The right to search for truth implies also a duty; one must not conceal any part of what one has recognized to be true.1
—Albert Einstein
Sixty vaccine program insiders held a secret meeting on June 7th and 8th, 2000. This gathering would one day give the vaccine-informed public a rare glimpse at the inner machinations of those who profess to represent public health. The CDC’s National Immunization Program had convened at the Simpsonwood Conference & Retreat Center outside of Atlanta, Georgia, under the false pretense of discussing Thomas Verstraeten’s findings in his thimerosal-related Vaccine Safety Datalink research. But the CDC had no intention of sharing Verstraeten’s original findings with this body of so-called “experts” or with anyone else. Lest the participants forget the sensitive nature of the meeting, meeting handouts were stamped in bold letters “DO NOT COPY OR RELEASE” and “CONFIDENTIAL” [emphasis in original].2
Only later did the public find out about the massaged data and the Simpsonwood meeting following a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. The parents who made the discovery named the initial CDC findings “Generation Zero” to separate them from the later published versions of Verstraeten’s study. According to the website Put Children First, in the months leading up to the secret meeting, the CDC had
. . . used many techniques to dumb-down the numbers including removing comparisons to children who had received no thimerosal, lowering the age of children available for the analysis, and including a bankrupt HMO that had notoriously faulty data systems in their final round of analysis. The inclusion HMO helped neutralize the findings reviewed at Simpsonwood.3
The parents reported, “The general drift of their design changes was clear, to reduce the statistical power through conscious manipulation of statistical methods, data classifications, and samples.”4
Meeting participants were under the false assumption that the database that included the records of 100,000 children was not large enough to analyze the relative risk of neurological disorders among children who had received no thimerosal. Verstraeten, Bob Davis, and Frank DeStefano knew very well that was not the case, but they played along in the deception to keep the truth from the meeting’s participants. By means of such statistical chicanery, Verstraeten and his coconspirators had managed to drive the relative risk of autism from 7.62 down to 1.69.5 A relative risk of 1.69 might not have awakened public interest if applied to ADHD or tics, but vaccine insiders knew that the public would not tolerate any increased risk of vaccine-induced autism.
In all likelihood, the representatives from the various vaccine-producing drug companies had done their own research and also knew that the 1.69 figure was a lie, but, if they did, they played along in the charade with the invited “experts,” many of whom knew next to nothing about the effects of thimerosal, including the self-proclaimed “vaccinologists.”
Dr. Walter Orenstein opened the meeting with his self-introduction as the Director of the National Immunization Program at the CDC. Following Orenstein, all other participants stated their names and positions. There were five voting members on the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), the committee that makes recommendations to the CDC. There were also representatives from the FDA, the National Vaccine Program Office, state agencies, World Health Organization, American Academy of Pediatrics, American Academy of Family Physicians, and various universities. Also present were representatives from GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Wyeth, and Aventis Pasteur.
After the introductions, Orenstein turned the meeting over to Dr. Roger Bernier, the associate director for science in the National Immunization Program. Bernier provided a brief summary of recent events related to thimerosal in vaccines. “In the United States there was a growing recognition that cumulative exposure may exceed some of the guidelines.” Bernier was referring to the guidelines set by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Bernier then discussed some of the events reviewed in the previous chapter including the joint statement from the Public Health Service and the American Academy of Pediatrics, the August meeting that resulted in the eventual removal of thimerosal from the hepatitis B vaccine, and the October ACIP meeting that “looked this situation over again and did not express a preference for any of the vaccines that were thimerosal free.”
Bernier then turned the meeting over to Dr. Dick Johnston, the meeting chairperson and immunologist and pediatrician at the University of Colorado School of Medicine and National Jewish Center for Immunology and Respiratory Medicine.
The entire 258-page Simpsonwood transcript is available online as are several excellent commentaries.6, 7, 8, 9 For the purposes of this book—demonstrating how the vaccine industry, medical establishment, and government stick it to you and your family—a few quotations and comments will suffice.
Dr. Dick Johnston, pediatrician and meeting chair, described himself as a “vaccinologist” and then went on to describe some of the characteristics shared by his peers:
As an aside, we found a cultural difference between vaccinologists and environmental health people in that many of us in the vaccine arena have never thought about uncertainty factors before. We tend to be relatively concrete in our thinking. Probably one of the big cultural events in that meeting, at least for me, was when Dr. Clarkson repetitively pointed out to us that we just didn’t get it about uncertainty, and he was actually quite right. It took us a couple of days to understand the factor of uncertainty in assessing environmental exposure, particularly to metals.
Johnston identifies “vaccinologists” as people who tend to be “relatively concrete in [their] thinking,” who “have never thought about uncertainty factors before.” This admission is obviously true, but the fact that a pediatrician, immunologist, and meeting chair—in a brief moment of enlightenment—recognized and gave voice to that truth demonstrates the paucity of rational thought and science among vaccine program elites and raises yet another red flag for the vaccine-informed public. Russell Blaylock, MD, skewers Johnston and his fellow “vaccinologists” for their collective blindness:
First, what is a vaccinologist? Do you go to school to learn to be one? How many years of residency training are required to be a vaccinologist? Are there board exams? It’s a stupid term used to describe people who are obsessed with vaccines, not that they actually study the effects of the vaccines, as we shall see throughout this meeting. Most important is the admission by Dr. Johnson [sic] that he and his fellow “vaccinologists” are so blinded by their obsession with forcing vaccines on society that they never even considered that there might be factors involved that could greatly affect human health, the so-called “uncertainties”. Further, that he and his fellow “vaccinologists” like to think in concrete terms—that is, they are very narrow in their thinking and wear blinders that prevent them from seeing the numerous problems occurring with large numbers of vaccinations in infants and children. Their goal in life is to vaccinate as many people as possible with an ever-growing number of vaccines.10
By the second day of the meeting, Dr. Johnston’s awareness of the risks associated with thimerosal in vaccines was growing. Like millions of parents and patients around the world, he was becoming vaccine informed. The conversation moved from theoretical to personal when the vaccinologist described the following event:
Forgive this personal comment, but I got called out at eight o’clock for an emergency call and my daughter-in-law delivered a son by C-section. Our first male in the line of the next generation, and I do not want that grandson to get a thimerosal containing vaccine until we know better what is going on. It will probably take a long time. In the meantime, and I know there are probably implications for this internationally, but in the meanwhile I think I want that grandson to only be given thimerosal-free vaccines.
There it is. The meeting chair, immunologist, and pediatrician expressed a preference for thimerosal-free vaccines . . . sort of. His preference extends only to his family members but does not include the family members of the people he serves or humanity in general. The elite versus The Herd value system is a common trait among vaccine insiders. Dr. Isabelle Rapin, a neurologist for children at Albert Einstein College of Medicine, echoed Johnston’s position when she told the group of her concerns with the potential risk of thimerosal to decrease her grandchildren’s IQs. “Even in my grandchildren, one IQ point I am going to fight about.”
There is no way that vaccine-informed program administrators or people of influence would allow their loved ones to receive vaccines laced with thimerosal. Years after Simpsonwood, Kathleen Stratton with the Institute of Medicine refused to answer the question “Would you give thimerosal to your own children?”11
The more informed people become in general, the less likely they are to vaccinate. As previously cited, that would explain why in 2015 less than 30% of Congress admitted to vaccinating their own children.12
The difference between the vaccine informed among the general public and vaccine program sociopaths is that the public wants to extend information and choice to everyone, while program sociopaths manipulate, distort, bury, and destroy information so the public will continue to receive vaccines that the sociopaths would never allow their loved ones to receive.
Program elites tend to come from powerful, rich countries. Their allegiance lies primarily with their families and secondarily with the program. People of conscience include all of humanity in their sphere of compassion. Sociopaths draw lines demonstrating a clear “us versus them” mentality that continues to corrupt vaccine policy today. Dr. Johnston, the meeting chair, essentially stated at Simpsonwood that the participants in the 1999 meeting he attended at Bethesda were fine with administering thimerosal to poor people of color in developing countries (the people least able to tolerate its toxic effects) while advocating for the removal of thimerosal from vaccines in the USA:
We agreed that it would be desirable to remove mercury from US licensed vaccines, but we did not agree that this was a universal recommendation that we would make because of the issue concerning preservatives for delivering vaccines to other countries, particularly developing countries, in the absence of hard data that implied that there was in fact a problem.
Mary Holland, JD, delivered a passionate speech at the United Nations in April 2016. When she told the panel and audience that “mercury should never be a preservative in any vaccine anywhere in the world because there are better and safer alternatives,” she got a round of applause from the audience and a grimace from a public health official on the panel.13 It would seem that vaccine-informed people in developing countries are no fonder of damaging their children’s brains with thimerosal than are the vaccine informed in wealthier nations.
Considerable discussion at Simpsonwood focused on how to manipulate the data to reduce the evidence of thimerosal’s toxic effects upon the minds and bodies of newborn babies and toddlers. Dr. William Weil with the American Academy of Pediatrics cut through the statistical gimmicks when he said near the end of the meeting, “The number of dose-related relationships [between mercury and autism] are linear and statistically significant. You can play with this all you want. They are linear. They are statistically significant.”
Dr. Robert Chen, Chief of Vaccine Safety and Development at the National Immunization Program, made a couple of statements that must be considered side by side to appreciate their significance:
. . . [T]he issue is that it is impossible, unethical to leave kids unimmunized, so you will never, ever resolve that issue [studying health outcomes with unvaccinated children]. . . .
We have been privileged so far that given the sensitivity of information, we have been able to manage to keep it out of, lets [sic] say, less responsible hands. . . .
Chen, apparently a true believer, believes that it would be unethical to conduct a study in which children are intentionally left unvaccinated. It’s likely that Chen also believes that allowing parents not to vaccinate their children is unethical. Such a belief is commonplace among concrete thinking “vaccinologists” and associates. Chen’s second statement confirms the secret nature of the meeting. What was said at Simpsonwood was meant to stay at Simpsonwood. Dr. Bernier, associate director for science in the National Immunization Program, stated more on that subject: “This information has been held fairly tightly.” Later he called it “embargoed information” and “very highly protected information.” When “public servants” speak of “protected information,” it becomes clear that such people are unworthy to be called public servants. Such servants are little more than servants of industry and their own personal interests. As the meeting was drawing to a close, Dr. John Clements with the World Health Organization summarized the thinking of a global vaccine sociopath:
I am really concerned that we have taken off like a boat going down one arm of the mangrove swamp at high speed, when in fact there was not enough discussion really early on about which way the boat should go at all. And I really want to risk offending everyone in the room by saying that perhaps this study should not have been done at all, because the outcome of it could have, to some extent, been predicted and we have all reached this point now where we are left hanging, even though I hear the majority of the consultants say to the Board that they are not convinced there is a causality direct link between Thimerosal and various neurological outcomes.
Several times during the meeting, the “experts” used “the-studies-haven’t-been-done” argument to justify the ongoing use of thimerosal in vaccines. And if Clements were running the vaccine show, he would make sure studies such as the Verstraeten CDC study would never be done. The position of Clements and people of his ilk is that scientific information about the risks of vaccines leaves vaccine elites hanging, an image that’s not altogether inappropriate considering the combined atrocities they commit. If Clements hoped to offend his colleagues by arguing for the perpetuation of institutional ignorance to advance a global vaccine agenda, he likely failed. He did, however, successfully offend the sensibilities of every vaccine-informed person who has since read his statement.
The fact that “the majority of the consultants” were “not convinced there is a causality direct link between thimerosal and various neurological outcomes” says nothing about thimerosal and says everything about the power of the human mind to believe nonsense in its own self-interest. Similar groups have concluded that it’s unethical to deprive dark-skinned races of the benefits of slavery. The Simpsonwood deck was stacked from the beginning. The conclusion was planned and preordained. If their intention had been to learn about the toxic effects of thimerosal, the CDC would have invited the scientific experts who had long since proven that thimerosal is toxic at single digit parts per billion.
Clements continued:
I know how we handle it from here is extremely problematic. The ACIP is going to depend on comments from this group in order to move forward into policy, and I have been advised that whatever I say should not move into the policy area because that is not the point of this meeting. . . . But there is now the point at which the research results have to be handled, and even if this committee decides that there is no association and that information gets out, the work has been done and through freedom of information that will be taken by others and will be used in other ways beyond the control of this group. And I am very concerned about that as I suspect it is already too late to do anything regardless of any professional body and what they say. . . .
So I leave you with the challenge that I am very concerned that this has gotten this far, and that having got this far, how you present in a concerted voice the information to the ACIP in a way they will be able to handle it and not get exposed to the traps which are out there in public relations.
Once again, Clements expressed the outrageous idea that scientific information is not an aid to vaccine elites, it’s a problem that must be “handled” before it is presented to the advisory committees such as the ACIP in order to minimize “traps which are out there in public relations.” Of course, handling “extremely problematic” information is what the vaccine industry does best. The irony in this particular situation, however, is beyond the pale. The CDC “handled” the information before it was even presented at Simpsonwood. It “handled” the conversation at Simpsonwood by excluding legitimate thimerosal experts from participation. And now Clements is calling for the already “handled” information to be “handled” yet again before passing it along to the ACIP, where committee members will undoubtedly “handle” it before they complete the loop by handing it back to the original handlers, the CDC. Had Clements forgotten that five voting members of the ACIP were present at Simpsonwood? Was it the job of those members to “handle” the information before presenting it to the other committee members? More from Clements:
My mandate as I sit here in this group is to make sure at the end of the day that 100,000,000 are immunized with DTP, Hepatitis B and if possible Hib, this year, next year and for many years to come, and that will have to be with thimerosal containing vaccines unless a miracle occurs and an alternative is found quickly and is tried and found to be safe.
Thus the truth is revealed. No matter what was discussed at Simpsonwood, no matter what the science had or would reveal, Clements was under mandate to vaccinate 100,000,000 children. Not vaccinating was, and will never be an option. When the representatives from Merck and the other drug cartels heard Clements declare his mandate, they probably wet themselves with excitement. As powerful as Clements and cohorts may be as vaccine program insiders, they’re little more than pawns among pawns being moved about by those in charge of the global vaccine game—a game that the master players intend to execute regardless of the science and regardless of the casualties.
The importance of Simpsonwood cannot be overstated. The elite gathering provided the world with a brief glimpse of deluded deceivers deceiving one another and strategizing to further deceive the public. It reinforced what vaccine-informed people have long since known: the vaccine paradigm is a grand illusion foisted on the public by gullible “public servants” and ruthless vaccine fascists. If Simpsonwood taught the world anything, it taught that one of the most dangerous epidemics of all is the infection of greed and power that transforms well-meaning people into vaccine sociopaths—causing them to sacrifice scientific advancement and people for profit.
Thomas Verstraeten walked away from Simpsonwood disillusioned. The case against thimerosal was compelling, and he was disturbed that his colleagues failed to share his concern. On July 14, the researcher sent a message to Philippe Grandjean and cc’ed the same to Robert Chen, Frank DeStefano, Robert Pless, Roger Bernier, Tom Clarkson, and Pal Weihe. With the exception of Grandjean and Weihe, all had participated in the Simpsonwood meeting. Grandjean, CDC consultant and researcher, was well versed on the effects of chemicals on developing brains. Among other things, Verstraeten wrote,
Unfortunately I have witnessed how many experts, looking at this thimerosal issue, do not seem bothered to compare apples to pears and insist that if nothing is happening in these studies [two studies on mercury toxicity from the consumption of fish] then nothing should be feared of thimerosal. 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.
Sincerely,
Tom Verstraeten.14
Verstraeten’s call for “sound scientific argumentation” demonstrates profound naïveté in the nature of the vaccine paradigm. Apparently, even after Simpsonwood, the researcher still believed that the paradigm was based on science. The vaccine-informed public has known since the 1800s that the vaccine paradigm is based on faith and not on scientific principles. And like many faith-based organizations, The Church of Vaccinology is led by a corrupt clergy that hides real vaccine-induced injuries and deaths while manipulating data, science, politicians, parents, and patients with lies.
Evidently, unbeknownst even to Verstraeten, the purpose of Simpsonwood was not how to apply sound scientific principles for the betterment of the vaccine program. It was how to “handle” the fact that behind Verstraeten’s numbers were living and breathing people who were experiencing pain, suffering, and loss.
Clements, representing the WHO, castigated the CDC for shining a spotlight on vaccine casualties. He knew—even if Verstraeten didn’t—that science is the enemy to the vaccine paradigm. He knew that the door to the Vaccine Safety Datalink never should have been opened. He knew that belief in vaccines can only thrive in darkness.
The House of Representatives’ Government Reform Committee faced that darkness in the spring of 2000 when Congressmen Burton and Henry Waxman wrote to HHS Secretary Shalala asking her to examine the “possible connections between autism and the MMR vaccine.”15 As of July 18, 2000, Shalala had failed to respond. It was Burton’s turn to castigate vaccine insiders—not in a secret meeting like Simpsonwood, but before the world in a House Committee meeting:
We both asked [Secretary Shalala] to put together a panel of the best experts in the field to look at this issue. That was May 16—2 months ago. No response.
That’s intolerable. If your position is that we should base our policies on good science and good research, then fine. I agree with you 100 percent. But if you are not willing to do the research, if you’re not willing to ask the questions, then we have a real problem on our hands.16
William Egan, acting office director, Office of Vaccine Research and Review (OVRR) with the FDA and Simpsonwood participant, had been assigned the unenviable task of lying to Burton on behalf of the FDA. He did so by reciting the standard trance-inducing testimonial as to the mystical power of vaccines and then added, “FDA considers all vaccines currently available to be safe and effective. It is essential that children continue to receive all vaccines according to currently recommended schedules.”17
All vaccines. Safe and effective. Essential. No question. No discussion. No exception. Blessed be the name of our golden calf and sacred cow. Amen and Hallelujah. Congressman Burton—no longer a member of Egan’s church—chopped up Egan’s bull and grilled it over a high flame. Although Egan was visibly shaken by Burton’s common-sense questions, Egan maintained the Simpsonwood oath of secrecy. His statement is recorded on the FDA website with the following statements in bold print:
There are no convincing data or evidence of any harm caused by the low levels of thimerosal that some children may have encountered in following the existing immunization schedule . . . .
No children or infants were receiving toxic levels of mercury from vaccines, but FDA still believed it appropriate to pursue alternatives to using thimerosal as a preservative in vaccines. . . .
The amounts [of thimerosal children receive in the childhood vaccination schedule] . . . do not exceed the recommended guidelines set by FDA, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, and the World Health Organization.18
A few weeks prior to the hearing, Lyn Redwood, cofounder of the Coalition for SafeMinds, had submitted a paper with four others to the journal Medical Hypotheses.19 The title of the paper, “Autism: a novel form of mercury poisoning,” was both bold and provocative. As one of the first speakers in the July 18 hearing, Redwood acted as a true prophet in her testimony which preceded Egan’s testimony:
You may hear today from some officials that the mercury exposure from medicinal sources is insignificant. The fact is that neurological damage is documented to occur in infants at these levels of exposure. You may also hear that these levels of exposure only exceed EPA guidelines the first 6 months of life. That is because the data was inaccurately averaged over a 6-month period of time. As any independent toxicologist will tell you, mercury has a long half-life and its inherent pharmacokinetics you cannot legitimately calculate the effect of a bolus dose as though it were ingested in small amounts over a long period of time. To make a simple analogy, what FDA is trying to assert is that giving someone two Tylenol a day for 30 days has the same effect of giving them 60 Tylenol all at once in 1 day. This defies common sense, much less sound medical practice.
The truth is vaccines are the single largest source of mercury exposure postnatally in infants, but nowhere in the mercury literature of EPA, FDA, ATSDR are these products even identified as being a source of exposure.20
Representative Helen Chenoweth-Hage grew up on an Idaho farm. She had undoubtedly mucked through plenty of manure, and, based on her testimony, she was clearly not in the mood to muck through the crap spewing out of the mouths of government witnesses:
. . . [Y]ou are willing to, with a straight face, tell us that you are eventually going to phase [thimerosal] out after we know that a small baby’s body is slammed with 62 times the amount of mercury that it is supposed to have. . . . It doesn’t make sense. No wonder people are losing faith in their government. And to have one of the witnesses tell us it is because mothers eat too much fish? Come on. We expect you to get real.
We heard devastating testimony in this hearing today, and we heard it last April. And this is the kind of response we get from our government agencies?
I am sorry.
I recommend that you read this. Side by side, page after page of analysis of the symptoms of people who are affected with mercury poisoning compared to autism, . . . and you folks are trying to tell us that you can’t take this off the market when 8,000 children are going to be injected tomorrow; 80 children may be coming down, beginning tomorrow, with autism? What if there was an E. coli scare? What if there was a problem with an automobile? The recall would be like that.
. . . This case could dwarf the tobacco case.21
The Congresswoman was right on the money . . . vaccine industry money. A wave of vaccine injury court cases was building. Yes, the court cases would gut industry profits, but more important, it would destroy the fragile faith of vaccine believers, which would kill the Church’s sacred cow.
As discussed previously, the industry would later attempt to fight the wave of court cases with the shady introduction of the Eli Lilly Rider into the Homeland Security Bill, but it needed to go beyond that. Vaccine sociopaths needed to create the illusion that science had once and for all “debunked” the damning relationship among thimerosal, the MMR vaccine, and autism. If they could pull off that trick, then the court cases would magically disappear. Some of the magicians were willing to give science a shot at the task, but in the end, the people running the vaccine scam would never let a little thing like science stop them from poisoning billions of people in exchange for billions in profit.