Vaccines/Mercury/Autism: CDC’s Conflict of Interest

by | Oct 15, 2009

From “Spins of Omission” by Deirdre Posted January 16, 2008

Since 1999, when the whole vaccine/autism controversy came to light, the CDC’s primary concern has been protecting the immunization program and denying there was a problem. Protecting the kids seems to be a secondary consideration. To this end, the agency has funded and assisted in numerous epidemiological studies that found “no association” between mercury-containing vaccines. All of them seriously flawed authored by researchers with serious conflicts of interest.


When it comes to vaccinations, the mainstream media and the CDC share the same agenda. Protect “the program.” You are not going to find critical analysis from the press on this issue. And you are not going to see public health officials telling the truth about vaccine safety studies. Doing so could be a career killer.


Dr. David Graham, the FDA epidemiologist that came forward to be the Vioxx whistleblower, understands this mentality. He told USA Today, “When you live in a climate of fear, retaliation and intimidation, no decision that one makes is entirely voluntary.” In the same article, Dr. Graham also said those who have vaccine safety concerns, are “reluctant to come forward. They are absolutely afraid for their jobs”.


This is the climate in which research is conducted today…a climate of fear. In a way, the media has become “enablers” of the dissemination of information aimed at promoting and protecting vaccines. Accuracy, skepticism and just plain common sense don’t quite fit into the overall business strategy of the press or public health agencies. (Reuters/Glaxo)


When it comes to protecting children’s health there are no sacred cows as far as I am concerned. Kids today are just too sick not to take seriously concerns about toxins in vaccines or any other product. Children have been ill served by the media’s “cherry picking” of vaccine studies and their failure to maintain a skeptical view of the conflicts of interest of the parties involved.


Like the other epidemiological studies finding “no link” between vaccines and autism, there are apparent conflicts of interest with the California study (Continuing increases in autism reported to California’s developmental services system: mercury in retrograde. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2008 Jan;65(1):19-24); the authors work for the department of health’s immunization division.


Talk about trusting the fox to keep inventory over the hen house. Aside from the obvious, this study is fundamentally flawed because it failed to take into account a key aspect in its methodology. The decreasing amounts of mercury on which the authors based their conclusion didn’t actually decrease. Just a small detail that might be a factor in the final analysis and one that you would think any medical reporter with any integrity would point out.


In assessing the removal of thimerosal from children’s vaccines in California, the authors incorrectly state, “By 2000, new lots of all Hib and hepatitis B virus vaccines in the United States contained at most trace amounts of thimerosal. By March 2001, all vaccines in the recommended infant immunization schedule for the United States became available with at most trace amounts of thimerosal.”


This is very clever words-man-ship, perhaps clever enough to fool the average medical reporter but not so clever to fool your average mom.


“Available” does not mean administered. Existing stocks of mercury-containing vaccines were not recalled and they remained on clinic shelves. In response to a letter from congress, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) confirms many mercury-containing vaccines were still available with late 2002 expiration dates. The letter also states, “Thimerosal-containing presentations are all still licensed in the U.S.”


In May 2002, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) began recommending the influenza vaccine for infants and pregnant woman. This recommendation reintroduced significant amounts of mercury exposure in utero and again at 6 and 7 months of age.


Like lead, there is no safe level of mercury. It is particularly toxic to the developing fetus, infants and young children. Numerous studies have found even very small amounts of mercury to be a potent developmental neurotoxin. Research has shown that at very low levels, 0.5 parts per billion (ppb) mercury, far lower than the amount found in even one mercury-containing vaccine, thimerosal kills human neuroblastoma cells. (Parran et al. Toxicol Sci 2005; 86: 132-140).


One adult influenza vaccine administered to a pregnant woman contains 25 micrograms of thimerosal (50,000 ppb mercury). Each of the infant influenza vaccines contained 12.5 micrograms each. In addition, “trace” amounts of thimerosal remain in several routine vaccines injected into children adding to the overall body burden. According to the FDA, “trace” amounts can be as much as 2,000 ppb mercury, and shown to be highly toxic. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) considers anything exceeding 200 ppb mercury liquid hazardous waste.


A 2001 study found Neurite membrane structure destroyed at 20 ppb (Leong et al.,Neuroreport 2001; 12: 733-37).


The 2004 California law that would ban the use of mercury-containing vaccines for pregnant women and children under the age of three did not go into effect until December of 2006. It is clear that pregnant women and infants continued to receive mercury-containing vaccines until this time.


Lost in this debate is the fact that no one knows precisely how much mercury really remains in children’s vaccines today. Neither the FDA nor the CDC performs any oversight testing to confirm the amount of mercury in vaccines. We rely on the vaccine manufacturers to report the amount of mercury in vaccines but there is no independent confirmation of those amounts. Again, talk about asking the fox to keep watch over the hen house.


In response to the California study, a man who knows quite a bit about toxicology in general and mercury specifically, Dr. Boyd Haley, Professor of Chemistry, University of Kentucky, wrote a critical analysis of the author’s findings:


The alarming concern is that these authors seem more involved in providing material saying thimerosal is safe than they are concerned with the obvious facts, openly presented in their own data on autism rates, which strongly indicate that increased rates of autism started with the CDC mandated vaccine program…Most [scientists] agree that a genetic predisposition is likely (like those that lead to low glutathione levels), but that a toxic exposure is absolutely needed…that this increased toxic exposure would have had to occur in all 50 states at about the same time as all states have reported similar increases in autism rates. Only something like the government recommended vaccine program fits this need for a time dependent, uniform exposure of a toxin throughout all the states.”


In spite of all these criticisms the California study confirms the nation is in the midst of a public health crisis for which we have been given no credible explanation.


Arthur Schopenauer, a world famous philosopher once said, “All truth passes through three phases. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident”.


The bottom line remains, the California study does not change the fact that thimerosal is mercury and, as the American Academy of Pediatrics has stated, “Mercury in all its forms is toxic.” No amount of epidemiological bookkeeping can replace sound clinical and toxicological research, with one exception; a comprehensive study on vaccinated vs. non-vaccinated populations.


Again quoting Dr. Haley, “Common sense would lead most to attack finding the cause of autism instead of trying to prove something besides thimerosal is causal. The major question is ‘are our vaccines causing autism’ -only comparing the non-vaccinated to the vaccinated will answer this question.”


Public health officials are rapidly losing the public’s trust. The California study will not bring it back. An independent study, by authors with no ties to industry or public health activities is the only way to settle the debate.


To read the full story click here.

Ivermectin + Mebendazole taken together produce remarkably Positive Clinical Cancer Benefits in 84.4% of Patients.

The largest real-world human analysis to date evaluating ivermectin and mebendazole in cancer patients has just been published—and the results represent one of the most compelling clinical signals ever documented for repurposed anti-parasitic therapies in oncology.

This groundbreaking analysis was made possible through a unique collaboration between The Wellness Company, the McCullough Foundation, and the Chairman of the President’s Cancer Panel (Dr. Harvey Risch)—uniting real-world clinical data, frontline medical experience, and high-level epidemiologic expertise to deliver urgently needed insights in oncology.

This was a real-world prospective clinical program evaluation of 197 cancer patients, with 122 completing a follow-up survey at about six months (61.9% response rate).

Cancer patients were prescribed compounded ivermectin–mebendazole, with each capsule containing 25 mg ivermectin and 250 mg mebendazole—most commonly taken at 1–2 capsules per day.

The cohort represented a clinically relevant population, including a wide variety cancer types, with 37.1% of patients reporting actively progressing disease at baseline and many having already undergone chemotherapy, radiation, and surgery.

At six months, 84.4% of cancer patients reported clinical benefit (Clinical Benefit Ratio: 84.4% [95% CI: 77.0–89.8%]):

✅ 32.8% reported NO evidence of cancer (95% CI: 25.1–41.5%)
✅ 15.6% reported tumor regression (95% CI: 10.2–23.0%)
✅ 36.1% reported stable disease (95% CI: 28.1–44.9%)

Treatment adherence was high, with 86.9% completing the full protocol and 66.4% remaining on therapy at six months.

The regimen was well tolerated, with 25.4% reporting side effects, primarily mild and gastrointestinal, and over 93% continuing treatment despite these events.

Patients were treated in real-world conditions alongside concurrent therapies, including chemotherapy (27.9%), radiation (21.3%), surgery (19.7%), supplements (49.2%), and dietary modification (37.7%), supporting use as an adjunctive approach.

Together, these findings represent a large, internally consistent real-world clinical signal that supports URGENT further investigation of ivermectin and mebendazole as low-toxicity, adjunctive cancer therapies.

Given the strength of the signal observed here, advancing this line of investigation is no longer optional—it is necessary.

This is NOT the end. We will continue advancing this work with larger datasets to further define and validate the role of anti-parasitics in cancer outcomes.

The manuscript is now available as a preprint on the Zenodo research repository, operated by the European Organization for Nuclear Research, while undergoing peer review at leading oncology journals: “Real-World Clinical Outcomes of Ivermectin and Mebendazole in Cancer Patients: Results from a Prospective Observational Cohort.”

Bar chart showing distribution of common cancer types with breast cancer most prevalent.
Infographic on disease status and median duration since diagnosis.

Receive Our Newsletter

5 + 4 =

jQuery( document ).ready(function( $ ) { // $( "div" ).hide(); });