Bombay chest make over


Here is my craigslist find Bombay chest. It is solid but really ugly.

I lightly sanded it and then used a foam roller to paint on 3 coats of Chocolate brown paint.
I use foam because the other rollers leave little hairs behind on furniture. I am really bad at spray painting large items so this is the first time I painted with the foam rollers before and I will never use anything else again.

I found some clip art online of a tree branch and had my husband make it into vinyl to put across the front.


Then my husband helped by cutting the area where the drawers will open.
Then put the next tree branch on upside down. So it covered the whole area.
All done. $55 not counting paint I already had and vinyl which we already had.
Chic on a Shoestring DecoratingPhotobucketcom//">






Domestically Speaking

Bath Tub Buckets


HPV is it worth it?

Facts you probably don’t know about HPV and Gardasil

In August, the Health Ranger interviewed neurosurgeon Dr. Russell Blaylock, M.D. on tv.naturalnews.com. Dr. Blaylock shared some little known facts about the human papillomavirus (HPV) and the quick development of a vaccine to address it. Dr. Blaylock says the vaccine is “predicated on an absolute lie.”
Some empowering facts you may not know about the human papillomavirus and  Gardasil:

1. First, the basis is wrong. HPV by itself does not cause cervical cancer. Evidence shows it takes a combination, or co-infections – multiple viruses or virus/bacteria combinations to cause cervical cancer.  

2. Birth control pills and other hormonal drugs also increase the risk of HPV.

3. It has never been proven that the HPV  vaccine prevents cervical cancer. There is no scientific evidence of any kind.

4. There are over 100 strains of HPV, only about 15 of which can contribute to cervical cancer.

5. HPV vaccines only include two to four strains, leaving you open to more than three fourths of the dangerous strains. You will still need to get routine screenings for cervical cancer.

6. You don’t change or reduce the incidence of cancer by receiving the vaccine. Studies show that the human immune system develops resistance to the strains given in the vaccine, allowing others to become predominant.

7. The CDC website states that the human body’s immune system clears HPV within two years, 90 percent of the time (70 percent in one year). Without the vaccine.


8. Those numbers are based on voluntary reporting, which historically means only two to ten percent of cases are represented. The vast majority of cases are never reported. So, conservatively, 5,000 young girls and women have been harmed by the vaccine.

9. Cervical cancer is one of the rarest cancers in the U. S., with 12,000 cases reported per year and 4,000 deaths.

10. The number of girls and women that experience serious complications from the vaccine meets or exceeds the number of deaths.

11. Side-effects include: Multiple sclerosis, encephalitis, blindness, pericarditis, coma, and death among many others.

12. The vaccine Gardasil was “fast tracked.” This was illegal. The FDA requires new vaccines to undergo testing and a waiting period of 4 years.  Gardasil was developed and on the market in 6 months, with FDA approval.

13.  Vaccinating  girls entering the sixth grade despite the fact that the incubation period for HPV averages 20 years with the median age of sufferers being 48.  Which means that if the vaccine did work it would have stopped working 15- 18 years before you needed it to work.

14.  Using a condom is a 100% way of not getting HPV of any kind. 

Many women are not aware that the HPV vaccine Gardasil might actually increase your risk of cervical cancer

Initially, that information came straight from Merck and was presented to the FDA prior to approval. According to Merck's own research, if you have been exposed to HPV strains 16 or 18 prior to receipt of Gardasil vaccine, you could increase your risk of precancerous lesions, or worse, by 44.6 percent.
Other health problems associated with Gardasil vaccine include immune-based inflammatory neurodegenerative disorders, suggesting that something is causing the immune system to overreact in a detrimental way—sometimes fatally.

Between June 1, 2006 and December 31, 2008, there were 12,424 reported adverse events following Gardasil vaccination, including 32 deaths. The girls, who were on average 18 years old, died within two to 405 days after their last Gardasil injection
Between May 2009 and September 2010, 16 additional deaths after Gardasil vaccination were reported. For that timeframe, there were also 789 reports of "serious" Gardasil adverse reactions, including 213 cases of permanent disability and 25 diagnosed cases of Guillain-Barre Syndrome
Between September 1, 2010 and September 15, 2011, another 26 deaths were reported following HPV vaccination
As of May 13, 2013, VAERS had received 29,686 reports of adverse events following HPV vaccinations, including 136 reports of death,7, as well as 922 reports of disability, and 550 life-threatening adverse events
Lawsuit Reveals Payouts of Nearly $6 Million to HPV Vaccine-Damaged Victims

On February 28, 2013 the government watchdog group Judicial Watch announced it had filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) to obtain records from the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) related to the HPV vaccine8.

Nancy Banks on Vaccines
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5F_yj1T8Qu8&index=17&list=PLQi3oNHwGUuK4Dbhifvq3fVm8oC9n6Knm

Review of HPV Vaccine Trials Conclude Effectiveness Is Still Unproven

Last year, a systematic review11 of pre- and post-licensure trials of the HPV vaccine by researchers at University of British Columbia showed that the vaccine's effectiveness is not only overstated (through the use of selective reporting or "cherry picking" data) but also unproven. In the summary of the clinical trial review, the authors state it quite clearly:
"We carried out a systematic review of HPV vaccine pre- and post-licensure trials to assess the evidence of their effectiveness and safety. We found that HPV vaccine clinical trials design, and data interpretation of both efficacy and safety outcomes, were largely inadequate. Additionally, we note evidence of selective reporting of results from clinical trials (i.e., exclusion of vaccine efficacy figures related to study subgroups in which efficacy might be lower or even negative from peer-reviewed publications).
Given this, the widespread optimism regarding HPV vaccines long-term benefits appears to rest on a number of unproven assumptions (or such which are at odds with factual evidence) and significant misinterpretation of available data.
For example, the claim that HPV vaccination will result in approximately 70% reduction of cervical cancers is made despite the fact that the clinical trials data have not demonstrated to date that the vaccines have actually prevented a single case of cervical cancer (let alone cervical cancer death), nor that the current overly optimistic surrogate marker-based extrapolations are justified.
Likewise, the notion that HPV vaccines have an impressive safety profile is only supported by highly flawed design of safety trials and is contrary to accumulating evidence from vaccine safety surveillance databases and case reports which continue to link HPV vaccination to serious adverse outcomes (including death and permanent disabilities).
We thus conclude that further reduction of cervical cancers might be best achieved by optimizing cervical screening (which carries no such risks) and targeting other factors of the disease rather than by the reliance on vaccines with questionable efficacy and safety profiles." 
Fast Facts from this page
HPV by itself does not cause cervical cancer. Evidence shows it takes a combination, or co-infections – multiple viruses or virus/bacteria combinations to cause cervical cancer.  
There are over 100 strains of HPV, only about 15 of which can contribute to cervical cancer.
HPV vaccines only include two to four strains, leaving you open to more than three fourths of the dangerous strains. the human body’s immune system clears HPV within two years, 90 percent of the time (70 percent in one year). Without the vaccine. Vaccinating  girls entering the sixth grade despite the fact that the incubation period for HPV averages 20 years with the median age of sufferers being 48.  Which means that if the vaccine did work it would have stopped working 15- 18 years before you needed it to work. Using a condom is a 100% way of not getting HPV of any kind. 

History has no proof of Jesus

Why Are The Ancient Historians Silent About Jesus?

By Richard Smith
Consider the following list. These are the historians and writers who DID live within Christ's alleged lifetime or within a hundred years of it, after the time:
 Apollonius             Persius
 Appian                 Petronius
 Arrian                 Phaedrus
 Aulus Gellius          Philo-Judaeus
 Columella              Phlegon
 Damis                  Pliny the Elder
 Dio Chrysostom         Pliny the Younger
 Dion Pruseus           Plutarch
 Epictetus              Pompon Mela
 Favorinus              Ptolemy
 Florus Lucius          Quintilian
 Hermogones             Quintius Curtius
 Josephus               Seneca
 Justus of Tiberius     Silius Italicus
 Juvenal                Statius
 Lucanus                Suetonius
 Lucian                 Tacitus
 Lysias                 Theon of Smyran
 Martial                Valerius Flaccus
 Paterculus             Valerius Maximus
 Pausanias
Yet, aside from two FORGED passages in the works of a Jewish writer mentioned above, and two disputed passages in the works of Roman writers, there isn't ANY mention of Jesus Christ. At all. Consider:
"Philo was born before the beginning of the Christian era, and lived until long after the reputed death of Christ. He wrote an account of the Jews covering the entire time that Christ is said to have existed on earth. He was living in or near Jerusalem when Christ's miraculous birth and the Herodian massacred occurred. He was there when Christ made his triumphal entry into Jerusalem. He was there when the crucifixion with its attendant earthquake, supernatural darkness, and resurrection of the dead took place -- when Christ himself rose from the dead, and in the presence of many witnesses ascended into heaven."These marvelous events which must have filled the world with amazement, had they really occurred, we unknown to him. It was Philo who developed the doctrine of the Logos, or Word, and although this Word incarnate dwelt in that very land and in the presence of multitudes revealed himself and demonstrated his divine powers, Philo saw it not.
People we can prove that was alive during the times the Bible was written.

King Herod- tons of proof from Historians that he was alive but nothing ever written about him calling for the death of all the Jewish babies.  And very bad things were written about him but not that.

Maccabees- The Maccabees were around 166 BCE and there is proof of writings about them.

Pontius_Pilate- Pilate presided at the trial of Jesus , But there is a ton written about him by historians even records of his trials.  However there is no writings about that trial or record of that trial ever taking place even though all his other trials are on record.

332 BCE  Alexander the Great- Alexander the Great reigned 330 yrs before Jesus was to be born yet we know so much about him from so many sources.  So have outside sources to prove Jesus should be very easy.  But it can not be done.



 Paul said in his letter to the Corinthians.
After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.
Here Paul appears to be claiming that there are still many living eye witnesses who saw the resurrected Jesus. Unfortunately we only seem to have his word for it, we have no independent records from any of these witnesses.  And No historian wrote one word about it not even the one who lived in that town Philo of Alexandria (c25 BC-47 AD).

CDC's test that are meant to prove autism and vaccines have no link but fail to do so

The CDC proof that vaccines and autism have no link

There are over 165 studies that have focused on Thimerosal, an organic-mercury (Hg) based compound, used as a preservative in many childhood vaccines, and found it to be harmful. Of these, 16 were conducted to specifically examine the effects of Thimerosal on human infants or children with reported outcomes of death; acrodynia; poisoning; allergic reaction; malformations; auto-immune reaction; Well’s syndrome; developmental delay; and neurodevelopmental disorders, including tics, speech delay, language delay, attention deficit disorder, and autism. In contrast, the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention states that Thimerosal is safe and there is “no relationship between [T]himerosal[-]containing vaccines and autism rates in children.” This is puzzling because, in a study conducted directly by CDC epidemiologists, a 7.6-fold increased risk of autism from exposure to Thimerosal during infancy was found. The CDC’s current stance that Thimerosal is safe and that there is no relationship between Thimerosal and autism is based on six specific published epidemiological studies coauthored and sponsored by the CDC. The link http://www.hindawi.com/journals/bmri/2014/247218/
 to review and examine these six publications and analyze possible reasons why their published outcomes are so different from the results of investigations by multiple independent research groups over the past 75+ years.

1. Introduction

Thimerosal is an organic-mercury (Hg) based compound, used as a preservative in many childhood vaccines, in the past and present. To date, there have been over 165 studies that focused on Thimerosal and found it to be harmful. (A comprehensive list of these studies is shown at http://mercury-freedrugs.org/docs/20140329_Kern_JK_ExcelFile_TM_sHarm_ReferenceList_v33.xlsx.) Of these studies, 16 were conducted to specifically examine the effects of Thimerosal on human infants and/or children. Within these studies, which focused on human infants and/or children, the reported outcomes following Thimerosal exposure were (1) death; (2) acrodynia; (3) poisoning; (4) allergic reaction; (5) malformations; (6) autoimmune reaction; (7) Well’s syndrome; (8) developmental delay [10–13]; and (9) neurodevelopmental disorders, including tics, speech delay, language delay, attention deficit disorder, and autism.

However, the United States (US) Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) still insists that there is “no relationship between [T]himerosal[-]containing vaccines and autism rates in children”. This is a puzzling conclusion because, in a study conducted directly by the CDC, epidemiologists assessed the risk for neurologic and renal impairment associated with past exposure to Thimerosal-containing vaccine (TCV) using automated data from the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) and found a 7.6-fold increased risk of autism from exposure to Thimerosal during infancy. The database for that study was “from four health maintenance organizations [HMOs] in Washington, Oregon, and California, containing immunization, medical visit, and demographic data on over 400,000 infants born between 1991 and 1997.” In that initial study, Verstraeten et al. “categorized the cumulative ethyl-Hg exposure from [T]himerosal[-]containing vaccines after one month of life and assessed the subsequent risk of degenerative and developmental neurologic disorders and renal disorders before the age of six.” They “applied proportional hazard models adjusting for HMO, year of birth, and gender, and excluded premature babies.” The reported results showed that “the relative risk (RR) of developing a neurologic development disorder was 1.8 (95% confidence intervals [CI] 1.1–2.8) when comparing the highest exposure group at 1 month of age (cumulative dose > 25 μg) to the unexposed group.” Similarly, they “also found an elevated risk for the following disorders: autism (RR 7.6, 95% CI = 1.8–31.5), nonorganic sleep disorders (RR 5.0, 95% CI = 1.6–15.9), and speech disorders (RR 2.1, 95% CI = 1.1–4.0)” in the highest exposure group.

Considering the many peer-reviewed published research studies that have shown harm from Thimerosal, including studies in which Thimerosal exposure is associated with the subsequent diagnosis of neurodevelopmental disorders (16 studies) such as autism, and the just-described evidence from the CDCs own research, which found evidence of a relationship between the level of Thimerosal exposure and the risk of a subsequent autism diagnosis, how does the CDC conclude that there is no evidence of that relationship? The foundation for the CDC’s current stance apparently is based primarily on six specific published epidemiological studies that the CDC has completed, funded, and/or cosponsored, starting in the late 1990s. These studies include (1) the Madsen et al. ecological study of autism incidence versus Thimerosal exposure in Denmark, (2) the Stehr-Green et al. ecological study of autism incidence versus Thimerosal exposure in Denmark, Sweden, and California, (3) the Hviid et al.  study of autism incidence versus Thimerosal exposure in Denmark (also ecological), (4) the Andrews et al. [24] cohort study of autism incidence and Thimerosal exposure in the United Kingdom, (5) the published Verstraeten et al. [25] CDC cohort study of autism incidence and Thimerosal exposure in the United States, and (6) the more recent Price et al. case-control study of autism incidence and Thimerosal exposure in the United States. Although the CDC cites several other publications to purport the safety of Thimerosal, only these six specifically consider its putative relationship to autism.

The purpose of this review is to examine these six publications which were “overseen” by the CDC and which claim that prenatal and early childhood vaccine-derived Thimerosal exposures are not related to the risk of a subsequent diagnosis of autism or autism spectrum disorder (ASD). This review analyzes possible reasons why their published outcomes are so different from the results of investigations by multiple independent research groups over the past 75+ years. The review begins with an examination of the Madsen et al. study.

2. The Madsen et al. 2003 Study

The CDC-sponsored Madsen et al. study examined whether discontinuing the use of TCVs in Denmark led to a decrease in the incidence of autism. Data were obtained from the Danish Psychiatric Central Research Register, which contains all psychiatric admissions since 1971 and all outpatient contacts in psychiatric departments in Denmark since 1995. The study authors examined the data from 1971 to 2000 and reported that rate of autism increased with the removal of Thimerosal from vaccines (starting in 1992, the year that Thimerosal-containing early childhood vaccines were phased out).

Although there are several concerns about the methodology used, the most serious concern involves diagnosis. As described in the paper, estimates of total autism cases in Denmark were only based on diagnoses occurring during inpatient visits from 1971 to 1994 and then during both inpatient and outpatient visits from 1995 to the last year of the study in 2000. Thus, the inclusion criteria are greatly expanded two years after the phaseout of Thimerosal from infant vaccines in Denmark, creating an “artificial increase” in autism prevalence. The authors conceded that “the proportion of outpatient to inpatient activities was about 4 to 6 times as many outpatients as inpatients with variations across time and age bands.” However, in an earlier publication by Madsen et al., the same authors had stated regarding this same data, “in our cohort, 93.1% of the children were treated only as outpatients…” Unlike the statement in the Madsen et al. study, the 2002 paper indicates that the ratio between outpatients and inpatients in the 1971–2000 dataset was 13.5 : 1, which would account for an even greater increase in cases diagnosed starting in 1995 (i.e., after the probable completion of the phaseout of TCVs that started in 1992).

In addition, the authors stated that the Danish registry which was used to count cases did not include a large Copenhagen clinic before 1993. This clinic accounted for as many as 20% of the autism cases nationwide, which would again artificially inflate the autism incidence observed in Denmark after the phaseout of TCVs was initiated in 1992. The authors do not mention this change in inclusion criteria (i.e., the addition of a new clinic in the registry) neither do they attempt to adjust their analysis in accordance with the anomaly. It was revealed, instead, in a similar paper by Stehr-Green et al. where the authors state regarding the Denmark registry of autistic patients, “Prior to 1992, the data in the national register did not include cases diagnosed in one large clinic in Copenhagen (which accounts for approximately 20% of cases occurring nationwide).”

Also, the diagnosis criteria for “autism” changed within the course of the study. From 1971 to 1993, the ICD-8 standards for diagnosis (psychosis protoinfantilis 299.00 or psychosis infantilis 299.01) were used to measure autism incidence. However, from 1994 to 2000, the ICD-10 standard (infantile autism, F84.1) was used. Although the authors did not address the impact of the change in diagnostic criteria, this could result in as much as a 25-fold increase in cases as the instantaneous change in autism prevalence in Denmark, due to this change, went from a low of 1.2/10,000 to a high of 30.8/10,000 [28].

Another disconcerting methodological issue was that the 2001 data, which showed a strong downward trend in autism rates in at least two of the three age groups (continuing from 1999 through 2001), was not included in the final publication. This was apparent because when the paper was initially submitted for publication, it included the 2001 data. After the paper was rejected for publication by the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) and the Lancet, it was submitted to the journal Pediatrics again including the 2001 data. As stated by one of the peer-reviewers of the Pediatrics submission, “The drop of incidence shown for the most recent years is perhaps the most dramatic feature of the figure, and is seen in the oldest age group as well as the youngest. The authors do not discuss whether incomplete ascertainment in the youngest children or delay in recording of data in the most recent years might play a role in this decline, or the possibility that this decrease might have come about through elimination of [T]himerosal” (January 23, 2003, communication between Dr. Poul Thorsen, Aarhus University, and Dr. Coleen Boyle, CDC scientist). In response to this criticism, the authors removed the 2001 incidence numbers. The authors’ decision to withhold these data resembles scientific malfeasance, especially when coupled with the previously discussed problematic methods for counting autism cases. If the scientists believed that downward trend between 1999 and 2001 was caused by some phenomenon unrelated to the phaseout of the TCVs, these scientists should have included those data and then explained the trend within the discussion of the data.

If the 2001 data had been included in the final publication, the results would have been consistent with a more recent CDC study where a decreasing trend of autism prevalence in Denmark after the removal of Thimerosal in 1992 was reported. Instead of large increases in autism prevalence after 1992, the recent Danish study revealed that the autism spectrum disorder prevalence in Denmark fell steadily from a high of 1.5% in 1994-95 (when children receiving Thimerosal-free formulations were too young to receive an autism diagnosis and, because of the known offset in diagnosis, most of those being diagnosed had been born 4 to 8 years earlier [from 1985 to 1990]) to a low of 1.0% in 2002–2004 (more than 10 years after the phasein of the use of Thimerosal-free vaccine formulations was started in 1992).

3. The Stehr-Green et al. 2003 Study

The CDC’s Stehr-Green et al. study compared the prevalence/incidence of autism in California, Sweden, and Denmark with average exposures to TCVs. Graph-based ecologic analyses were used to examine population data from the state of California (national immunization coverage surveys and counts of children diagnosed with autism-like disorders seeking special education services in California); Sweden (national inpatient data on autism cases, national vaccination coverage levels, and information on use of all vaccines and vaccine-specific amounts of Thimerosal); and Denmark (national registry of inpatient/outpatient-diagnosed autism cases, national vaccination coverage levels, and information on use of all vaccines and vaccine-specific amounts of Thimerosal).

The study followed and appeared to be conducted in response to California study data, which was presented to the Institute of Medicine’s Immunization Safety Review Committee. The California data showed that increased uptake of Thimerosal-containing vaccines in California during the 1990s correlated with a corresponding increase in autism diagnoses. In the Stehr-Green et al. [22] study, the researchers stated that the reliability of the autism prevalence data, citing that the California data included autism spectrum disorder diagnoses such as pervasive development disorder (PDD), could account for the increase. However, in a published response to this paper, Blaxill and Stehr-Green [31] stated that the California prevalence rates were reported based solely on autism cases.

In the Stehr-Green paper, the Sweden autism prevalence data showed an increase in autism rates from 5- 6 cases per 100,000 in 1980–82 to a peak of 9.2 cases per 100,000 in 1993. In Sweden, TCVs were phased out starting in 1987. Denmark's autism prevalence data was identical to that reported in the Madsen et al. [21] study critiqued previously. For Denmark, the authors reported an astounding 20-fold increase in autism prevalence between 1990 and 1999, despite the phaseout of TCVs that started in 1992.

In addition, the data from Sweden were based on inpatient (hospital) visits only. This limitation (counting a small fraction of the total number of cases) likely accounted for the erratic swings in the annual numbers of autism cases reported in that country. Also, the Thimerosal exposure level based on the Swedish vaccination schedule during this time period was much less (a nominal maximum of 75μg of Hg by two years of age) than that possible in California (and the United States as a whole) where developing children nominally received up to 237.5μg of Hg by 18 months of age through the standard immunization schedule. In conclusion, the Stehr-Green et al. study was problematic in its attempt to combine ecological data from three different countries that, relative to each other, demonstrated different vaccination policies and widely different Thimerosal exposure levels.

4. The Hviid et al. (2003) Study

The Hviid et al. population-based cohort study, widely cited by the CDC, compared rates of autism prevalence among individuals who received Thimerosal-free vaccines to those receiving TCVs. The authors report that there was no evidence of increased autism prevalence with Thimerosal exposure.

The study authors stated that the mean age of autism diagnosis within their population was 4.7 years with a standard deviation of 1.7 years. However, cases and controls as young as 1 year of age were included within the analysis. Accordingly, controls that were less than the mean age of diagnosis minus two standard deviations (1.3 years) from that age had a 97.5% probability of actually being individuals who will later develop autism and are therefore possibly misclassified. Similarly, in this study, the mean age for an ASD diagnosis was 6.0 years with a standard deviation of 1.9 years. Thus, the study methodology is questionable because it appears to have underascertained the number of cases diagnosed with autism and ASD.

In addition, rather than counting persons within the cohort, the authors counted “person-years of follow up.” With this technique, each age group (one-year-olds, two-year-olds, etc.) was considered equally, despite the fact that younger age groups were much less likely to receive an autism diagnosis. This again contributed to the undercounting of the cases with a diagnosis of autism and ASD and biased the study towards the null hypothesis (that there is no statistically significant Thimerosal exposure effect on the outcomes observed).

5. The Andrews et al. (2004) Study

The Andrews et al. study was a retrospective cohort study completed using records from a database in the United Kingdom, where autism prevalence rates were compared for children receiving Thimerosal-containing DTaP and DT vaccines. In the Andrews et al. study, Cox’s proportional-hazards ratios were used to evaluate periods of followup in the cohort examined by the investigators using the records in the general practitioner research database (GPRD), a database that was known to have a significant level of errors. These investigators reported that increased organic-Hg exposure from TCVs was associated with a significantly reduced risk for diagnosed general developmental disorders and for unspecified developmental delay (although there was a significantly higher risk for diagnosed tics).

Considering that there are several studies conducted by independent investigators that have found that exposure to Thimerosal is a risk factor for neurodevelopmental delay and disorders, the reduced rate of neurodevelopmental delay and disorders with Thimerosal exposure found in the Andrews et al. study suggests possible methodological issues.

This result may have occurred, in part, because other studies examined cohorts with significantly different childhood vaccine schedules and with different diagnostic criteria for outcomes. This difference may also exist because these other studies that found Thimerosal to be a risk factor for neurodevelopmental delay and disorders employed different epidemiological methods, especially with respect to the issue of follow-up period for individuals in the cohorts examined. The method used to measure follow-up period for individuals is a critical issue in all studies examining the relationship between exposures and the subsequent risk of a neurodevelopmental disorder diagnosis, especially in those instances where the postexposure periods for all of the participants in the study are essentially the same. This is because the risk of an individual being diagnosed with a neurodevelopmental disorder is not uniform throughout his/her lifetime. As observed in the present study, the initial mean age for any neurodevelopmental disorder diagnosis was 2.62 years old, and the standard deviation of mean age of the initial diagnosis of neurodevelopmental disorder was 1.58 years old. These findings are highly problematic because (1) any follow-up method that fails to consider the lag time between birth and age of initial neurodevelopmental disorder diagnosis will likely not be able to observe the true relationship between exposure and the subsequent risk of a neurodevelopmental disorder diagnosis and (2) statistically, the mean and standard deviation age of diagnosis as reported lead to the nonsensical result that a significant portion (2.5%) of the children in this study were diagosed with a neurodevelopmental disorder more than six months before they were born (i.e., the mean age minus two standard deviations, 2.62 − [2 × 1.58] = −0.54 years of age).

Another issue with this study is that the authors used a nontransparent, multivariate regression technique to analyze vaccine uptake and autism prevalence data. The study included one dependent variable (autism) and multiple independent variables, including two independent variables (Thimerosal exposure levels and year of birth) that were “correlated” with each other, since Thimerosal exposures increased with time. Thus, the researchers did not report a statistical analysis of the effect of Thimerosal exposure on autism incidence, despite the fact that the authors stated that no such effect was observed. Moreover, the methods used in this study can create a problem in regression known as “multicolinearity.” In this case, since the time variable and the vaccine exposure variable are correlated, they actually compete to explain the outcome effect. Inclusion of the time variable reduces the significance of the exposure variable. Yet, the authors did not explain why they included a time variable that competes with the exposure variable. Unfortunately, the authors of this study never released the raw data so that a valid single-variable analysis could be conducted to ascertain the probability of an association between Thimerosal exposure and the risk of autism.

It is also important to note that the UK Thimerosal exposure (a maximum of 75μg of Hg by 4 months of age) was not comparable to that in the United States (a maximum of 75μg of Hg by 2 months of age and 187.5μg of Hg by 6 months of age). Thus, this study should not be extrapolated to the probability of an autism-Thimerosal association based on the US vaccination schedule.

6. The Verstraeten et al. (2003) Study

The CDC’s published Verstraeten et al. study consists of a cohort analysis of a subset of records from the medical records databases for several of the HMOs whose records were maintained in a central data repository, the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD). This study was conducted in at least five separate phases. In the final phase (i.e., the results reported in the publication), the authors stated that there was no relationship between Thimerosal exposure in vaccines and autism incidence. However, no data are reported in the published study to support this conclusion.

Results from the first phase of the study released in an internal presentation abstract by Verstraeten et al.  (mentioned earlier) using records from four (4) HMOs showed that infants who were exposed to greater than 25μg of Hg in vaccines and immunoglobulins at the age of one month were 7.6 times more likely to have an autism diagnosis than those not exposed to any vaccine-derived organic Hg. Within the same abstract, Verstraeten reports that the risk for any neurodevelopmental disorder was 1.8, the risk for speech disorder was 2.1, and the risk for nonorganic sleep disorder was 5.0. All relative risks were statistically significant.

In the second phase of the study, a different approach was taken: exposure was compared at 3 months of age, rather than one month. Results of this phase showed that children exposed to the maximum amount of organic Hg in infant vaccines (62.5μg) were 2.48 times more likely to have autism diagnosis compared to those exposed to less than 37.5μg of Hg in vaccines. These results were also statistically significant. No assessment against a “no exposure” control was apparently completed in this study phase.

In the third phase of the study, in which more data stratification methods and different inclusion/exclusion criteria were applied to the analysis, the relative risk of autism for children at three months of Thimerosal exposure dropped to 1.69. At this point, evidence in an email from Verstraeten, the lead investigator, written to a colleague outside of the CDC (obtained by the authors via the US Freedom of Information Act of 1950 as amended), suggests that Verstraeten could have been receiving pressure within the CDC to apply unsound statistical methods to deny a causal relationship between Thimerosal and autism. In this email, Verstraeten states (Figure 1), “I do not wish to be the advocate of the anti-vaccine lobby and sound like being convinced that thimerosal is or was harmful, but at least I feel we should use sound scientific argumentation and not let our standards be dictated by our desire to disprove an unpleasant theory.”

Figure 1: July 14, 2000, email from Verstraeten to Philippe Grandjean regarding the risk of harm due to Thimerosal (obtained by the authors via the US Freedom of Information Act of 1950 as amended).
The fourth and fifth phase of the study used records from only two of the original HMOs and incorporated a third HMO, Harvard Pilgrim, into the analysis. Some critics of the study questioned the use of Harvard Pilgrim, as this HMO appeared to be riddled with uncertain record keeping practices, and the state of Massachusetts had been forced to take it over after it declared bankruptcy. In addition, the HMO used different diagnostic codes than the other two HMOs used in phases 2 and 3. Other criticisms include that the study used younger children, from 0 to 3 years of age, even though the average age for an autism diagnosis at the time was 4.4 years. Since half of the children receiving an autism diagnosis would be over 4.4 years of age, far greater than the maximum age in the study at 3 years, this analysis excluded more than 50% of all autism cases from this HMO. Also, the cohort from this HMO contained 7 times fewer individuals than the main cohort from the previous study (i.e., HMO B), and there was no apparent attempt to assess the power of this HMO to show any statistically significant effect.

Also of note is the lack of variability within strata among the different HMOs in the Verstraeten et al. study. By design, a cohort study seeking to assess the effect of some treatment on a subsequent outcome should be designed to maximize the range of the independent “treatment” variable (Thimerosal exposure in this instance) in order to determine if there is indeed an “effect” in the dependent postexposure outcome variable (neurological disorders in this study). However, the authors knowingly stratified the analysis based on the participants’ gender, year of birth, month of birth, and clinic most often visited. This effectively reduced the variability of Thimerosal exposure within the strata to the point that it reduced the capability of the final analysis to find any but the “strongest” Thimerosal exposure-related outcome effects. The problems with such “overmatching” practices have been discussed in detail in peer-reviewed scientific literature and will be treated in greater detail in the forthcoming review of the CDC’s Price et al. paper.

Another methodological concern about the Verstraeten et al. study is related to the issue of the minimum follow-up period required for individuals in the cohorts examined to ensure that all the cases in the cohort will have been identified with a high degree of certainty. This issue has been mentioned as a problem in the previous studies. As mentioned earlier, the method used to determine the minimum follow-up period for individuals is a critical issue in all studies examining the relationship between exposures and the subsequent risk of a neurodevelopmental disorder diagnosis, especially in those instances where the exposures to all participants in the study are the same or essentially the same. This is the case because the risk of an individual being diagnosed with a neurodevelopmental disorder is not uniform throughout his/her lifetime. Any follow-up method that fails to consider the lag time between birth and age of initial neurodevelopmental disorder diagnosis will likely not be able to observe the true relationship between exposure and the subsequent risk of a neurodevelopmental disorder diagnosis. Verstraeten et al. included children in the control group who were too young (down to “0” years of age) to receive a neurodevelopmental disorder diagnosis.

Within this study, Verstraeten et al. still found significantly increased risk ratios for tics and language delay. However, the authors stated that, because these results were not consistent between the HMOs tested, these significantly increased risk ratios could not be used to make a determination of the potential adverse consequences of organic-Hg exposure from TCVs.

7. The Price et al. 2010 Study

In 2010, the CDC published another epidemiology study on Thimerosal and autism. This case-control study was conducted using the records from three managed care organizations (MCOs) consisting of 256 children with an ASD diagnosis and 752 controls that were matched by birth year, gender, and MCO to the children with an ASD diagnosis. Exposure to Thimerosal in vaccines and immunoglobulin preparations was determined from electronic immunization registries, medical charts, and parent interviews. Conditional logistic regression was used to assess associations between ASD, autistic disorder (AD), and ASD with regression and exposure to ethyl-Hg during prenatal, birth-to-1-month, birth-to-7-month, and birth-to-20-month periods. Their published finding was that prenatal and infant Thimerosal exposure from TCVs and Thimerosal-containing immunoglobulin posed no statistically significant risk of autism.

As mentioned earlier, in case-control studies, the main methodological concern is the phenomenon called “overmatching.” This concern for overmatching in the Price et al. study was voiced previously by DeSoto and Hitlan. In their comprehensive analysis of overmatching errors specific to the Price paper, DeSoto and Hitlan stated that “Matching cannot—or should not—be done in a way that artificially increases the chance that within[-] strata exposure is the same; this happens when a matching variable is a significant predictor of exposure and is called overmatching.”

Cases were matched with controls of the same age and sex, within the same HMO and essentially the same vaccination schedule, using the same vaccine manufacturers. DeSoto and Hitlan then state further, regarding the lack of variability of Thimerosal exposure in the Price study, “Across the different years, the average cumulative exposure varies from 42.3μg to 125.46μg; while within the birth year stratas (sic), the mean exposures do not vary by more than 15 micrograms.” In other words, the maximum level of variation in Thimerosal exposure in the cases and controls being compared was 15μg of Hg, as compared to the “83”μg of Hg range for the average cumulative exposures in the cohort studies. Moreover, this range is much less than the range of Thimerosal exposures that could have been used to determine risk including (a) 0 to 50μg of Hg for one-month exposures, (b) 0 to 190 μg of Hg for seven-month exposures, and (c) 0 to 300μg of Hg for 20-month exposures. Finally, regarding the Price study, DeSoto and Hitlan concluded, “this paper is flawed. Unfortunately, there is not an analytic fix for overmatching: it is design flaw.”

Prenatal Thimerosal exposure for the children within the study arose from the Thimerosal-preserved inactivated-influenza vaccine given during pregnancy and the Rho immunoglobulin administered to pregnant women to prevent Rh-factor incompatibility injury to the developing child. Unlike postnatal exposure from TCVs in the recommended childhood vaccination schedule, prenatal exposures would not be overmatched in a study design that stratified the participants based on their birth year or HMO. Evidence from the background CDC report regarding the Price study showed a significant risk of regressive autism due to prenatal Thimerosal exposure levels, at exposure levels as low as 16μg of Hg. However, the risk of regressive autism due to prenatal Thimerosal exposure reported in that paper was 1.86 and yielded a  value of 0.072 which was deemed as insignificant based on the authors’ “cut-off” value of . However,  values between 0.05 and 0.10 are “marginally significant” and should merit further study. In addition, upon further analysis, it was found that the 2009 background report to the Price et al.  study showed that the prenatal Thimerosal exposure model was run in six different ways and that the most reliable methods (those that factored out the postnatal Thimerosal exposure effects) found highly statistically significant relative risks of up to 8.73 () for regressive ASD due to prenatal Thimerosal exposures from Thimerosal-containing influenza vaccines and Rho immunoglobulin products relative to no such prenatal Thimerosal exposures. Curiously, these more compelling results were not reported in the paper. Withholding these data from the publication and, instead, reporting a significantly lower value could appear to constitute scientific malfeasance on the part of the authors of this study.

8. Conclusion

As seen in this review, the studies upon which the CDC relies and over which it exerted some level of control report that there is no increased risk of autism from exposure to organic Hg in vaccines, and some of these studies even reported that exposure to Thimerosal appeared to decrease the risk of autism. These six studies are in sharp contrast to research conducted by independent researchers over the past 75+ years that have consistently found Thimerosal to be harmful. As mentioned in the Introduction section, many studies conducted by independent investigators have found Thimerosal to be associated with neurodevelopmental disorders. Several studies, for example, including three of the six studies covered in this review, have found Thimerosal to be a risk factor for tics. In addition, Thimerosal has been found to be a risk factor in speech delay, language delay, attention deficit disorder, and autism

Considering that there are many studies conducted by independent researchers which show a relationship between Thimerosal and neurodevelopmental disorders, the results of the six studies examined in this review, particularly those showing the protective effects of Thimerosal, should bring into question the validity of the methodology used in the studies. A list of the most common methodological issues with these six studies is shown in Table 1. Importantly, other than the Hviid et al.  study, five of the publications examined in this review were directly commissioned by the CDC, raising the possible issue of conflict of interests or research bias, since vaccine promotion is a central mission of the CDC. Conceivably, if serious neurological disorders are found to be related to Thimerosal in vaccines, such findings could possibly be viewed as damaging to the vaccine program.

There is no such thing as a genetic epidemic

Is Autism genetic-
There is no such thing as a genetic epidemic.

No one has been able to identify one single "autism gene." And there is no such thing as a genetic epidemic -- so no way to explain today's autism explosion as a function of genetics.  
How can something that was considered a relatively obscure condition 40 years ago suddenly rise to epidemic proportions, while the rates of other developmental disabilities, such as Downs Syndrome and mental retardation, have remained relatively stable? The answer is simple. It can’t. It is scientifically impossible to have an epidemic of a developmental or genetic disorder.


Robert Nash, M.D., is a practicing neurologist and the Chairman of the American Board of Metal Toxicology. he suggested that there appears to be a subset of the population that cannot effectively excrete mercury and is at greater risk than the general population. This susceptibility is likely due to genetic differences, diet, exposure to other toxicants, antibiotic use, etc.

Autism Gene
 15 out of 6,176 autistic kids with the gene Does Not Make It The Gene that Causes Autism.
-"We finally got a clear cut case of an autism specific gene," said Raphael Bernier, the lead author, and UW associate professor in the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences and the clinical director of the Autism Center at Seattle Children's.
Bernier said people with a mutation in the CHD8 gene have a very "strong likelihood" that they will have autism marked by gastrointestinal disorders, a larger head and wide set eyes.
In their study of 6,176 children with autism spectrum disorder, researchers found 15 had a CHD8 mutation and all these cases had similar characteristics in appearance and issues with sleep disturbance and gastrointestinal problems.


Have Vaccines been tested for safety?

Have Vaccines been tested for safety?
1 out of 35 vaccine ingredients has been tested. Only 2 of 36 shots have been studied for Autism. The 48 shot vaccine schedule has never been studied.
Pertussis-  According the research of the last 50 years, the vaccine is safe.  But what test showed it was safe?
It's called the Mouse Weight Gain Test.  "Researchers" would vaccinate mice at their stomachs.  If the mice continue to gain weight and don't die right away, it's considered safe. I wish I could make this stuff up.

And if you haven't heard, adults should get the shot because it will protect the young.  In 2012, Australia stopped this adult vaccine program all together because there was no proof that it was protecting the young.

Whether vaccines can, and do, cause severe, irreparable damage is not up for debate. The U.S. government’s table of recognized vaccine injuries includes anaphylaxis, a severe, whole-body reaction to vaccine ingredients; encephalopathy, brain damage; brachial neuritis, a degree of loss of sensation to the shoulders, arms, hands, and chest, which can be accompanied by chronic pain, lasting years; chronic arthritis; Thrombocytopenic purpura, a loss of blood platelets resulting in “increased tendency to bleed”, an autoimmune disorder caused by the production of antibodies against platelet antigens - See more at: http://www.vaccinationcouncil.org/2014/11/18/the-greater-harm-by-shawn-siegel/#sthash.T19VYWED.dpuf

Bad CDC testing-
-the main studies quoted by the Center for Disease Control (CDC) used to disprove the connection between vaccines and autism is the Danish study showing an increase in autism rates after thimerosol was removed from vaccines. However what was NOT reported in the study was that at the same time as the mercury was removed for vaccines, the Danish government mandated reporting of autism and offered free clinics and increased services for those with autism. And, suspiciously, the lead author on that study who has worked closely with the CDC recently absconded with $2 million in research grants. The Danish police are searching for him.
-Conflicts of interest are the norm in the vaccine industry. Members and Chairs of the FDA and CDC vaccine advisory committees own stock in drug companies that make vaccines; individuals on both advisory committees own patents for vaccines under consideration or affected by the decisions these committees make. The CDC grants conflict-of-interest waivers to every member of their advisory committee a year at a time, allowing full participation in the discussions leading up to a vote by every member whether or not they have a financial stake in the decision

Are vaccines safe?
-It has been found that the maximum exposure from these vaccines in the first six months of life is 187.5 micrograms of mercury -- far exceeding limits set by the World Health Organization (WHO) and The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). According to the EPA, the "safe" daily level of mercury exposure for a five kilogram, two-month-old infant is 0.5 micrograms or 0.1 micrograms per kg. But these limits are set for methyl mercury primarily from fish, not for ethyl mercury from vaccines. The typical two-month vaccination schedule for a baby includes DTP, Hib, and HepB. Combined, these vaccines contain 62.5 micrograms of mercury.
-The only time the data was analyzed correctly looking at completely vaccinated cohort of children getting vaccines containing thimerosal versus children who had received vaccines without thimerosal was by the CDC’s Thomas Verstraten in 1999, which found associations between exposure to vaccines and a host of adverse neurological disorders including ADD/ADHD, speech and language delays, neurodevelopmental delays in general and autism. http://www.safeminds.org/research/library/GenerationZeroPowerPoint.pdf
-U.S. military personnel may be even worse off: “…four letters from the FDA/Public Health Service…clearly reveal that the anthrax vaccine was approved for marketing without the manufacturer performing a single controlled clinical trial.” Clinical trials are, of course, absolutely critical to determining the safety and effectiveness of any pharmaceutical product. Military personnel have been, and continue to be, unwitting subjects in unethical experiments.
-After critically analyzing literally ten’s of thousands of pages of the vaccine medical literature, Dr. Viera Scheibner concluded that “there is no evidence whatsoever of the ability of vaccines to prevent any diseases. To the contrary, there is a great wealth of evidence that they cause serious side effects.”76 Dr. Classen has stated, “My data proves that the studies used to support immunization are so flawed that it is impossible to say if immunization provides a net benefit to anyone or to society in general. This question can only be determined by proper studies that have never been performed. The flaw of previous studies is that there was no long-term follow up and chronic toxicity was not looked at. The American Society of Microbiology has promoted my research...
-According to Dr. P M Bhargava, the BCG vaccine for tuberculosis has been extensively tested in India as long back as 1961 and found to be totally ineffective (in fact tuberculosis in the vaccinated group was found to be more than in the control group!). The OPV is causing polio in tens of thousands of Indian children. The Hep-B vaccine introduced into the UPI recently is not meant for children at all, it is a vaccine for a sexually transmitted disease that should be targeted only at promiscuous adults. The tetanus vaccine contains both aluminum and mercury besides the tetanus toxoid. The doctors themselves avoid giving the DPT to their children and relatives as per a survey amongst US health care professionals.
-Doctor Ajay Gambhir, a very senior member of the IAP, too supports extensive screening of children before administering any vaccine. According to him children suffering from any illness, with any family history of autoimmune illnesses, any past reactions from vaccines, should not be administered vaccines. According to him the parents of children need to be told that they have the choice not to vaccinate.



Mercury Poisoning symptoms?
-Recent peer-reviewed scientific/medical studies by Nataf et al. (2006) and by Geier and Geier (2006) leave little doubt that many autistic children are indeed mercury poisoned. These studies utilized urinary porphyrin profile analysis (UPPA) to assess the body-burden and magnitude of physiological effects of mercury in children.
-Mercury poisoning and autism have nearly identical symptoms, and a single day’s vaccination regimen may inject 41 times the level of mercury known to cause harm. California’s autism rate has mushroomed 1000% over the past 20 years, with dramatic increases following the introduction of the MMR vaccine in the early 1980’s. England had dramatic autism increases beginning in the 1990’s, following the introduction of the MMR vaccine there. Some infants receive 100 times the EPA’s maximum allowable amount of mercury through vaccines.
-In January, 2000, the Journal of Adverse Drug Reactions reported that the MMR vaccine was not adequately tested and should not have been licensed. Further reinforcing the suspected vaccine-autism connection is the fact that many physicians using a systematic mercury-detoxification regimen with autistic patients have seen dramatic improvements in the health and behavior of their patients.
-Los Angeles Times, Merck & Co., the makers of several vaccines, knew in 1991 that the cumulative amount of mercury in vaccines given to infants by six months of age was about 87 times the level then thought to be safe
-"However, in 2001, the vaccine was found to cause a serious, frequently fatal, multisystemic illness, called yellow fever vaccine–associated viscerotropic disease (YEL-AVD), which resembles the illness it was designed to prevent."
​http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3310656/

Mercury in the body
- study of children with developmental delay found that 75 of 91 patients with autism and inflamed bowels had live measles virus detected in samples of their intestinal tissues. Only 7 of the 70 normal patients (or controls) were found to have the measles virus in their gut. Vaccine measles strains have been isolated from the spinal fluid of autistic children. http://www.jpands.org/vol9no2/bradstreet.pdf
-A case control study of 221 children with autism and 18 controls found that after a DMSA challenge test, vaccinated autistic children had THREE times the level of mercury in their urine compared to controls
Biopsy samples found 22,000 times the level of mercury in people with heart failure from unknown causes compared to controls whose heart failure was caused by virus, heart attacks, or high blood pressure
-Research proves that even very low levels of exposure have adverse effects on language, attention, and memory, making children less able to think and learn. When you read this list of symptoms, it is easy for even the layperson to correlate that this environmental toxin has caused havoc with our children’s development starting in the late 80’s when the numbers of vaccines containing thimerosal and the epidemic of developmental disorders began to increase
-Monkey studies have shown that the mercury in thimerosal does indeed cross the blood brain barrier and results in significant deposition of inorganic mercury in the brain. Research has documented that inorganic mercury becomes trapped in the brain (the estimated half-life is over 700 days).
-A review by Dr. Paul G. King has proven otherwise, showing that ethylmercury is first metabolized by the body into toxic methylmercury, which is then metabolized into inorganic mercury.
The abstract from that study states the following:
"In the rat study, which Dr. King cites, the lab rats were raised for the purpose of this study and had no reported mercury levels in their blood before the experiment.
There were three groups in the study:
1. A test group of Thimerosal-(ethylymercury)-treated rats;
2. A test group of methylmercury-chloride-treated rats; and
3. A control group of rats treated with a 'water' placebo.
At the end of the experiment, as expected, the water-treated control group had no reported levels of mercury in their blood or organs.
The group treated with methylmercury chloride (which vaccine purveyors routinely "sound bite" as the harmful organic mercury as compared to the "safe" Thimerosal, ethylmercury), as expected, had both methylmercury and inorganic mercury in their blood and organs."

And goes on to conclude:
"In layman's terms, these studies, as brought to light by Dr. King, establish that ethylmercury (Thimerosal), a "supposedly harmless" compound of mercury according to the vaccine establishment, is converted in the rat and apparently in the human infant into "methylmercury" which, the establishment admits is a harmful form of mercury. It is then further reduced to the long-term most harmful, "inorganic mercury" that bioaccumulates in the tissues and organs.
Based on these findings, we can conclude that injecting the Thimerosal (ethylmercury), found in flu shots, into pregnant women (exposing the in utero fetus to mercury [see Table I on page 15 of Dr. King's posting
(http://dr-king.com/docs/110915_PGKReviewOfUSSubmissionToUNEP_b.pdf)]

5) "There is no mercury in vaccines. It has all been phased out."

Oh, but it hasn't! In fact, it's still regularly added to the influenza vaccine, and is active in other vaccines, hidden under other titles.
The FDA themselves have gone on to say the following:

"While the use of mercury-containing preservatives has declined in recent years with the development of new products formulated with alternative or no preservatives, thimerosal has been used in some immune globulin preparations, anti-venins, skin test antigens, and ophthalmic and nasal products, in addition to certain vaccines," right on its "Thimerosal in Vaccines" page which can be found here:
http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/SafetyAvailability/VaccineSafety/UCM096228
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/121/2/e208.full?sid=9a37d1db-5082-4a07-abdb-4807dd9e61d0
6) "The mercury is vaccines is good for you, since it produces an immune response."
There are absolutely no studies that show that mercury, a toxic substance, is good for you. In fact, just the opposite is true. The study cited in the post above goes on to say:

"The antibacterial activity of thimerosal (sodium ethyl mercury thiosalicylate) is attributed to the ethyl mercury cation that dissociates from the thimerosal molecule. By 1999, expanding recommendations for infant vaccination meant that US children who received a complete series of vaccines that contained thimerosal potentially received up to 187.5 μg of ethyl mercury during the first 6 months of life.1-3 This cumulative exposure could exceed the US Environmental Protection Agency's recommended safe intake level, estimated in 1997 to be no more than 0.1 μg of mercury per kg of body weight per day.4 This observation led to a recommendation by the American Academy of Pediatrics that thimerosal be removed from all vaccines that are administered to infants in the United States."

Yet, it has not been removed. The EPA themselves acknowledge the toxic effects of mercury:

http://www.epa.gov/hg/effects.htm

Aluminum
-When, at two months, a baby gets its first big round of shots, the total dose of aluminum could vary from 295 mcg (if a non-aluminum HIB and the lowest-aluminum brand of DTaP are used) we know a healthy baby could handle, a 12-pound, two-month-old baby could safely receive at least 30 mcg of aluminum per day. A 22-pound one-year-old could receive at least 50 mcg safely.  FDA requires, that all injectable solutions be limited to 25 mcg; The baby gets 295 mcg but can only handle 30 mcg safely per day.  So what happen when the baby receives 265mcg more than what is safe? No one has measured the levels of aluminum absorption by the bloodstream when it is injected into the skin and muscle of infants, or the levels of excretion from the body via urination. All of the FDA and AAP documents that I've read state that aluminum might be a problem, but that they haven't studied it yet, so we should limit the amount of aluminum included in injectable solutions. But, again, no one is talking about the levels of aluminum in vaccines.

 -Several years ago, some suspected cases of aluminum toxicity resulted in various neurologic and degenerative problems. The Cochrane Collaboration, a group that studies health-care issues around the world, wanted to look at a very large study group to see if there was a real correlation between neurologic problems and the aluminum in vaccines. They investigated all the reported side effects of one aluminum-containing vaccine, DTP (no longer used), and looked for any evidence that such vaccines caused more side effects than non-aluminum vaccines.
-They looked at the effects of only one standard aluminum-containing vaccine, rather than the effects of all four being administered at once. They didn't study aluminum metabolism itself. They didn't test aluminum levels in children after vaccination, nor did they explore whether or not the amount of aluminum in vaccines builds up in the brain or bone tissues. They looked only for evidence of external symptoms of aluminum toxicity, not internal effects. Nor did they do their own research; instead, they reviewed all available studies conducted by other investigators. Despite all this, the Cochrane Collaboration study essentially closed the book on investigating aluminum toxicity from vaccines, without really having opened it in the first place.
-several animal studies involving aluminum and/or aluminum-containing vaccines that did show neurologic harm. Not only did aluminum build up in the brain and cause damage, but some of the damage looked similar to what is seen in the brains of Alzheimer's patients.



Have Vaccines been proven to work?

Have Vaccines been proven to work?

Surprisingly, vaccination has never actually been clinically proven to be effective in preventing disease, for the simple reason that no researcher has directly exposed test subjects to diseases (nor may they ethically do so). The medical community’s gold standard, the double blind, placebo-controlled study, has not been used to compare vaccinated and unvaccinated people, and so the practice remains scientifically unproven. Furthermore, it is important to recognize that not everyone exposed to a disease develops symptoms (indeed, only a tiny percentage of a population need develop symptoms for an epidemic to be declared). Thus, if a vaccinated individual is exposed to a disease and doesn’t get sick, it is impossible to know whether the vaccine worked, because there is no way to know if that person would have developed symptoms if he or she had not been vaccinated. It is also worth noting that outbreaks in recent years have recorded more disease cases in vaccinated children than in unvaccinated children.

According to the British Association for the Advancement of Science, childhood diseases decreased 90% between 1850 and 1940, paralleling improved sanitation and hygienic practices, well before mandatory vaccination programs. The Medical Sentinel recently reported, “from 1911 to 1935, the four leading causes of childhood deaths from infectious diseases in the U.S. were diphtheria, pertussis, scarlet fever, and measles. However, by 1945 the combined death rates from these causes had declined by 95 percent, before the implementation of mass immunization programs.”
 It is important to understand that the polio vaccine was not universally accepted, at least initially. Despite this, polio declined both in European countries that refused mass vaccination as well as in those that employed it.
-“Thus vaccination DOES NOT account for the impressive declines in mortality seen in the first half of the century”
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/106/6/1307.abstract
The CDC even reported a measles outbreak in a documented 100% vaccinated population. A study examining this phenomenon concluded, “The apparent paradox is that as measles immunization rates rise to high levels in a population, measles becomes a disease of immunized persons.” A more recent study found that measles vaccination “produces immune suppression which contributes to an increased susceptibility to other infections.” These studies suggest that the goal of complete “immunization” may actually be counter-productive, a notion underscored by instances in which epidemics followed complete immunization of entire countries. Japan experienced yearly increases in small pox following the introduction of compulsory vaccines in 1872. By 1892, there were 29,979 deaths, and all had been vaccinated. In the early 1900’s, the Philippines experienced their worst smallpox epidemic ever after 8 million people received 24.5 million vaccine doses

Are these dieseases deadly?
CDC statistics for pertussis during 1992-94 indicate a 99.8% recovery rate. In fact, when hundreds of pertussis cases occurred in Ohio and Chicago in the fall 1993 outbreak, an infectious disease expert from Cincinnati Children's Hospital said, “The disease was very mild, no one died, and no one went to the intensive care unit.”
Also, consider that in 1963, the population was 189,241,798. That means that prior to the vaccine, the percentage of the entire US population that died from measles was .000237%.
.000237% is a very small number.  What this means is that prior to the availability of the measles vaccine in the U.S., between 2 and 3 people out of every ONE MILLION U.S. citizens died from measles complications
- There was a death of a six month old from pertussis in February 2014 and that was the first case of a death since 2010. In comparison to these numbers are some other statistics. Every year, in the United States, there are over 1,000 children who die from drowning and almost 7,000 who die in motor vehicle accidents. If we look at all ages, each year there are over 10 million motor vehicle accidents and over 30,000 fatalities or 11 deaths per 100,000 population. If we are so concerned about the well being of children, why are there no calls for the outlawing of swimming pools and motor vehicles?
-According to the CDC the greatest reported complication is loose stool with measles.
Measles Complications Conditions Diarrhea - 8% reported
Otitis media - 7% reported
Pneumonia - 6% reported
Encephalitis - 0.1% reported
Seizures - 0.6-0.7% reported
Death - 0.2% reported
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/meas.html

The measles mortality rate had already dropped by over 98% before the vaccine was even introduced.
Thanks to better nutrition and hygiene, the death rate was LESS THAN 1 in 100,000 before the measles vaccine came out.
http://business.financialpost.com/2014/04/16/lawrence-solomon-the-untold-story-of-measles/

-Rubella, also called German measles or three-day measles, is a contagious viral infection best known by its distinctive red rash.
Rubella is not the same as measles (rubeola), though the two illnesses do share some characteristics, including the red rash. However, rubella is caused by a different virus than measles and is neither as infectious nor usually as severe as measles.
The signs and symptoms of rubella are often so mild that they're difficult to notice

Hepatitis B (no need for newborns to get this)
It is not a killer disease for most people.
Symptoms of Hepatitis B infection include nausea, vomiting, fatigue, low grade fever, pain and swelling in joints, headache and cough that may occur one to two weeks before the onset of jaundice (yellowing of the skin) and enlargement and tenderness of the liver, which can last for three to four weeks


Hep A (No need for newborns to get this)
In the prevaccine era, hepatitis A caused about 100 deaths per year in the United States. The case-fatality rate among persons of all ages with reported cases was approximately 0.3%. No specific treatment exists for hepatitis A. Your body will clear the hepatitis A virus on its own. In most cases of hepatitis A, the liver heals completely in a month or two with no lasting damage
A person is at increased risk of hepatitis A if they:
-Travel or work in regions with high rates of hepatitis A
-Are a man who has sexual contact with other men (10% of cases)
-Are HIV positive
-Use injected or noninjected illicit drugs (6% of cases)
-Live with another person who has hepatitis A (14% of cases)

HPV
-HPV infection is common, occuring in 1 out of 5 women. 90% of HPV cases will resolve within 1-3 year without any intervention, less than 8% of HPV cases will screen positive for cervical dysplasia.  According to published data (2010 Discovery Medicine Journal), HPV vaccine efficacy must last at least 15 years to contribute to the prevention of cervical cancers. At the current time, protection against is at best 5-8 years. If your daughter receives an HPV vaccine at the recommended age of 11, protection will have waned by age 16.
The data collected from the above agency confirms approximately 0.0% deaths from cervical cancer under age 20.
You may find yourself asking if it is even appropriate to risk any adverse effects to a  preadolescent girl for a vaccine that is (1) only theoretically proven to prevent a disease that (2) she only has a 0.66% risk of developing over her lifetime – WHEN THE SAME CAN BE PREVENTED WITH REGULAR PAP SCREENING
- VAERS
Another point worth addressing regarding safety is the adverse events reported after vaccination to various governments worldwide.
 Since 2006, nearly 65% of all deaths and life-threatening reactions reported to VAERS from Gardasil or Cervarix alone. A total of 30,020 reports have been received by US VAERS including 2,574 hospitalizations, 9,114 ER visits 93 deaths.
82% of cases resulting in permanent disability in females under 30 years of age was attributed to HPV vaccines. To date, there is no data confirming HPV vaccines preventing or treating any cervical cancers. The large majority of HPV infection (and a great proportion of Cervical dysplasia) clear spontaneously without medical intervention



Smallpox- vaccines didn't get rid of it

Smallpox
"It is pathetic and ludicrous to say we ever vanquished smallpox with vaccines, when only 10% of the population was ever vaccinated." Dr Glen Dettman.

Even their chief smallpox expert admitted as much recently:


"If people are worried about endemic smallpox, it disappeared from this country not because of our mass herd immunity.  It disappeared because of our economic development.  And that's why it disappeared from Europe and many other countries, and it will not be sustained here, even if there were several importations, I'm sure.  It's not from universal vaccination."----Dr. Mack 

One of the worst smallpox epidemics took place in England between 1870 and 1872, nearly two decades after compulsory vaccination was introduced. Leicester, with nearly 200,000 inhabitants, boasted a 95% vaccination record but it suffered more deaths than less-vaccinated London - See more at: http://www.vaccinationcouncil.org/2010/02/26/smallpox-vaccine-origins-of-vaccine-madness/#sthash.PL0Dvk9t.dpuf
In Japan, in 1885, 13 years after compulsory vaccination, a law was passed requiring re-vaccination every seven years. From 1886 “” 1892, a total of 25, 474,370 revaccinations were recorded. Yet during this same period, Japan had 156,175 cases of smallpox with 38,979 deaths, a case mortality of nearly 25 percent. Slow learners, the government passed another act requiring every resident to be vaccinated and re-vaccinated every 5 years. Between 1889 “” 1908, the case mortality was 30 percent. Prior to vaccination the case mortality was about 10 percent - See more at: http://www.vaccinationcouncil.org/2010/02/26/smallpox-vaccine-origins-of-vaccine-madness/#sthash.PL0Dvk9t.dpuf
During a ruthless campaign by the US in the Philippines in 1905, the native population were forcibly vaccinated several times. In 1918 “” 1919, with over 95% of the population vaccinated, the worst epidemic the Philippines had ever known occurred. - See more at: http://www.vaccinationcouncil.org/2010/02/26/smallpox-vaccine-origins-of-vaccine-madness/#sthash.PL0Dvk9t.dpuf

Contrary to popular belief smallpox was not eradicated by mass vaccination. Though tried initially it proved difficult to implement in many countries and was abandoned in favor of surveillance-containment. This involved trained workers searching for cases, with rewards for those who found them. Cases and their contacts were then isolated

New Scientist indicates that "The smallpox family of viruses is genetically unstable," and that new viral strains which threaten the "WHO smallpox eradication programme, could emerge anywhere. It is thus of interest that in a 1980 article in the Australasian Nurses Journal, Dettman and Kalokerinos pointed out that electron-microscopy cannot distinguish between the various "poxviruses. (According to D, de Saving of IDRC, as of 1990 DNA sequencing can make the distinquishingment. What is not known though, is whether this has any beating on the reporting of the various "pox" diseases worldwide.) This fact led them to raise a vitally significant question "as to whether smallpox may be declared conquered, (it's estimated that only 10 percent of the world population actually received the vaccine) with the possibility of it masquerading under the guise of a similar pox." Their line of evidence and reasoning is summarily stated:



. . . we claim that if the evidence is honestly evaluated that smallpox has actually been prolonged and that the so called protective vaccinations actually put the recipient at risk from . . . the disease itself. Authorities now realize this and the 'top world' countries are making vociferous protests about third world countries continuing use of smallpox vaccination because (a) suddenly it has become recognized that it is an extremely dangerous procedure, (To give some idea of the vaccine's dangers, it was reported--in the late sixties--that annually, roughly 3,000 children were experiencing varying degrees of brain damage due to the smallpox vaccine; and according to G. Kiftel in 1967, smallpox vaccination damaged the hearing of 3,296 children in West Germany, of which 71 became totally deaf.) and  it has now been conquered. The ultimate in ingenuity. . . .