The Aluminum Connection...

Return To HOME Page

As I read the transcripts from the "aluminum meeting" in Puerto Rico in 2000, National Vaccine Program Office Workshop on Aluminum In Vaccines, Caribe Hilton International Hotel, San Juan, Puerto Rico, May 11th - 12th, 2000, transcripts provided by Eberlin Reporting Service, 14208 Piccadilly Road, Silver Spring, MD, 20906, (301) 460-8369, hereafter, “aluminum transcript” or “aluminum meeting transcript”, I found a few comments rather disturbing.  Those interested in reading the full text of this 2-day meeting could find this report and others on my  under a section entitled:  Reports Attorney For The Vaccine Injured Will Surely Want To See!  

A great deal has been said about mercury in vaccines.   What most people did not realize was that aluminum, also found in vaccines, was a known gene mutant and it appeared to be – potentially – just as dangerous as mercury!   When combined, the toxicities of aluminum and mercury, together, were "additive" - in other words the dangers associated with the "combo" of aluminum and mercury were much worse than what you would get from either metal alone.   Boyd Haley, metals expert, had testified to this fact during government reform hearings looking into matters of the autism-vaccine connection and metal toxicities.   From the aluminum transcripts, clearly, this issue of metal synergies had been raised as a concern. 

"for many toxic agents, metals in particular, is that of additivity... the response... is much more severe than I would predict from having either one of these agents acting by itself" [p. 120, Aluminum transcripts]... 

and this quote... 

 "most metals are very reactive"... [p. 133 of Aluminum transcripts]...

 and that certainly appeared to be true of aluminum also given it was considered “so effective” in initiating an  immune system response - but, ask yourself - was that a sign of a "good thing" or perhaps a sign of “a very bad thing”! 

Both formaldehyde and aluminum were found in vaccines.   Both were known gene mutants.

A "mutant", "mutate" and a "mutation" are defined as follows according to the

American Heritage Dictionary (fourth edition) - I quote:

Mutant:  "An organism or a new genetic character differing from the parental strain as a result of mutation". 

Mutate:  "To undergo or cause to undergo mutation". 

Mutation:  "A change as in nature, form or quality.   Any heritable alteration of an organism". [end of quote from American Heritage Dictionary, Office Edition, Fourth Edition, Houghton Mifflin Company, 2001, ISBN 0-618-07706-5].

There could be absolutely no denying that aluminum was a known gene mutant.   Indeed, in agribusiness, soil was checked for aluminum content when growing genetically modified foods because it was a well known fact that aluminum altered the genetics of plants... and surely, if it altered the genetics of plants, it stood to reason it also altered the genetics of people, too!  Aluminum was known to inhibit root growth and nutrient uptake in plants and this was a major financial burden in agribusiness.   As such, in agribusiness, aluminum levels in soil were closely monitored since this was considered a toxin for plants.   Thus, if a toxin for plants, one that inhibited nutrient intake and growth, did it not stand to reason that similar effects would be found in humans with exposure to this metal?  

Yet, there were those who stated that because aluminum was so abundant in life that it could not possibly be “that dangerous”.   Well… as I had stated in the past…salt water was abundant, too, but I certainly did not go around drinking it.    But, what else did we know about aluminum.   In a study I had found, the following was stated – I quote:   

"Exposure to aluminum in laboratory animals results in the development of neurofibrillary tangles and

degeneration of cerebral neurons" [end of quote, emphasis added, Zheng, W., Neurotoxicology of the Brain Barrier System: New Implications, Clinical Toxicology: 39 (7), 711-719, 2001].  

Perhaps the most disturbing comment, for me, personally, was this one - I quote: 

"Perhaps the most important thing that I took away from the last meeting was that those of us who deal with vaccines have really very little applicable background with metals and toxicological research."  [Dr. Martin Myers, Director of the National Vaccine Program Office, Department of Health and Human Services, National Vaccine Program Office Workshop on Aluminum In Vaccines, Caribe Hilton International Hotel, San Juan, Puerto Rico, May 11th - 12th, 2000, p. 1, transcripts provided by Eberlin Reporting Service, 14208 Piccadilly Road, Silver Spring, MD,  20906, (301) 460-8369)].

 and this quote... again, in a meeting to assess the dangers/benefits of aluminum - a known gene mutant - in vaccines... 

"Aluminum is not perceived, I believe, by the public as a dangerous metal and, therefore, we are in a much more comfortable wicket in terms of defending its presence in vaccines" [Dr. John Clement representing World Health Organization at  Department of Health and Human Services, National Vaccine Program Office Workshop on Aluminum In Vaccines, Caribe Hilton International Hotel, San Juan, Puerto Rico, May 11th - 12th, 2000, p. 64, transcripts provided by Eberlin Reporting Service, 14208 Piccadilly Road, Silver Spring, MD,  20906, (301) 460-8369)].

Also very obvious from this two day meeting was the fact that it very much appeared aluminum additives did basically nothing in "booster shots" (p. 35, p. 234, p. 252,  aluminum transcripts) but, yet, they were added because to remove them and make "special aluminum-free boosters" would prove too inconvenient for the pharmaceutical industry and as such, we preferred to inject more toxins - and known "worthless toxins" or aluminum adjuvants -  according to this meeting - than to change our processes/procedures/products.   Thus convenience came above safety and "need for this toxin in boosters in the first place" (p. 253-254 of aluminum transcripts)!   Note that on p. 251, it was stated that one of the primary reasons for having aluminum in vaccines was because it also acted as a "stabilizer"... because it could be years between the time of manufacture and the time at which the vaccine was actually administered.   Thus again, "the convenience factor" was more important than the safety issue!  

That brought up a very interesting issue... why was it that some vaccines had aluminum... yet others did not?   And likewise, why did some have mercury while others did not?   Was there "a medical need" for these substances in vaccines or was all this just a matter of "manufacturing convenience" in spite of very limited information or "practical knowledge" by those in the vaccine business as to the dangers or toxicities of metals in vaccines? 

And then, there was this comment...

 "So, in summary, looking at the historical data, there have been few clinical trials in which a given bath of vaccine with or without adjuvant has been tested in a comparable population so that just has not been done".  [Dr. Baylor, Acting Deputy Director of the Office Of Vaccine Research and Review, and Associate Director for Regulatory Policy at the Center for Biological Evaluation of Research at FDA, p. 39 of aluminum transcripts].   

Note that Dr. Baylor, on p. 40, also suggested making separate first dose vaccines with aluminum and "boosters" without aluminum. 

So, here was a person who worked for the FDA saying that this should be looked at, and yet, the "logistical nightmare" that this would create for the pharmaceutical industry, WHO, etc., again, takes precedence over issues of "need for this toxin in the first place" and safety - overall!  

This transcript also very much indicated that aluminum - a known gene mutant - tended to bind to large proteins - and "irreversibly so" and that it could "inhibit the formation of neuronal microtubules" (see p. 194 of report).   Also interesting to me was the fact that aluminum tended to accumulate in very specific parts of the body... I quote: 

"Bone seems to be the greatest deport followed by kidney and brain and muscle..." (p. 190 of transcript).

 That certainly was very interesting given that leukemia and brain cancer had increased tremendously in recent years in young children... the blood, after all, was produced in the bone marrow... and given aluminum was a known gene mutant, it was not surprising to me that brain cancer was also on the upswing in children.  What was cancer, after all, if not "cell mutations".  Note also that according to these same transcripts, aluminum was known to bind to transferrin  - the protein in the blood responsible for carrying iron in the blood  (p. 45, aluminum transcripts, day 2).   Was aluminum binding to transferrin and somehow preventing iron from binding to transferring or somehow impacting iron metabolism in the body?   I certainly could not help but wonder.   A blood test could certainly give the appearance of "anemia" or "low iron", however, as clearly evident from information provided on the Iron Overload Disorders Association, and reference to the presentation given by Roberta Crawford to the NIH in June 2001, the exact opposite may be true - that the problem may not be too little iron - but rather - too much and hence, to give iron supplements would be a very dangerous thing to do (refer to link posted at: http://www.ironoverload.org/anemia.htm).

According to this information regarding iron overload provided by Roberta Crawford to the NIH, and I quote: “iron is collecting in storage instead of going into hemoglobin" – and that, based on other research I had found, could lead to a whole new set of problems - most notably - cancer!     

Note also there was a comment on "hemochromatosis" - the inability to properly process iron - as a concern on p. 44 of the aluminum transcripts (day 2)... How very interesting again, given I absolutely believed that iron overload and/or imbalance was very much at play in all these disorders.   Clearly, based on the fact that aluminum could bind to transferrin,  I obviously was not the ony person concerned with this issue of heme deficiency and aluminum from vaccines as a contributing factor in disorders.  

Indeed, if aluminum was known to bind to the protein transferrin that was supposed to transport iron in the blood, and if aluminum was known to accumulate in the bones - where we found the bone marrow - responsible for blood production - would it not make sense that aluminum was somehow interfering with blood production by blocking the iron from going to blood production or somehow interacting with that iron in a way it should not be doing?   In my opinion, that certainly appeared to be a very strong possibility.  

The blood had two major components to it... heme and globin...  

Heme = unconjugated billirubin + iron  

Globin = part of the blood having those cells involved in immune system functions. 

According to work done by Atamna, et al., the following things were known – again, I quote:

“Heme is the major intracellular functional form of iron. It is synthesized in the mitochondria and the decline in synthesis could explain the loss of iron homeostasis in aging. Heme functions in hemoglobin and in a variety of enzymes as well as promoting the growth of nervous tissue… Heme deficiency was detrimental to normal mitochondrial function, stimulated oxidative stress by activating nitric oxide synthase, altered amyloid proteins, and inhibited zinc and iron homeostasis. The metabolic changes seen during the heme deficiency were similar to those in dysfunction neurons in patients with Alzheimer's disease... Common reasons for heme deficiency are iron and vitamin B6 deficiencies, aging, and exposure to toxic metals such as aluminum. In addition, degradation of heme by heme oxygenase, which increases with age and in the brains of Alzheimer's patients, may be a factor in changes in the metabolism of iron and heme with age.   Therefore, heme deficiency may be an important and preventable part of the neurodegenerative process, which deserves more research and attention.”  [end of quote, emphasis added:  Atamna H, Killilea DW, Killilea AN, Ames BN. Heme deficiency may be a factor in the mitochondrial and neuronal decay of aging. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2002 Nov 12; 99 (23):14807-12. This information had been taken directly from an abstract posted at: The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences at, http://www.niehs.nih.gov/dert/profiles/hilites/2002/heme.htm].  

Aluminum was also known to alter the permeability of the blood brain barrier!  (refer to: http://users.ahsc.arizona.edu/davis/pathophysiology.htm).   

Note especially this quote I had found on the above referenced site:   

"Another peer-reviewed study demonstrated that aluminum levels in mouse brain increase following administration of aluminum adjuvanted vaccines (Redhead, Quinlan, et al, 1992).   Moreover, the paper cites increasing evidence that aluminum ions can contribute to increased permeability of the blood brain barrier, acting synergistically with iron ions3. " [end of quote, emphasis added, reference 3 was listed as follows:  3Refer to A Review Of The Scientific Literature As It Pertains To Gulf War Illness, Vol. 3:  Immunizations (Colomb, forthcoming) in the chapter relating to effects of aluminum in vaccines, http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR1018.2/MR1018.2.pdf/MR1018.2.chap7.pdf].   Note that the referenced book was:  Colomb, Beatrice Alexandra, Review of the Scientific Literature as it Pertains to Gulf War, Illnesses v.3 Immunizations, Published: 06/06/2001, ISBN: 083302678X, Rand Corporation, U.S.   

Also, note this very interesting comment I had found in the aluminum transcripts:   

"... we know that shortly after injection most of the aluminum is inside the cells, into cells... after a few days you have no aluminum outside cells" [end of quote, emphasis added, Dr. Gherardi, aluminum transcripts, p. 168]. 

So, if aluminum was "inside the cells", obviously, it certainly had the potential to interfere with mitochondria, and any work going on "inside the cells"... and that would include things like the proper processing of iron by cells, too!  

And then this interesting comment regarding another derivative apparently used in some vaccines... saponin...  

"Saponin, as you may know, binds to cholesterol.  It punches a hole in red cells and, in fact, this may be one of the toxic mechanisms of saponin." [end of quote, emphasis added, Dr. Alving on Adjuvant Immunology, Chief Of Department of Membrane Chemistry, Walter Reed Army Institute of Research, Aluminum transcripts, p. 77). 

The aluminum meeting attendees had not discussed which vaccines had this saponin in them.  

Alright, so this "saponin stuff" could "punch a hole in red cells"... But, what else could "punch holes in cells"?    Aluminum was certainly known to increase the permeability of the blood brain barrier... did that mean that aluminum could increase the permeability of cell membranes - in general?   Given aluminum was found in cells shortly after injection (p. 168, aluminum transcripts), that certainly appeared to be the case!    

The discussion on adjuvants in this meeting transcript certainly did not lead me to think that these persons truly understood how these "adjuvants" really worked in the body... as they themselves clearly indicated in this meeting.   Indeed, there appeared to be a great deal that they really did not understand in terms of "how" adjuvants impacted the immune system.    

Certainly, parents of children with autism would find these transcripts very interesting also as they related to metallothionine (p. 134) and cadmium (p. 134)... two more words that were very, very familiar to those in the autism community in terms of how aluminum impacted each of these.    

Needless to say, there were indeed many, many aspects to this autism puzzle and certainly, in my opinion, iron metabolism played a huge role in that puzzle because iron affected all aspects of human functioning and, when found in excess - was toxic and very much led to cell death!    

The more I read, the more I simply could not believe what I was reading and how all these pieces seemed to now all fit together.   Over and over, the one thing that had really impressed me in reading this transcript and that from the mercury meeting in Simpsonwood (see reports), however, was how little was known about the toxicities of metals injected into the human body via vaccinations.   Clearly, in my opinion, these folks, as they themselves admitted on p. 1 of the aluminum transcripts, had basically no understanding of the toxicities of these metals in the human body and as such, in my opinion, "shots" truly were "shots in the dark"!    

For example, in the case of mercury, per the transcript for the mercury meeting in Simpsonwood, it was believed that mercury would leave the body within a matter of a couple of months.   Yet, clearly, those who studied the toxicity of mercury argued otherwise... and indeed, had found that mercury, once in major organs, could have a half-life of 20+ years.   The "half-life" was the time it took for half the molecules to decay!   

Let's see... who to believe... toxicology experts or the CDC?   In their own words... again...  

"Perhaps the most important thing that I took away from the last meeting was that those of us who deal with vaccines have really very little applicable background with metals and toxicological research."  [Dr.Martin Myers, Director of the National Vaccine Program Office, Department of Health and Human Services, National Vaccine Program Office Workshop on Aluminum In Vaccines, Caribe Hilton International Hotel, San Juan, Puerto Rico, May 11th - 12th, 2000, p. 1, transcripts provided by Eberlin Reporting Service, 14208 Piccadilly Road, Silver Spring, MD,  20906, (301) 460-8369)].

Note that this was “an opening comment”.   Having worked in corporate America and taken speech classes in school, I knew that “opening comments” were critical to set the tone and purpose of the meeting… and this one, in my view, had certainly “set the tone” for what I was about to discover as I read these transcripts.

A few weeks or 20+ years?   Who was the more credible source?   In my opinion, the answer certainly was "the toxicology experts" who dealt with metal toxicity each day in their work... people like Dr. Boyd Haley...

The following was a link attesting to this very long "half-life" for mercury... a link provided on a website co-founded by Dr. Boyd Haley, the heavy metals expert who testified in vaccine hearings on the toxicities of metals found in vaccines - and thus, certainly a person who did understand metal toxicology - unlike those in the "vaccine business".  This link was difficult to access at times, and as such, I provided a word for word quote from this site, co-founded by Boyd Haley, http://www.testfoundation.org/dmsahgdetox.html - I quote: 

"Mercury Accumulation 

We are all exposed to continual small levels of mercury from the food supply (especially fish), air and water contamination, and especially from dental amalgams.   There is a small amount of mercury vapor released continuously from any silver-mercury amalgams, and this is increased considerably by the act of chewing.2  There are also some mercury particles released by abrasion of the filling with eating and tooth brushing that go into the intestinal tract.  It has been estimated that about 80% of the mercury vapor that is released is absorbed into the blood stream, circulated through the body, and is store in various body tissues. 3 Some is thought to go directly into the brain through the cribriform plates (part of the smell apparatus).  Because of the high rate of blood flow to the brain and the brain's high fat content, much of the mercury reportedly accumulates there.  Although mercury will gradually leave the tissues, it has been estimated that the half life of mercury in the brain is 20 to 30 years!4  In other words, if there were no other source of mercury coming into your body, only half of what is now accumulated in the brain would be gone in 20 to 30 years.  The problem is that new mercury continues to be deposited in the brain at a much faster rate than it dissipates.   There is a slow, relentless increase in mercury accumulation (as well as other toxic heavy metals) in the brain and other tissues throughout life.

Reported symptoms of mercury toxicity can involve every body system, since mercury becomes widespread throughout the body.   Major symptoms include headaches, body pain, numbness, tingling, trouble remembering, trouble concentrating, gait disturbance, balance problems, various endocrine abnormalities and gastrointestinal disturbances, including abdominal pain." [end of quote, emphasis added,  Test Foundation Article on Mercury Accumulation, posted at: http://www.testfoundation.org/dmsahgdetox.html ", Reference 4 was listed as: 4. Sugita M. The biological half-time of heavy metals. The presence of a third "slowest" component. Int Arch Occup Environ Hlth 1978; 41: 25-40.].

I could not help but laugh - and cry - when I saw the CDC stating that mercury should be expelled by the body in a few weeks and combined that with comments made at the Puerto Rico meeting on aluminum!   I think those attending the meeting in Puerto Rico had hit the nail on the head when they stated those in the vaccine business understood very little in terms of matters of metal toxicology! 

Although this issue of “duration” of metals in the body was “very bad” in terms of what the CDC knew or did not know about metal toxicity, perhaps just as bad was what the CDC knew – or more accurately – did not know – about setting safe levels of exposure for these metals.   

From reading the "aluminum meeting transcript", it very much appeared to me that the determination of "safe levels" for metal exposure in humans was, in my opinion, very much a "shot in the dark" – nothing more than -  a "guess"!  

The discussion on how "safe levels" were determined was provided on pages 172 - 182 of the "aluminum meeting transcripts".   Seeing that "we divide by an uncertainty factor" (p. 177) to come up with the "minimal risk level"only further confirmed that these folks, in my opinion, had no valid or substantiated way to determine what was "really safe".    "Uncertainty factors" as they stated on p. 177, "become quite a tangled web"... and that "uncertainty factor" wais "traditionally 10" (p. 178) but "can go as high as 3,000" (p. 179) - or at least that was where they "stop" .. but, potentially, it looked like it could be even higher than that.  Indeed, as the 2-day aluminum meeting was coming to a close and being summarized, the following comment was made by Dr.  Theodore Eickhoff of the University of Colorado - I quote: 

" ... we heard the word "pervasive uncertainty" several times... [p. 151 - day 2 transcript]... What troubles me are the uncertainty factors because they are -- well, just exactly what the name says.  They are uncertainty factors and the fact that one conceivably could have 10⁵ since there were five uncertainty factors listed, each one of which has a value of ten, the maximum uncertainty factor, therefore, would be 10 raised to the fifth power or 100,000.   ATSDR took a look at that and said that is probably unacceptable and reduced it perhaps somewhat arbitrarily to 10³ but we are still dealing with 1,000-fold uncertainty factor... it strikes me as a very imprecise science at best..." [end of quote, Dr. Eickhoff, aluminum transcripts, day 2, p. 156].  

Well... one certainly did not need to be an expert in mathematics to realize that was "a rather wide range" for an "uncertainly factor" in a "risk assessment" equation.   What I, personally found “unacceptable” was that instead of considering “all risk factors”, we arbitrarily decided to “reduce the exponent” – in effect – throw out some of the risk factors.   If the risk level was considered too high for their calculations, perhaps the risk of the substance itself was too high as well.   How was it that “risk assessments” could be “so fluid” based on “what someone thought” as opposed to being based on empirical data!    

Not only did I question the CDC’s understanding of metal toxicities, but clearly, one could not read this transcript and believe the CDC – or ATSDR – had much of a clue as to how to set “minimal risk levels” when it came to metals entering the body via vaccines.  

They stated, I quote:

“The largest we can have since we only use the first three uncertainty factors is 1,000”. [aluminum transcripts, p. 179].  

Yet, clearly, there was uncertainty in more than three areas when it came to aluminum in the body – I quote:  

“…we need to know about absorption, distribution, metabolism and elimination.  These kinds of data are missing for aluminum or not totally missing but are incomplete for aluminum"... "now the presentations we heard yesterday clearly demonstrated that there are huge gaps in our information about what we know about toxicology of aluminum..." [end of quote, pages 104 and 105, aluminum transcripts, day 2].  

…and, then, another uncertainty factor – age! 

"... we do not seem to have the information on the age related toxicity of aluminum and especially when we are dealing with very young infants... we do not know whether or not there is a difference in susceptibility by age as there are with other metals..." [end of quote, Dr. Halsey, p. 83-84, aluminum transcripts, day 2]. 

Well, according to my simple first grade type calculation, that put us at five critical uncertainty factors that needed to be considered in the determination of “safe exposure levels”, 1) absorption, 2) distribution, 3) metabolism, 4) elimination, 5) age – and that meant that by their own calculation criteria, the “uncertainty factor” for setting “minimal risk levels” should not be 10³, but rather 10⁵ – at minimum – or 100,000, but, for some reason, although none was provided other than what appeared to be “a judgment call”,  methods and procedures allowed us to “throw out a few”.   

I had but one question for the CDC and ATSDR (Agency For Toxic Substances and Disease Registry):  Which of two of these five variables did you feel was “irrelevant” and hence justified “exclusion from the equation” and allowed one to simply “throw them out”?  Absorption?  Distribution?  Metabolism?  Elimination?  Age?    Which two were irrelevant, keeping in mind that it was known metals had different impacts based on age and keeping in mind issues such as limited bile production in infants, immature blood brain barriers, increases in permeability of the blood brain barrier by metals or vaccine components such as aluminum, immature immune systems that needed to deal with aluminum once it entered the cells, etc.   

And what about issues like the huge disparity that existed in reference to “duration” of metals in the body (i.e., the CDC stating that the body could rid itself of mercury after a few weeks, verses metal toxicology experts who stated, for example, that the half-life of mercury was 20+ years once it entered the major organs… and clearly, if aluminum accompanied mercury in a vaccination, increased cell permeability would certainly facilitate mercury finding its way into major organs as well.   The discussion on the issue of aluminum entering the body’s cells clearly indicated that the CDC had basically no knowledge as to absorption issues!   

And what about the interaction of metals (i.e., mixing of mercury and aluminum, etc. – or – synergies?  Certainly, that, too, - the “additivity” properties of metals - had been raised as an issue during this meeting.   And, again, clearly, the CDC appeared to have very little understanding of that, also! 

1) Absorption, 2) Distribution, 3) Metabolism, 4) Elimination, 5) Age, 6) Duration, 7) Synergies – 7 “uncertainty factors” – and as such, if ATSDR followed its own guidelines, it would have allocated a factor of 10⁷ as an “uncertainty factor” or 10,000,000 – not 1,000 – in the determination of “minimal risk levels”, but, for some reason, ATSDR felt that even 10⁵ was “probably unacceptable” and as such, per the quote above, the “uncertainty factor” was reduced  - perhaps arbitrarily – to 10³!  

Undoubtedly, those I personally considered the “real experts”, people like metals expert Boyd Haley, MMR/Virus  expert Andrew Wakefield, world leading immunogeneticist,  Hugh Fudenberg who had stated that 5 consecutive flu shots made a person 10 times more likely to get Alzheimer’s, etc., certainly would have “uncertainty factors” of their own they would perhaps want to see included as well.   If anything, the list of “uncertainty factors”, in my opinion,  could indeed be quite long.   

My question to ATSDR was the same as that I had for the CDC: Which of these seven (7) – and potentially much more -  “uncertainty factors” were you “comfortable in throwing out” – and why?    

Perhaps instead of throwing out the “uncertainty factors”, we should be looking at throwing out the substance itself from the vaccine equation – substances like mercury, aluminum and formaldehyde!

 In reading this transcript, it was painfully evident that neither the CDC nor ATSDR had very much of a clue as to how to set “minimal risk levels” when it came to metals in vaccines. 

Note that the person from ATSDR who gave the talk on "minimal exposure risk levels and how these were set" - as his opening comment stated - I quote: 

"We are not doing or we -- this is new to us, anything to do with vaccinations except for maybe the thimerosal incident" [Dr. John Wheeler, Agency For Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, ATSDR", p. 172 of aluminum meeting transcript].

So, even he admits he has very little experience in determining "safe levels of exposure" when it came to vaccines… and this was the “expert” the CDC had turned to for explaining how “minimum risk levels” were set for aluminum!  That, in and of itself, had raised major red flags for me!  Had the CDC brought in ATSDR only as a result of the thimerosal controversy?   It certainly was evident that ATSDR had very limited knowledge in setting safety standards as they related to metals for purposes of vaccines – of that – based on the quotes above – there was no doubt!

Had exposure levels really been set in the past at the CDC, and if yes, how? And by whom?  It certainly appeared to me that “the experts” from ATSDR had been “brought in” to come up with safety levels because perhaps none really had existed!  How can this “expert” on “minimal risk levels” make such statements as to “his expertise” or that of his office unless safe levels for exposure had never been made for vaccines in the first place!    

Indeed, why would “safe levels” ever be set for aluminum if it was totally unregulated by the FDA!   

Perhaps the website of Dr. Theodore B. Hoekman could help shed some light on the issue of aluminum in vaccines. This was a very interesting quote I had found on this website:  

“Aluminum has been exempted from tesitng for safety by the FDA under a convoluted logic wherein it is classified as GRAS. (Generally Regarded As Safe.) It has never been tested by the FDA on its safety and there are NO restrictions whatever on the amount or use of aluminum.”  [end of quote, emphasis added: Aluminum Toxicity information compiled and submitted by Frank Hartman and available at the website of Dr. Theodore B. Hoekman, Principal Investigator, Professor of Medical Informatics Basic Science, Faculty of Medicine, Newfoundland and Labrador Centre for Applied Health Research: http://www.luminet.net/~wenonah/hydro/al.htm#toxic,].

Thus, if the FDA did not regulate aluminum in vaccines – why would the pharmaceuticals care about this issue if this metal was considered “Generally Regarded As Safe” by the FDA?   It was not the CDC’s approval that was necessary for vaccines – it was that of the Food and Drug Administration, FDA – or, as I liked to refer to it – The Failing In Duties Administration! 

During her presentation on iron overload to the NIH in June 2001, Roberta Crawford had made the following comment – as posted on the Iron Overload Disorder Association – I quote: 

“Now defining iron deficiency -- so-called "normal" iron levels vary from lab to lab.  Most "normal" levels are set too high.   Saturation:  12 to 40-45% is reasonable at the present time.  Ferritin:  5 to probably 50.  As our years of study have shown, we have had to lower these levels several times to be safe… Think about it.  If "normal" levels are set artificially high, and your levels fall below that "normal," you are "iron deficient." [end of quote, emphasis added, Roberta Crawford on iron overload, presentation to NIH, June 2001]. 

Likewise, the same would be true for aluminum and mercury… when had those safety levels last been reviewed and/or modified?  I mean, think about it… if safe exposure levels were set “too high”… you would be getting more exposure than you should be and as such, you would be in mercury or aluminum overload land! 

That seemed like pretty basic information… yet, clearly, even basic information was often not readily available or understood at the CDC.   Another very interesting quote – this one relating to actual levels considered “safe exposure” that were currently in place for aluminum – I quote – again from the aluminum transcript:  

"... the standard of 0.85 milligrams of aluminum per dose set forth in the Code of Federal Regulations, can you tell us where that came from and how that was determined?  [Dr. Gerber, National Institute Of Health, p. 46 of aluminum transcripts - note here... this is a person at the NIH and even he does not know the answer to this!] 

Answer he was given - I quote: 

"Unfortunately, I could not.    I mean, we have been trying to figure that out.   We have been trying to figure that out as far as going back in the historical records and determining how they came up with that and going back to the preamble to the regulation.   We just have been unsuccessful with that but we are still trying to figure that out." [Dr. Baylor, p. 46, aluminum transcripts - again, note his title:  Acting Deputy Director of the Office Of Vaccine Research and Review, and Associate Director for Regulatory Policy at the Center for Biological Evaluation of Research at FDA - thus, here we have a person working in vaccine research and at the FDA who appeared "clueless" as to how aluminum safety exposure standards were determined in spite of having obviously tried to investigate that very issue"!] 

So, how exactly were those safety standards first determined, and by whom? – two very interesting questions!   It seemed to me that neither those in the vaccine business or in government regulation of vaccines had a clue!   And given the comment by Dr. Wheeler from ATSDR – an agency that supposedly sets "minimal risk standards"... 

"We are not doing or we -- this is new to us, anything to do with vaccinations except for maybe the thimerosal incident" (Dr. John Wheeler, Agency For Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, ATSDR", p. 172 of aluminum meeting transcript)...  

well... again, let me just say that this was not exactly "expert advise" (and I use that term lightly) that I cared to base my child's welfare on... and as such, again, I could not help but think that what we had when it came to metals in vaccines and the safety of these toxins in vaccines was nothing more than "a shot in the dark"!    

Note that over and over in this meeting, one of the presenters, Dr. Romain Gherardi stated, on several occasions,  that he was certain, and had no doubt (p. 14) that what he saw in his studies were the result of aluminum from vaccines - disorders associated with muscles, with implications for MS and other disorders and that the effects could take years (p. 15) to manifest themselves!  Note also that because of "biopsy" procedures in the US, what had been seen in France would not likely be seen in the US because of differences in how muscle biopsies were done... yet, clearly, Dr. Gherardi's work indicated that aluminum had been found in muscle biopsies (p. 11).   

There were so many afflicted by muscle disorders… polio, it seemed, had gone… but, had it… really… or had it simply been “repackaged” and “renamed” something else as the years had passed – much as had been autism, schizophrenia and Alzheimer’s.   Were MS, Guillian-Barre Syndrome, etc., just another shade of polio – or just another shade of vaccine injury?  I truly wondered!  I knew that Dr. Salk who had invented the polio vaccine, toward the end of his career had stated he felt polio cases could very well have been vaccine induced.    The issue of vaccine injury was now an issue that had so closely touched my life… my son had autism… and my best friend had two little girls, twins, adopted from China at the age of 1 and brought to the US… twins who had received multiple immunizations at once… twins… now 3… suffering from a mitochondria disorder… twins… now 3… neither expected to live past age 5… both currently suffering tremendous muscular degeneration!   Everywhere I turned there were sick children.  Neurodegeneration… muscle disorders… heart problems… diabetes… kidney problems… liver failures…  cancer…allergies… miscarriages - so much pain, suffering and  - death! 

It just wasn’t like this when I was growing up…  when people had much, much larger families… and all their children were “ok”!

For those interested in more information on "mitochondria disorders", you could go to:  http://www.umdf.org/   

I urged parents not to fall for the "it's genetic" lie that so many are led to believe... yes, there could be a "genetic implication", however, that certainly did not mean that this was necessarily "hereditary" - big difference.   For more on that issue, please read my link on "Genetic But Not Hereditary - The Critical Difference Too Often So Misunderstood!"   Could an assault to "genetics" not occur after birth in addition to prior to birth? And could that assault not be environmental in either case?   Absolutely!   Look also at this report comparing autism and mercury poisoning and note that "mitochondrial dysfunction" is absolutely a part of the vaccine-autism puzzle!

I had already come to terms with the fact that I had been lied to by the CDC as far as matters relating to the autism-vaccine link and the overall issue of vaccine safety.  Of that, I had no doubt.   I knew the CDC certainly had played a role in all this… but so too, had so many others.   I just wanted the lies to end.   I still had so many questions… about aluminum, about mercury, about viruses, about insulin and iron and on and on and on.  

It certainly appeared from the Simpsonwood meeting transcripts, where mercury was discussed, that there wereindeed known parallels between mercury and aluminum.    

I quote from the Simpsonwood transcripts:   

"Dr. Egan, pg. 77: "Could you do this calculation for aluminum?" 

Dr. Verstraeten, pg. 77: "I did it for aluminum…Actually the results were almost identical to ethylmercury because the amount of aluminum goes along almost exactly with the mercury one."  [end of quote, Simpsonwood meeting transcripts, p. 77]. 

I now understood both aluminum and mercury to be tied to neurodegeneration and neurofibrillary tangles.   But, I knew they were tied to so much more in terms of immune system failures… from the very horrible to what seemed like the very trivial – at least to some – to things like allergies. 

Aluminum from vaccines certainly appeared to also be tied to the potential for allergies later in life.

Again, I quote from the aluminum transcripts: 

"... aluminum based adjuvants only induce a type 2 immune response, which can lead to IgE responses and set an individual up for allergic reactions to vaccine components"... [p. 95, aluminum transcripts] 

now... let us put that together with this quote...  

"adjuvants can have very major effects on the production of immune responses... " [p. 11, aluminum transcripts]. 

According to these transcripts, there could be no denying that aluminum was a very potent immune systemstimulant and that this was the reason for which it was included in so many vaccines (i.e., hepatitis, DTP, etc.).    

If indeed aluminum could "set an individual up for allergic reactions to vaccine components", I could not help but wonder how many allergies to things like peanuts, eggs, grains result from the use of components such as peanut and/or vegetable oils [p. 70, aluminum transcripts], egg albumen [p. 11, aluminum transcripts], chicken embryos, etc.    It certainly seemed to me that we had many, many more children with allergies to these things and if foods bypassed the normal immune system processes for food breakdown (i.e., the digestive tract) because they were injected into muscle tissue, would it not stand to reason that with aluminum in the system also, that indeed, that immune system response would be "much stronger" given that was a characteristic of an aluminum adjuvant, and that this in turn could help explain why some of the allergies to things like peanuts, etc., that we saw today were "so bad" in so many in that even a trace amount of peanut could become deadly! 

Also, I could not help but wonder about this whole discussion in the aluminum transcripts as it related to "polymers in vaccines" [p. 16 - 22, aluminum transcripts].    As clearly indicated, a "polymer" had the ability to "bind things together"... as such, by definition, that would make them "more difficult to pull apart".   Thus, if good adjuvants were determined by their ability to "bind" certain things, as stated in these discussions,  then I could not again help but wonder what role these "polymers" or "binders" played in things like beta-amyloid plaques, or long fatty chains that were not being properly broken down by the immune system/body... I wonder this especially given this comment... 

I quote: 

"... so we are measuring how much protein will stick to defined layers of the copolymer, the adjuvant."  [p. 18, aluminum transcripts].... effective adjuvants are... their characteristics are the hydrophobic chain is long enough to make a complete loop and they have a small hydrophile and these will bind proteins at this oil-water interface...[p. 19, aluminum transcripts].         

It just seemed to me that given the body's tremendous abilities to generate countless immune system responses, that if there were all these disorders now with "long protein chains" that were not being broken down, that perhaps this all somehow played into it.    Alzheimer's certainly was one such disorder where "long protein chains" appeared to build and accumulate on the brain.   

Note that beta-amyloid plaques were also found in the pancreas of persons with type 2 diabetes!   In autism, it was casein and gluten – both proteins -  that the body was not properly breaking down.  Note that casein kinase 1 was also found at levels 30 times higher than they should be in the Alzheimer's brain.  Casein kinase 1 certainly appeared to be something involved in the breakdown of casein!   In ALD (adrenoleukodystrophy) - a disorder I found to have so many parallels with autism – it was "long chain fatty acids" that were not breaking down properly and were accumulated in the brain - believed to lead to demyelination.    

In making aluminum adjuvants, according to these transcripts, fats were very much considered as a factor in the equation.  Were these adjuvants leading to improper fat breakdown or metabolism?  I very much suspected this could be the case – but again, that was simply “my suspicions”.   

Note that in ALD “a genetic mutation” was known to occur on the X chromosome and as such this was said to be another "hereditary" or "genetic disorder", but again, what had caused that genetic mutation in the first place.  The issue of “genetic vs hereditary” another key to the puzzle – was discussed later in this text. 

If 34% of persons with MMF had multiple sclerosis – a myelin disorder – and the researcher in the aluminum transcript was certain that this MMF was being caused by aluminum in vaccines, could it not be that other myelin disorders were also very much vaccine related?    Mercury was also very much known to demyelinate neurons as clearly indicated by the University of Calgary video on neurodegeneration due to mercury exposure.  Myelin consisted of proteins and lipids (or fatty substances). 

In my opinion, there could be no denying that aluminum was just as dangerous as mercury and also had to be removed from vaccines, but also from food products, medicines, packaging, etc.   The problem with aluminum was that it was totally unregulated by the FDA and as such, there were truly no standards as to "how much" there could be in foods, medicines, etc.   Indeed, aluminum was everywhere - cookware, pop cans, aluminum plates, machines used for processing foods, etc., and could easily be incorporated via processing methods into foods/beverages consumed by humans.    

There were certainly also many different ways other toxic metals could enter the body... to then interact with aluminum.  Mercury, for example, could enter via the olfactory system (sense of smell), injections into muscle tissues (i.e., vaccines), orally (eating mercury laced foods, toxins from oral vaccines), etc.   Certainly, the exposure route had to have some impact on the ability of the body to rid itself of these toxins.  Note that 70% of the immune system was said to reside within the digestive track and organs.   Although the body had mechanism in place for riding itself of toxins, clearly, this was not happening in many children... and the reasons for some of that, in my opinion, could be found in the following section – Another Piece To The Puzzle!

Organizations such as the World Health Organization were making a grave mistake indeed by assuming that the public was not "aware of these issues" or "did not perceive aluminum as dangerous"... because the fact was... more and more parents and scientists were putting together the pieces to this puzzle – as more and more families were impacted each day - and the picture being revealed as this puzzle fell into place – one piece at a time -  was a very nasty one indeed! 

The autistic child - once the forgotten child - now the key to so much!

Return To HOME Page