http://www.hsus.org/ace/15808 .

The Fund for the Replacement of Animals in Medical Experimentation (FRAME) web site offers a set of links to web sites that argue against animal testing and those that argue in favor of it. You can find these pro/contra links at http://www.frame.org.uk/links/procontra.htm . Bear in mind that different sites will reflect the varying viewpoints of their respective organizations, and any one site may only give you part of the picture.

return to top

Q : What are some arguments in favor of testing on animals?

A : Here again, you can argue in terms of morality, necessity, and validity. The moral issue on this side concerns the need to protect human life and to improve the quality of life. The gains in human health and well-being outweigh the cost in animal suffering (which nonetheless should be kept to a minimum), in this viewpoint. It would be immoral to conduct such tests on humans, and so animals serve as our stand-ins for many kinds of testing and research. Those who support animal testing may care deeply about animals but don't place them on an equal status with humans.

Research on animals may be deemed necessary for a variety of reasons: to develop vaccines and treatments and cures for diseases; to ensure that new products are safe to use--that they won't blind us, burn our skin, or even kill us (which did happen in several instances, before product safety testing was required by law); and to help students--especially prospective doctors, veterinarians, and so on--learn their way around a body.

Animals do make good research subjects for many purposes, this view argues, and research on them can tell us a great deal about ourselves. Animals are, in many ways, biologically similar to humans and are susceptible to many of the same health problems. Some species may serve as particularly good models for certain aspects of human health or physiology. Much of what we know about the immune system, for example, has come from studies with mice, and much of what we know about the cardiovascular system has come from studies with dogs. Many heart surgery techniques--such as coronary bypass surgery, artificial heart valve insertion, and pacemaker implants--were studied first in dogs before being used in people.

Animals may make even better research subjects than humans in some regards. For example, many species have relatively short life cycles, so they can be studied throughout their entire life span or across several generations. Furthermore, scientists can control certain aspects of an animal's environment--diet, temperature, lighting, and so on--more easily than would be possible with people.

Supporters of the use of animals in research argue that alternative methods can't fully replace the use of animals--and may never do so. Neither cells grown outside a body nor computer programs can predict the complex interactions that occur in an entire living system.
At Altweb, we don't argue either for or against animal testing per se; rather, we argue in favor of the development and use of alternative methods. We work to replace animals tests with non-animal methods whenever possible, to reduce the number of animals used, and to refine test methods to minimize or eliminate pain and distress for the animals. Our web site exists to speed the development and use of new alternative methods by providing a clearinghouse of information and resources to scientists, industry, and the public.

The Foundation for Biomedical Research (FBR) web site presents a very positive view of animal testing. You can find their position paper and a lot of other information on the subject at http://www.fbresearch.org/facts.html .

In April 2000 the Seattle Post-Intelligencer ran a 5-part series on "Animals and Research." These opinion pieces, written by researchers in the field, argue the need for animal experimentation. The series is available online at http://seattlep-i.nwsource.com/opinion/lead16.shtml .

The Fund for the Replacement of Animals in Medical Experimentation (FRAME) web site offers a set of links to web sites that argue against animal testing and others that argue in favor of it. You can find these pro/contra links at http://www.frame.org.uk/links/procontra.htm . Bear in mind that different sites will reflect the varying viewpoints of their respective organizations, and any one site may only give you part of the picture.

return to top

Q : What are the benefits to people from animal testing? What discoveries have been made using animals?

A : Countless medical treatments, techniques, and technologies have come about, at least in part, through animal experimentation. The development of immunization against such diseases as polio, diphtheria, mumps, measles, rubella, pertussis, and hepatitis all involved research on animals, as did the discovery of insulin and the study of diabetes. Animal research also has played a part in the development of organ transplantation, hip replacement, chemotherapy, cardiac pacemakers, coronary bypass surgery, ongoing efforts to understand and treat AIDS and Alzheimer's disease, and more.

Not everyone agrees, however, on the extent to which animal research was essential to all these discoveries, nor the extent to which is it necessary for future medical progress. The American Anti-Vivisectionist Society, for example, contends that "results derived from animal experiments have had a very minimal effect on the dramatic rise in life expectancy in the 20th century."

The organizations represented by Altweb, while accepting the value of animal research, work to promote the development and use of alternative methods whenever possible.

The Kids-4-Research site, especially the sections on "Diseases" and on "Animals," describes a variety of biomedical achievements involving animal research. You can find it at http://www.kids4research.org/ .

The Foundation for Biomedical Research site gives a very positive view of the role of animal testing in biomedical research. Look for the "Animal Research Facts" section at http://www.fbresearch.org/education/ .

In April 2000 the Seattle Post-Intelligencer ran a 5-part series on "Animals and Research." These are opinion pieces, written by researchers in the field, that argue the need for animal experimentation. They are available at http://seattlep-i.nwsource.com/opinion/lead16.shtml .

return to top

Q : Are there any benefits to animals?

A : Animal research has played a role in many advances in veterinary medicine, including the development of vaccines for rabies, parvovirus, and distemper. Various devices and treatments developed through animal research--such as pacemakers, hip replacement, diabetes treatments, dental care, and chemotherapy--are used in veterinary as well as human medicine. Some animal research is aimed at developing alternatives to animal use, so that fewer animals will be needed in the future.

Not all research is conducted on laboratory animals. Pet owners looking for the best or newest treatment for their ailing dog or cat may agree to take part in a clinical study--similar to the human clinical trials that test the effectiveness of different drugs or treatment methods on people with pre-existing conditions or diseases.

Research on such matters as nutrition, housing requirements, or social behavior can help improve living conditions for captive and domestic animals. Some kinds of animal research may contribute to habitat restoration and conservation efforts for wild animals.

The second part of a 5-part newspaper series on "Animals and Research" deals with how animals benefit from research. This is available on the Internet at http://seattlep-i.nwsource.com/opinion/anml2.shtml .

The Foundation for Biomedical Research web site describes some ways animal research may help animals. Go to their Animal Research Facts section ( http://www.fbresearch.org/facts.html ) and look for "Pets Get Fighting Chance in War on Cancer."

return to top

Q : Is there a list of companies that don't test on animals? What about a list of those that do?

A : We do not maintain such a list ourselves, nor can we verify the accuracy of the lists that are available. Please be aware that the various lists given below may use different criteria for which companies they include.

The Coalition for Consumer Information on Cosmetics (CCIC) offers a list of companies that have adopted a "Corporate Standard of Compassion for Animals," agreeing not to test on animals during any stage of product development. This "shopping guide" is available online at http://www.leapingbunny.org/shopping_guide.htm . Or, they will mail you a free wallet-sized copy of the guide.

The National Anti-Vivisectionist Society offers a book for sale ($9.50) called "Personal Care for People Who Care." It briefly discusses some of the tests used and some of the alternatives, and it provides different symbols to indicate whether a given company does no animal testing whatsoever, versus one that may buy ingredients tested on animals and so forth. You can reach them by calling 1-800-888-NAVS or by writing to NAVS, 53 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 1552, Chicago, IL 60604.

The American Anti-Vivisectionist Society (AAVS) offers a free "Guide to Compassionate Shopping," which you can order online at http://aavs.org/./laboratories02.html . Or you can write to them at 801 Old York Rd. #204, Jenkintown, PA 19046, call (215) 887-0816, or fax (215) 887-2008.

return to top

Q : What does "cruelty-free" or "not tested on animals" really mean?

A : It can mean different things to different companies. Many cosmetics companies now advertise their products as "cruelty-free" or "not tested on animals." The U.S. government doesn't regulate the use of these terms, however, so the labels don't always mean the same thing. For example, "not tested on animals" may mean that the company attempts to determine the safety of finished products, made from ingredients known to be safe, using in vitro and other alternatives, including the use of human volunteers. Or, it may mean that the company doesn't test on animals itself but may buy ingredients from companies that do. Or it doesn't test final products on animals but does test ingredients on animals. Or it doesn't manufacture or buy any products or ingredients that have been tested on animals beyond a fixed cutoff date. Or the product and/or its ingredients have not been animal-tested within the past five years.

Be aware, too, that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration requires animal testing for pharmaceuticals and certain other products. This is not the case for cosmetics and toiletries, however. These items have to be tested to ensure customer safety, but they don't necessarily have to be tested on animals. This is where you'll see the words "cruelty-free" or "not tested on animals" on a product label.

For a good discussion of cruelty-free labeling, go to the Center for Laboratory Animal Welfare website at: http://www.labanimalwelfare.org/product_testing.html#crueltyfree .

return to top

Q : How can I be sure my cosmetics are safe, if they haven't been tested on animals?

A : New products still must undergo rigorous safety testing--whether they are tested on animals or not. These days, a cosmetics manufacturer may rely on some combination of computer modeling, in vitro tests, and trials with human volunteers, instead of on animal tests. The bottom line, however, is that all ingredients used in making cosmetics either have been tested on animals at some point or are known to be safe based on decades of use.

return to top

Q : Why do most large companies test their products on animals while many smaller companies can produce high-quality products without animal testing?

A : By law, all manufacturers must generate data proving their products are safe. This is easier to do if a company is small and makes a limited range of products using ingredients already known to be safe. Larger companies, which often create ingredients as well as final products, face a more difficult problem: they must ensure that new, previously untested ingredients are safe. Even in these cases, the company generally will conduct a series of non-animal tests before testing the new ingredient on animals. In this way, they often can reduce the number animals needed and cause less pain or suffering the animals that are tested on.

In some cases, companies that advertise themselves as "cruelty-free" actually purchase animal-tested ingredients from large companies to use in their "not tested on animals" products.

return to top

Q : What kinds of tests are done?

A : For product safety purposes, there are two basic types of tests used to assess the risks of routine or accidental exposure to various products. Acute-toxicity tests evaluate the risk of short-term exposure through normal use, accidental contact with the eyes or skin, and accidental ingestion. Chronic-toxicity tests assess the effects of long-term exposure--often at low levels--to certain substances. Here, researchers are looking at such things as the potential to cause cancer, birth defects, and developmental abnormalities.

The two tests that probably have caused the most public outcry are both examples of acute-toxicity tests. The Draize eye irritancy test uses rabbits to estimate the ability of a test substance to irritate or damage the eye. This involves putting the test substance into one of the rabbit's eyes and then scoring changes in various parts of the eye as compared to the untreated eye over a 7-day period.

This test was the subject of a major protest campaign in 1980, which ultimately led to substantial changes in the cosmetics industry and to greatly increased efforts toward the development of non-animal alternatives. Many companies no longer use the Draize test at all, though non-animal methods have not yet replaced it altogether. Where it is still used, the number of rabbits has been reduced dramatically, and the techniques have been refined considerably, using much lower dosages of the test chemicals and providing an anesthetic to ease the pain.

The other acute-toxicity test that has gotten a lot of publicity is called the LD50 test. LD50 means "lethal dose 50 percent." This test estimates the dosage of a substance needed to kill 50% of a group of rats or other test animals. In this test, groups of animals are given doses of particular chemical agent, such as a household product, to find out the amount needed to kill half of the animal subjects. The classic LD50 test has been banned in parts of Europe, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has announced that it no longer supports use of this test. Alternative methods still involve animals, but the numbers have been reduced and the techniques refined.

The Foundation for Biomedical Research (FBR) gives an extensive discussion of the Draize test. You can find their Animal Research Facts section at: http://www.fbresearch.org/facts.html . Then look for "Draize test" under "General Research Information." FBR is quite pro-research.

The Center for Laboratory Animal Welfare site offers a section on product safety testing, including a discussion of tests used. Their address is: http://www.labanimalwelfare.org/product_testing.html#product . This site takes an alternatives approach to the issues.

The Kids-4-Research site also has sections on product safety testing, including brief descriptions of some of the tests used. You can find them at: http://www.kids4research.org/ . As its name suggests, this site is pro-research.

return to top

Q : What products are tested?

A : Most products manufactured for human use must be tested for safety before they can be sold to the public. This includes drugs and vaccines (for both people and animals), cosmetics, shampoo and other personal care products, food additives, food packaging, household cleaners, pesticides, industrial chemicals, fabric treatments, and more.

return to top

Q : What kinds of animals are used in testing?

A : Rats and mice make up the vast majority (probably 85-90%) of animals used in research, education, and testing. Rabbits, guinea pigs, hamsters, dogs, cats, non-human primates, and assorted other animals are studied as well. Dogs, cats, and primates together comprise about 1% of research animals. The particular kind of animal varies with the kind of testing being done.

The Kids 4 Research web site ( http://www.kids4research.org/ ) has a section about the animals used for various kinds of research. The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) site offers some figures on the numbers and kinds of animals used at http://www.hsus.org/ace/12509 .

return to top

Q : Where do scientists get their laboratory animals?

A : The vast majority of laboratory animals are mice and rats that were bred specifically for research. Nearly half of the dogs and cats used in research were bred for that purpose as well. Animal dealers are the primary source for the rest. They must be licensed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and must adhere to Animal Welfare Act standards of care. Some research facilities do get dog and cats from shelters and pounds, but this is subject to much stricter regulation than it once was. In many cases, state laws and local policies prevent this.

For a Humane Society (HSUS) statement against using animals from the pound for research purposes, go to http://www.hsus.org/ace/11431 .

For the Foundation for Biomedical Research view of the pet theft issue, go to http://www.fbresearch.org/facts.html .

return to top

Q : Has anyone stopped using animals?

A : The cosmetics industry, which 20 years ago tested nearly all its products on animals, has come close. Many companies have reduced their use of whole-animal testing by as much as 80 or 90%. Some have eliminated it altogether. One estimate suggests that the U.S. cosmetics industry as a whole has cut their use of animals for eye irritation tests by 87%. Eye irritation tests on rabbits were the subject of the first successful protest against animal testing back in 1980. Since that time, many cosmetics companies have put considerable money and effort into the search for alternatives to animal testing--which is part of why their animal use has dropped so dramatically. (The other part is that most ingredients used in cosmetics have already been tested on animal or shown to be safe through years of use.)

return to top

Q : What can I do to help?

A : One of the most important ways you can help is to learn as much as you can about alternatives to animal testing and then share that information with other people. The more people know about alternatives, the better. Be sure to tell them about all 3 Rs--reduction and refinement, as well as replacement.

If you're a student, write a report or give a talk at school. Suggest alternatives, where possible, if the question of dissection or animal experiments comes up in biology class, in science fairs or science projects. (See the FAQ about alternatives to dissection for more information on this issue.) It isn't enough just to protest against abuses of animals. We also need to raise a new generation of scientists who truly understand and care about these matters, and who will work to develop and use alternatives to animal testing. You can help make that happen.

You also can write, e-mail, or call your elected officials, federal and state regulatory agencies, and industry representatives and tell them we need to develop more alternative tests, we need to get those alternative methods that already exist scientifically validated, and we need to encourage government regulatory agencies to accept new alternatives methods so companies can start using them. Even if you're not yet of voting age, your voice can make a difference.

As you may be aware, you also can make a difference by choosing to support those companies that support alternatives to animal testing. Be aware, though, that this isn't a simple matter of looking for the words "cruelty-free" or "not tested on animals" on a product label. Please see the "cruelty-free labeling" FAQ for more information on this issue.

return to top

Q : Will you add me to your mailing list?

A : Gladly. To receive monthly e-mail updates, just send an e-mail to altweb@jhsph.edu with your name and the e-mail address you want the updates sent to.

return to top

Q : Can you send me pictures of laboratory animals?

A : As a firm and general policy we do not send pictures. Other organizations may be able to help you find the photographs you need.

return to top

Q : Where can I find information about research grants?

A : Altweb offers a directory of funding sources for alternatives research. You can find this at http://altweb.jhsph.edu/databases/funding/funding.htm . You also can check Grants Net, located at http://www.grantsnet.org . You will need to register with them, but it is a free service.

Animal Testing I Alternatives to Animal Testing I Cruelty Free Shopping and Buying I Cruelty Free Eating and Shopping I Charities and Animal Testing I List of Charities that Test on Animals I List of Charities that Don't Test on Animals I List of Companies that Test on Animals I List of Companies that Do Not Test on Animals I Animal Rights Websites I Animal Rights Books I Animal Rights Organizations I Health Issues and Animal Rights I Photos and Videos I Companion Animals (Pets) and Animal Rights I Animal Sanctuaries I Famous People / Quotes I Art and Culture and Animal Rights I RSS Feed I GEARI Blog I E Mail List Serve / Newsletter I Boycotts I Letter From the Author I Mission Statement I Contact GEARI I Link to GEARI I Help Keep GEARI Going - Donate to GEARI I Search GEARI.org I Additional Animal Rights Resources - Animal Rights Directories

For any additional questions and/or concerns, please visit our Contact GEARI page, or email:
justin@geari.org

The GEARI Store

Simple, Effective and Unique Messages to Open Minds and Increase Awareness

Send an Intelligent Message Without Saying a Word

Current
Awareness and Animal Rights News From the GEARI Blog:

News and Information as it Changes.

* Ohio Pet Antifreeze Poisoning Bill (H.B. 96) - Require Antifreeze Manufacturers to Increase Bitterness in Taste of Products to Prevent Poisoning Dogs
* Calico Dragon Bags: New Handbag Line With Bold Messages All About Animals and Their Rights, or Lack of Rights Rather
* NPR: Early Animal Rights Poem: â€œA Mouseâ€™s Pleaâ€: A Touching Story of an Early Animal Rights Pioneer
* United States Supreme Court Rejects Ban on Videos of Animal Cruelty: Sickos Given the Legal Green Light to Film their Sick Abusive Torture Practices
* Website on World Animal Day â€“ 4 October Every Year

XML FeedRSS Feed
Subscribe
Bookmark and Share
Bookmark and Share

Follow GEARI on Twitter

http://twitter.com/geari

Support GEARI:

Buy Cruelty-Free Products through these sources and Support GEARI!

GEARI Recomme…
Vegan Cupcakes Take Over the World: 75 D…
Isa Chandra M…
$10.85
V-dogfood
V-dogfood, LLC
$37.00
Garmont Men's Kiowa Vegan Hiking Boot,Forest…
Garmont
$86.86
Student's Vegetarian Cookbook, Revised: Qu…
Carole Raymo…
$10.04
Vegetarian Meals For People On-The-Go :…
Vimala Rodger…
$12.21
1234>
Amazon.com
Get WidgetPrivacy

Search Amazon.…
Showing 1 - 6 of 50 results
Vegan with a Vengeance …
Isa Chandra M…
$12.21
Veganomicon: The Ultimat…
Isa Chandra M…
$17.39
Deva Vegan Vitamins Da…
DEVA Vegan …
$22.92
Becoming Vegan: The …
Brenda Davis, …
$13.57
Vegan Cupcakes T…
Isa Chandra M…
$10.85
Bungalow360 Vegan Wall…
Bungalow
$18.00
12345>
Amazon.com
Get WidgetPrivacy

Google
Custom Search

Vimala Rodger…
cover - May 1, 2002)
Vimala Rodger…
Bungalow
Bungalow
Bungalow