But NOT censored on Health Impact News and Vaccine Impact! Click image to read the report.
Health Impact News Editor Comments
It is very obvious to anyone paying attention these days that news regarding vaccine safety is routinely censored in the mainstream media. We know that the U.S. Government puts pressure on the U.S. media to not publish anything negative regarding vaccine safety, as Kathleen Sebelius, secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services under President Obama, openly admitted this in an interview with Reader’s Digest:
RD:What can be done about public mistrust of vaccines?KS:There are groups out there that insist that vaccines are responsible for a variety of problems despite all scientific evidence to the contrary. We have reached out to media outlets to try to get them to not give the views of these people equal weight in their reporting to what science has shown and continues to show about the safety of vaccines. (Source.)
The U.S. Government has a serious conflict of interest when it comes to discussing vaccine safety, as they are the largest purchaser of vaccines in the U.S. The CDC alone purchases over $4 billion in vaccines every year.
Outside the U.S. the largest purchaser of vaccines is the United Nations, primarily through UNICEF, and the World Health Organization (WHO), funded primarily by pharmaceutical companies, is the Government body approving the vaccines to be purchased and distributed. Negative news regarding vaccine safety is, therefore, vigorously opposed.
Christina England writes about vaccine censorship in Canada and the involvement of the World Health Organization. This is an especially crucial topic, as recent studies show just how toxic and dangerous aluminum adjuvants in vaccines are, and the public has a right to have access to this information from scientists in Canada.
Canadian Media and the WHO Attempt to Discredit Scientists from University of British Columbia
by Christina England
Health Impact News
Health Impact News
When a professional gets a little too close to the truth for comfort, the most efficient and effective way for government agencies and the pharmaceutical industry to prevent them from exposing the truth is to destroy their credibility.
This is exactly what happened when Professor Shaw and Dr. Tomljenovic published a series of leading papers exposing the possible links between aluminum adjuvants and autism.
The question is, what exactly is being covered up and why?
Canadian Media are Involved in the Attack, but Exactly WHO are They Working For?
Over recent weeks, the Canadian media have been actively criticizing the work of two researchers from the University of British Columbia. Newspapers have stated that studies written by Professor Christopher Shaw and Dr. Lucija Tomljenovic, outlining a correlation between the adjuvant aluminum used in vaccines and autism were “weak and misleading,” stating that the studies had been previously discredited by the World Health Organization (WHO).
Award-winning journalist, Ms. Carly Weeks from the Globe and Mail, opened her report by citing a study that had been highlighted on the Children’s Medical Safety Research Institute (CMSRI) website, written by the researchers in 2013. She wrote:
Organizations that promote messages about the dangers of vaccines, such as the Children’s Medical Safety Research Institute (CMSRI), have used the results of the UBC research as evidence that vaccines cause autism and other serious harm. The front page of the CMSRI website states that in a “landmark” 2013 paper, the two UBC researchers show that “the more children receive vaccines with aluminum adjuvants, the greater their chance is of developing autism, autoimmune diseases and neurological problems later in life.” In that study, the researchers note that the rate of autism spectrum disorders increased along with the number of pediatric vaccines that contain aluminum.
Instead of actually researching their paper in depth and quoting what the researchers had discovered and how they had come to their conclusions, Ms. Weeks continued her vicious attack by cleverly averting her readers’ attention away from the 2013 paper, focusing their attention instead on a WHO report written in 2012 which referred to two 2011 studies.
It is a complete mystery as to why such a capable young journalist could only find an out-of-date report consisting of a total of three poorly written and inaccurate paragraphs to support her argument. Especially since the WHO has no solid proof that aluminum adjuvants are safe. In a statement written in their paper titled World Health Organization. Weekly and epidemiological record 7 Jan 2005 in a section titled Global Advisory Committee on Vaccine Safety, 2–3 December 2004, they admit that they have neglected this subject:
The Committee considered the safety of adjuvants used in vaccines. This hitherto neglected subject is becoming increasingly important given modern advances in vaccine development and manufacture.
If only she had spent a little less time trying to discredit Professor Shaw and Dr. Tomljenovic and a little more time researching their work, she may have discovered further studies written in 2013, 2014 and 2015 that had added even further weight to their work.
Instead, Ms. Weeks, like so many others before her, chose to reel off the usual mantra, stating that:
Numerous peer-reviewed, high-quality studies have shown that vaccines are not linked to autism. Although they are not risk-free, the incidence of adverse events linked to vaccination is low.
This left many of her readers with a lot of unanswered questions, especially since the University of British Columbia fully backed the work of the two researchers and refused to be interviewed on the subject.
What Had Professor Shaw and Dr. Tomljenovic Discovered and Why Had it Been Covered Up?
If Ms. Weeks had researched their 2013 paper titled Aluminum in the central nervous system (CNS): toxicity in humans and animals, vaccine adjuvants, and autoimmunity in depth, she would have discovered that Professor Shaw and Dr. Tomljenovic had revealed that during a 17-year period, the rates of autism had increased significantly in countries that had the most vaccinations containing the adjuvant aluminum.
The researchers had compared the number of vaccines recommend by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) during the period from 1991 – 2008 and the changes in the autism rates during the same period. They wrote:
The data sets, graphed against each other, show a pronounced and statistically highly significant correlation between the number vaccines with aluminum and the changes in autism rates. Further data showed that a significant correlation exists between the amounts of aluminum given to preschool children and the current rates of autism in seven Western countries. Those countries with the highest level of aluminum-adjuvanted vaccines had the highest autism rates.
They revealed:
The observed correlation between the number of aluminum-adjuvanted vaccines and ASD was further tested using Hill Criteria and met eight of nine of these indicating that vaccines containing aluminum are highly likely to be at least partially causal for autism.
Professor Shaw and Dr. Tomljenovic continued their paper by adding:
There are other links between aluminum exposure/toxicity and ASD. These include the following: A pilot study showed higher than normal aluminum levels in the hair, blood and/or urine of autistic children; children are regularly exposed to higher levels of aluminum in vaccines per body weight than adults; practically, nothing is known about the pharmacokinetics and toxicodynamics of aluminum in vaccines in children; and aluminum in vaccines has been linked to serious neurological impairments, chronic fatigue and autoimmunity.
In fact, Professor Shaw and Dr. Tomljenovic not only linked the adjuvant aluminum to autism, but also linked the adjuvant to the rise in the incidence of Alzheimer’s disease, Gulf War syndrome and a relatively new syndrome, ASIA (autoimmune/inflammatory syndrome induced by adjuvants) that had also been discovered that same year.
What is even more bizarre is the fact that had Ms. Weeks researched a little further, she would have discovered a further paper written by the researchers that had been published that same year, titled Administration of Aluminum to Neonatal Mice in Vaccine-Relevant Amounts is Associated With Adverse Long Term Neurological Outcomes.
Professor Shaw and Dr. Tomljenovic wrote:
Our previous ecological studies of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) has demonstrated a correlation between increasing ASD rates and aluminium (Al) adjuvants in common use in paediatric vaccines in several Western countries. The correlation between ASD rate and Al adjuvant amounts appears to be dose-dependent and satisfies 8 of 9 Hill criteria for causality.We have now sought to provide an animal model to explore potential behavioural phenotypes and central nervous system (CNS) alterations using s.c. injections of Al hydroxide in early postnatal CD-1 mice of both sexes. Injections of a “high” and “low” Al adjuvant levels were designed to correlate to either the U.S. or Scandinavian paediatric vaccine schedules vs. control saline-injected mice. Both male and female mice in the “high Al” group showed significant weight gains following treatment up to sacrifice at 6 months of age. Male mice in the “high Al” group showed significant changes in light-dark box tests and in various measures of behaviour in an open field. Female mice showed significant changes in the light-dark box at both doses, but no significant changes in open field behaviours.These current data implicate Al injected in early postnatal life in some CNS alterations that may be relevant for a better understanding of the aetiology of ASD.
In other words, these results clearly supported their original findings. This leads us to wonder whether or not this was the real reason that the Globe and Mail chose to ignore the researchers’ investigations and outcomes in favor of an outdated WHO report and whether it is possible that the Globe’s staff had been instructed by the WHO to take this approach. After all, the WHO had been well aware that aluminum was a neurotoxin with the potential to cause Alzheimer’s disease, developmental, behavioural and intellectual disorders in animals and humans since the 1980s.
Association Between Aluminum and Neurological Disorders Known for Years
In 1998, the WHO published a paper titled Aluminium in Drinking-waterBackground document for development of WHO Guidelines for Drinking-water Quality.
They wrote:
In 1988, a population of about 20 000 individuals in Camelford, England, was exposed for at least 5 days to unknown but increased levels of aluminium accidentally distributed to the population from a water supply facility using aluminium sulfate for treatment. Symptoms including nausea, vomiting, diarrhoea, mouth ulcers, skin ulcers, skin rashes, and arthritic pain were noted. It was concluded that the symptoms were mostly mild and short-lived. No lasting effects on health could be attributed to the known exposures from aluminium in the drinking-water (Clayton, 1989). (emphasis added)
They continued:
Of the six studies that examined the relationship between aluminium in drinking water and dementia or AD, three found a positive relationship, but three did not. (emphasis added)
Even though the WHO concluded above that the evidence did not support a risk, their conclusion to this paper appeared to state otherwise:
The Environmental Health Criteria document for aluminium (WHO, 1997) concluded that:On the whole, the positive relationship between aluminium in drinking-water and AD, which was demonstrated in several epidemiological studies, cannot be totally dismissed. However, strong reservations about inferring a causal relationship are warranted in view of the failure of these studies to account for demonstrated confounding factors and for total aluminium intake from all sources. (emphasis added)
This paper clearly indicated that the WHO has been fully aware of the links between aluminum in drinking water and neurological disorders, including Alzheimer’s disease, for many years.
Interestingly, a WHO PowerPoint presentation, titled Children’s Health and the Environment WHO Training Package for the Health Sector World Health Organization, appeared to further support this fact.
A slide titled Children & neurodevelopmental behavioural intellectual disorders stated:
NEURODEVELOPMENTAL PROCESSES & ENVIRONMENTAL LINKAGESNeurotransmission processesCholinesterase inhibitorsEthanolMethylmercuryAluminumPharmaceuticals and pesticidesdesigned to target specific neurotransmitter systemsSynaptogenesis may be adversely affected by ethanol, lead, methylmercury, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), triethyltin, parathion, permethrin, and serotonin antagonists.Apoptosis or cell death is a complex process in which appropriate cells are removed to ensure optimal neurodevelopmental behavioural intellectual development. However, this intricate, balanced process may be adversely affected at critical stages of gestation and postnatal development by exposure to ethanol, lead, mercury and chlorpyrifos.Neurotransmission processes may be adversely affected by cholinesterase inhibitors, ethanol, methylmercury, aluminum, as well as pharmaceuticals and pesticides designed to target specific neurotransmitter systems.Ref: Rice D, Barone Jr S. Critical periods of vulnerability for the developing nervous system: evidence from humans and animal models. Environ Health Perspectives, 2000, 108(S3):511-533. (emphasis added)
Once again, this presentation clearly indicates that the WHO had been aware for many years that aluminum had the potential to cause neurological deficits in children, and this was further supported in a paper titled Aluminium (EHC 194, 1997), sections 7 and 8.
However, as section 7 referred to animal models only, for the purpose of this article, I have decided to highlight only the information in section 8 relating to humans.
The paper was headed:
UNITED NATIONS ENVIRONMENT PROGRAMME INTERNATIONAL LABOUR ORGANISATION WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMME ON CHEMICAL SAFETY ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH CRITERIA 194AluminiumThe paper began with the following statement:“This report contains the collective views of an international group of experts and does not necessarily represent the decisions or the stated policy of the United Nations Environment Programme, the International Labour Organisation, or the World Health Organization.Environmental Health Criteria 194First draft prepared by Dr H. Habs, Dr B. Simon and Professor K.U. Thiedemann (Fraunhofer Institute, Hoanover, Germany) and Mr P. Howe (Institute of Terrestrial Ecology, Monks Wood, United Kingdom)Published under the joint sponsorship of the United Nations Environment Programme, the International Labour Organisation, and the World Health Organization, and produced within the framework of the Inter-Organization Programme for the Sound Management of Chemicals.World Health Organization Geneva, 1997
It continued by adding:
The International Programme on Chemical Safety (IPCS) is a joint venture of the United Nations Environment Programme, the International Labour Organisation, and the World Health Organization.The main objective of the IPCS is to carry out and disseminate evaluations of the effects of chemicals on human health and the quality of the environment. Supporting activities include the development of epidemiological, experimental laboratory, and risk-assessment methods that could produce internationally comparable results, and the development of manpower in the field of toxicology. Other activities carried out by the IPCS include the development of know-how for coping with chemical accidents, coordination of laboratory testing and epidemiological studies, and promotion of research on the mechanisms of the biological action of chemicals. (emphasis added)WHO Library Cataloging in Publication Data
The authors stated:
8. EFFECTS ON HUMANS8.1 General population exposure8.1.3 Neurotoxic effects8.1.3.1 Aluminium and Alzheimer’s disease (AD)It has been suggested that aluminium exposure is a risk factor for the development or acceleration of onset of AD in humans (Crapper McLachlan, 1986; Crapper McLachlan et al., 1989). The precise pathogenic role of aluminium in AD is judged controversial and remains to be defined (Wisniewski & Wen, 1992; Wischik et al., 1992; Edwardson, 1992).
In section 8.1.3.5 they concluded:
8.1.3.5 Conclusions regarding neurological effects of aluminiumThe positive relationship between aluminium in drinking-water and AD, which has been demonstrated in several epidemiological studies, cannot be totally dismissed.However, strong reservations about inferring a causal relationship are warranted in view of the failure of studies to account for demonstrated confounding factors and for aluminium intake from all sources.Taken together, the relative risks for AD from exposure to aluminium in drinking-water at levels above100 µg/litre as determined in these studies are low. But, because the risk estimates are imprecise for a variety of methodological reasons, a population-attributable risk cannot be calculated with precision. Such predictions may, however, be useful in making decisions about the need to control the exposure to aluminium in the general population.In light of the above studies, which consider water-borne aluminium as the sole risk factor, and the recent findings that water accounts for less than 5% of daily uptake of aluminium, it is difficult to reconcile a presumable impact on cognition. Several lines of investigation should be pursued to elucidate further the nature of the relationship found in these studies (see Chapter 12). (emphasis added)
As we can see, this paper appears to support the fact that the WHO has been aware of a risk between aluminum in drinking water and AD for many years, even though they admit that the risk is low. The very fact that they have recommended further investigation is worrying, especially when they later discredit studies questioning the use of aluminum in childhood vaccinations.
Conclusion
I have outlined enough evidence in this article to indicate that the WHO has been aware for many years that aluminum can cause neurological, behavioural and developmental disorders in humans. It is highly suspicious that the Globe and Mail should criticize anyone daring to expose the truth, at a time when the WHO is under immense scrutiny for having been exposed using experimental vaccines, on vulnerable men, women and children in the developing world. (See Developing World – The WHO’s Private Vaccine Laboratory.)
It is about time the people of the world woke up to the fact that the World Health Organization is an organization that can no longer be trusted when it comes to vaccination.
We need to ask ourselves exactly why they are covering up the truth and what their agenda really is.
Comment on this article at VaccineImpact.com
See Also:
