Neil Miller



The following are excerpts I have pulled from Dr. Blaylock's (board certified neurosurgeon, author and lecturer) article on the Mercury (Thimerosal) cover-up found at: 

 The truth behind the vaccine cover-up
Russell L. Blaylock, MD

On June 7-8, 2000 a secret conference was held at the Simpsonwood Conference Center in Norcross, Georgia to discuss a study examining the link between increasing doses of Thimerosal and neurodevelopmental disorders. The study was done using the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) database, an official governmental data bank collecting patient vaccination information on the children from the health maintenance organizations (HMOs) being paid to participate. Attending were 51 scientists, representatives of pharmaceutical vaccine manufacturing companies and a representative of the World Health Organization; the public and the media were unlawfully excluded. The conclusions of this meeting were quite startling, since it confirmed a dose-response link between Thimerosal and neurodevelopmental disorders that held up to rigorous statistical analyses.
In their discussion, they make plain why the meeting was held in secret: the conclusions would have destroyed the public’s confidence in the vaccine program, and more importantly, their faith in vaccine authorities. When the results of this study were published three years later in the journal Pediatrics, the “problem” had been fixed, in that by adding another set of data from a third HMO, reorganizing the criteria for inclusion and restructuring the patient groupings, a less than statistically significant link was demonstrated. In my analysis I discuss the more outrageous statements made during the meeting and how accepted experts in the field of mercury neurotoxicity were excluded from the meeting.
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.
To help the reader understand the importance of this report, 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 in Norcross, Georgia, assembled 51 scientists and physicians, five of  whom represented vaccine manufacturers. These included Smith Kline Beecham, Merck, Wyeth, North American Vaccine and Aventis Pasteur.
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 vaccines can be manufactured at the will of the manufacturers.
It was disclosed that Thimerosal was in all influenza, HepB and DPT vaccines, as well as most DtaP vaccines. Had vaccine safety been their primary concern, as it should be, the most obvious solution was to recommend only singledose vials, which require no preservative, coupled with a ban on the use of any mercury compound in the manufacture of all drugs.
So, why didn’t they make this or at least a “no Thimerosal” recommendation? “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 the cost for the poor. Yet, that would cut into some fat-cat’s profit and we can’t have that.

there were three times as many serious complications from the vaccine (Hep B) as there were children who contracted the disease. The real reason for vaccinating the newborns is to capture them before they can escape the vaccinologists’ vaccine program. This is a tactic often used to scare mothers into having their children vaccinated.
 For example, vaccinologists 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 are 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 during measles outbreaks in the United States occur in children in whom vaccination was contraindicated, when the vaccine did not work or in children with chronic, immune-suppressing diseases. In fact, most studies show that children catching the measles or other childhood diseases have been either fully immunized or partially immunized.

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 year’s 2000 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.

On page 24 Dr. William Weil, a pediatrician representing the Committee on Environmental Health of the American Academy of Pediatrics…“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.   He concludes by saying, “To think there isn’t some possible problem here is unreal.” (page 25)

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 of 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.

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.

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, declared that Thimerosal is of no concern and continued the unaltered policy. That is, they can suggest that the pharmaceutical manufacturers of vaccines remove the Thimerosal but not make it mandatory or examine the vaccines to make sure they have removed it.
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 counsel 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 other 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.

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.

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?

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 scientists. 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 find a junk scientist who will support the claim with a reasonable degree of certainty.”
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”? 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. Clement) 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 obvious that a massive cover-up is in progress, as we have seen with so many other scandals, such as fluoride, foodbased 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 significant role, but there are other factors that are also critical, including aluminum, fluoroaluminum complexes, and chronic immuneactivation of brain microglia. I believe that repeated, closely spaced, sequential vaccinations given during the most active period of brain development is the major cause of autism.
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 in the adult brain.
In essence, too many vaccines are being given to children during the brain’s most rapid growth period. Known toxic metals are being used in vaccines, interfering with brain metabolism and antioxidant enzymes, damaging DNA and DNA repair enzymes and triggering 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.