VaccineGate: 30 years of Secret Meetings, Conflict of Interests, Dubious Science

Vaccination policy was put over vaccine safety to save compulsory vaccination programs.


For the past 30 years, vaccination policy was put over vaccine safety … health agencies asked the pharmaceutical industry to ‘correct the print’ when the lab results did not match reality, but did nothing about vaccine safety itself. Although this report only includes information about the hoax known as compulsory vaccination as it has been documented for the past three decades, the horrors of vaccinations have been recorded since at least 1910. As exposed by Child Health Safety, vaccines not only did not save us from disease, but indeed immersed us into it.

For three decades, collusion between Big Pharma and government agencies around the world served to conceal the dangerous side effects vaccines have always had on human health. Such secrecy prevented the public from making informed decisions regarding the use of vaccines. Parents who take their children’s doctors word at face value before deciding whether or not it is a good idea to vaccinate them have been cheated and lied to either by ignorant doctors who never read a real vaccine study, or who were bought off to publicize the ‘wonders’ of vaccines.

The decision to put vaccination policies above the well-being of millions of people around the world is a gross example of ethical misconduct, which as shown on documents obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request, has been imposed as a way to protect the vaccination programs in almost every country. The effectiveness and safety of vaccines has been supported by a list of false premises upon which pseudo-science has been built to make it look as if vaccines were the best to come around since the invention of the wheel.

In truth, though, concepts like “herd immunity”, the importance of maintaining certain vaccination rates, vaccine effectiveness, safety and their role in preventing mass disease have all been embellished to make up for the lack of solid scientific evidence. Perhaps the most outrageous fact is that health agencies have effectively waived the right of individuals to receive critical information about the demonstrated risks of vaccines, which were well-known by people who were supposed to protect the population from risky science.

As pointed by Lucija Tomljenovic, PhD, author of the document “The Health Hazards of Disease Prevention“, which compiles the history of deception behind vaccination policy, health authorities have unquestionably violated the Helsinki Declaration and the International Code of Medical Ethics by ignoring or hiding the dangers that vaccine ingredients represent for human health. Organizations such as the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunization (JCVI) of the UK, have made it their jobs to withhold information concerning vaccines, their effectiveness and the health effects on humans, as shown on its protocol from March 30, 2010.

The question is why would health authorities lend themselves to this kind of corrupt schemes? The answer is simple: Many members of government health agencies had, and continue to have deep ties to the pharmaceutical corporations. We know this because that is what documents obtained through FOIA requests show. Health officials and pharmaceutical companies’ representatives met in what is described as “commercial in confidence meetings” which were supposed to be kept secret. These meetings served as fora to decide what information would be published and what would be kept from the public regarding vaccine safety. The names of many participants in those meetings were also removed from JCVI’s website.

In her report The Health Hazards of Disease Prevention, Lucija Tomljenovic not only shows proof of generalized collusion between Big Pharma and government health agencies, but also collects enough proof to detail exactly what those responsible for protecting the health of the public have done in order to further the vaccine industry’s commercial goals. Proof of these and other assertions made below is taken from the Minutes of JCVI CSM/DH Joint Sub-committee on Adverse Reactions.

According to Tomljenovic, between 1983 and 2010, health authorities failed to examine safety concerns about vaccines that had been found during their own investigations. She cites as an example JCVI’s decisions not to investigate, skew data and select information that showed unfavorable results to be taken out of safety reports.

Besides trying to hide negative data or select only beneficial information to be put on medical reports, health authorities restricted contraindication criteria to boost vaccination rates, while not concerning themselves with safety issues. On multiple occasions it was requested from vaccine manufacturers to make specific amendments to data sheets when such data was in conflict with official advice on immunization. The Minutes show that the health authorities sought, above all, to maintain acceptance rates for vaccination as high as possible even though the effectiveness of vaccines such as the one indicated to treat whooping cough, for example, were suspicious of causing serious respiratory disease. Authorities failed to investigate in detail.

The Chairman of the Committee asked members to consider “History of seizures, convulsions, or cerebral irritation in the neonatal period”. Professor Hull said that this contra-indication would include children with disguised brain damage; this was good for the reputation of the vaccine in that it prevented an apparent association between vaccination and the discovery of brain damage.”

As it has been abundantly proven before, vaccine safety has been based on dubious studies, whose methodology was more than questionable, while health agencies discarded independent research that showed the real results from clinical studies. This type of actions, says Tomljenovic, intended to promote vaccination policies above all. While only official studies were taken into consideration in order to evaluate the safety of vaccines, authorities always treated safety concerns as overblown and insignificant.

“That boosting vaccine uptake appeared to be the major force driving the JCVI’s decision process can be inferred from their request to the manufacturer of the MMR vaccine Merieux to modify the data sheet information related to contraindication to adverse effects, at the 1st May 1987 meeting. Apparently, it was not sufficient to amend existing information on immunisation in their Memorandum to Infectious Diseases, it was also necessary to make that information concordant with the advices stated on manufacturer’s data sheets,” reports Tomljenovic.

“At a later meeting on 23rd October 1987, the JCVI also pressed for a change in the pertussis vaccine licensing details from the manufacturers, in spite of a pertussis vaccine-suspected injury litigation that was ongoing at that time. The Chairman of the JCVI approached the Association of British Pharmaceutical Industries to resolve this issue.”

Health authorities such as JCVI, promoted in-house plans and propaganda campaigns to present new vaccines as the solution to treat and cure disease, even though the science behind those vaccines did not prove their efficacy. Both the pharmaceutical industry and the scientific community charged with taking care of the safety and effectiveness of vaccines sought to include new vaccines into the pediatric vaccine schedule, even though licenses had not even been granted. In one case, the committee reviewing data resulting from studies performed to test the safety of the MMR vaccine, agreed that “data from Dr Fombonne was persuasive and indicated that the frequency of regressive autism appeared not to have increased.” The big problem with most epidemiological studies such as the one performed by Fombonne is that they only show results regarding “association” and not “causation”, which basically means that the results are unreliable since they do not estimate true risk.

While in private the tests conducted to determine vaccine safety did not actually test causation, in public, health agencies said that their tests “did not show evidence to support a causal link between MMR vaccine and autism and bowel disease.” Statements such as this one, issued by the CSM found fertile soil at JCVI, who saw the papers as helpful and expressed its strong support for the conclusion reached by the CSM.

During their secret meetings, vaccine industry representatives and their government insiders attempted to create new ways to curb or completely eradicate independent vaccine research that questioned official studies. But worse than everything cited above, both the vaccine industry and health officials took advantage of parents’ ignorance and trust to promote false information about vaccine safety and effectiveness. They did so by promoting questionable data originated in their unchallenged studies which not only were not scientifically supported, but that also put the health of children, women, the elderly everyone else at risk.

On a May 7th, 1999 meeting, officials discussed the importance of keeping the Minutes and the discussions about the new Group C meningococcal vaccines confidential. Professor Hull, the Chairman of the Committee at the time, said that “this was the main agenda item for the meeting.” He said that too much  information had been published and that such publications were making important decisions more difficult to take. Apparently, three new brands of  meningococcal Group C conjugate vaccine were about to hit the market and the decision to sell them would be dependent on providing those vaccines
licenses and the wording of those licenses. For the specific case of the Group C meningococcal vaccines, doctors who had a seat at the Committee had been actively involved in the production and testing of the vaccines while working with the manufacturers.

“Professor Cartwright was involved in manufacturers’ studies on the vaccines, including health trials. Dr Goldblatt was involved in one company-sponsored study and had provided a clinical expert report to the MCA for one manufacturer. Dr Jones was involved in trials for two of the companies involved. Dr Schild said that NIBSC was evaluating the vaccines.” Despite the obvious conflicts of interest, no objections were presented. In fact, it was agreed that these and other doctors would be welcome to provide “valuable input to the discussion in common interest.” What would that common interest be?

Health officials and vaccine manufacturers continued to meet to talk about availability of supposedly scarce vaccines, as well as the introduction of new ones. They also talked about obtaining financial support to train staff from the health services about immunisation. “The Chairman said that Departmental officials had recently met vaccine manufacturers who were keen to be informed, in confidence, of the outcome of JCVI discussions which might affect their own plans.” reads the report detailing the JCVI meeting from 4th May 1990. The studies taken into account to determine whether or not vaccine-related adverse effects should be or not a concern did not properly study, much less detected long-term outcomes.

So what exactly have the pharmaceutical industry and the health official tried to hide from the public by selectively reporting on the results of studies that test the efficacy and safety of their vaccines? In one simple sentence, that their vaccines have played no part in the eradication of disease throughout history, that the idea to push vaccines on the public has its origins — at the very  least — on a purely mercantilist scheme. Big Pharma has intentionally tried to sell their pharmaceutical products even though they know of the health risks of using them.

Take for example the vaccination that sought to end Scurvy, Typhoid and Scarlet Fever. Scurvy is a disease caused by poor nutrition, more specifically low levels of vitamin C. In the UK, the end of the Scurvy plague was not the result of the vaccination campaign to immunize children against the disease, but a consequence of improved living conditions that meant people had more access to fresh fruit and vegetables. (see chart on page 4) The same occurs with the other two diseases cited above. Both in Australia and the United States, mortality rates decreased substantially in the absence of vaccination campaigns, where better living conditions were present. (see chart on page 6).

Similar situations occur when reviewing the danger of getting sick with measles as late as 2007. The chance that anyone in England or Wales, for example, got sick of measles in 2007 was of 1 in 55 million. That is 30 to 60 times lower than getting struck by lightning. Measles mortality rates had fallen sharply between 1912 and 1975, 13 years before the measles vaccine was introduced. By 2010, measles mortality in the United States was at a rate of 4 in every 100 million people. (see chart on page 8)

The same is true for mumps, whose death rates went from about 32 million in 1901 to nearly 0 in 1996. In the case of mumps, though, the medical profession is taken beyond operating on the base of ignorance and into the criminal law and unethical treatment of children. That is because treating a patient unnecessarily for a medical condition or misleading a patient to adopt clinical treatment even when it is dangerous, is a criminal offense. This is the case with the mumps vaccine. According to the British Medical Association and the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain, “since mumps and its complications are rarely serious, there is little indication for the regular use of the mumps vaccine.” In fact, males all over the world who received the mumps vaccine, and who were not allowed to create natural resistance to mumps by contracting it, are now at risk of getting mumps as teenagers or adults which would make them victims of orchitis and sterility.

The next case is Rubella. Graphic information — chart — about death rates is not provided due to the rarity of cases of death in the last century, and the few ones encountered are not even enough to plot a graph. In spite of this reality, the medical industry managed to introduce Rubella vaccines in the immunisation schedule. As it happens with mumps, the risks of injecting vaccines against Rubella are higher than any medical complication caused by the disease, which in most cases are limited to rashes. According to the Danish Medical Bulletin of March 1987, 92% of women with Rubella cases managed to deliver healthy babies. The risk is even lower if those women caught Rubella as children. Of course government health agencies reject the reality of how inoffensive Rubella is to people; even to children, and come up with papers to scare parents into believing that it is necessary to vaccinate them with the MMR poison cocktail. Three examples of this kind of scare tactic are exposed on three papers: False Government Rubella Scare Stories: Reply to Professor Louis Z. Cooper, from June 6, 2005Rubella Scares: Demonstrating the Figures are False from August 11, 2005 and False Government Rubella Scare Stories: Only 20,000 percent Overstated, from June 1, 2005.

Additional proof of falsehood on government and medical industry’s assessment of the effectiveness and safety of vaccines are found repeatedly on studies related to other disease such as Diphtheria, Tetanus and Smallpox. (see graphs on page 17-23).

Amazingly, despite the well known dangers of vaccines, parents who refuse to vaccinate their children are being persecuted by police, health officials and school staff. Also, philanthropic organizations are working extra hours to come up with ways to deliver vaccines to the population in a way people have no say about whether they want to use them or not. For example, as we reported last week, Bill Gates is actively working on drone delivery systems to spray vaccines over entire populations, in programs that he says are full of ‘bold ideas’. In the United States the American Medical Association recently presented a plan that would make vaccines mandatory. “AMA recently published a paper proposing the introduction of a new law to force you and your children into experimental vaccine trials, says the report by Christina England. Back on October 9, Lisa Garber from Natural Society reported on how 13,000 people injected with spinal steroid injections for back pain are now victims of fungal meningitis. The vaccines were contaminated with steroids.

Despite the fact vaccines have only caused disease and death for the past century, government agencies and the pharmaceutical industry continue to use people as guinea pigs in the open air and lab experiments. Last July, DARPA announced its plan to produce massive amounts of flu vaccines, in case that a global pandemic hit us hard. DARPA said their experimental vaccines would be grown in vegetables. Of course, we now know that it was the flu vaccine what really caused the last flu pandemic, not the H1N1 strain. On July 16, Reuters reported that a new vaccine which contained weakened live viruses in it mutated and created two new deadly strains. The vaccine had been administered to a population of chickens. The animals got sick and experienced respiratory disease. “The viruses emerged in 2008, a year after Australia started using a European vaccine along with two very similar Australian vaccines to fight acute respiratory disease in poultry. The illness causes coughing, sneezing and breathing difficulties in birds, normally killing 5 percent of them.” Back in January, the state of Texas air-dropped rabies vaccine of 7,000 square miles, a true open air experiment that endangered the health of the population in that area. The spraying was done even though rabies cause 2 or less deaths a year in the whole American territory.

The accounts of the type cited above are numerous. You can read more about government’s criminal actions regarding vaccine use by typing the word “vaccines” on our search box for a long list of articles.

If this information and the rest contained in the sources cited within the article is not enough to indict governments and the medical industry for crimes against humanity, then there is nothing that will be able to achieve it. Governments and their corporate cohorts have knowingly poisoned humanity for at least 100 years and using many patients are subjects for experimental pharmaceutical products whose effectiveness and safety have never been properly evaluated. They have prioritize vaccination policy over vaccine safety, and in doing so, they have helped concealed the dangers that vaccines pose to those who are swindled into believing that vaccines treat and / or cure disease, when the contrary is true. Health authorities have published inaccurate and misleading information with the explicit intention to hide the risks of vaccine side effects. What else there needs to be found?

The Real Agenda encourages the sharing of its original content ONLY through the tools provided at the bottom of every article. Please DON’T copy articles from The Real Agenda and redistribute by email or post to the web.

Operadores de Scanners de Aeroportos sofrem de Câncer

Por Luis R. Miranda
The Real Agenda
28 de junho de 2011

Levou apenas alguns anos para que as conseqüências da exposição continuada à radiação do scanners foram reveladas. Os operadores de scanner aos que muitos passageiros estão sujeitos antes de embarcar um avião, encontraram flocos cancerígenos em seus corpos após apenas uma década ou menos de trabalhar com estas máquinas. A descoberta dessas informações foi realizada após que o Centro de Informação para a Privacidade Eletrônica publicou documentos mostrando como os trabalhadores do aeroporto estavam doentes com câncer, problemas cardíacos e tinham sofrido derrames. Estes documentos foram obtidos através de um pedido sub a Ley de Liberdade de Informação.

Em vez de fornecer os trabalhadores com assistência médica adequada e realizado avaliações das máquinas para verificar sua segurança, a Agência de Segurança Aeroportuaria (TSA), tentou manter o assunto em segredo para evitar uma oposição ainda maior contra os scanners instalados em muitos aeroportos os EUA e do mundo. A proximidade e a exposição continua à radiação causaram as doenças em vários operadores que operam os scanners desde 2003, fazendo com que, hoje, sofram problemas de saúde irreversíveis.

Mesmo quando os funcionários e supervisores freqüentemente pediram medidores de radiação para avaliar realisticamente a quantidade de radiação à que eles estavam expostos, o TSA não atendeu as solicitações. Alem disso, a TSA não tinha avaliado os scanners para determinar a segurança ou insegurança deles. Embora a secretária de Segurança Nacional, Janet Napolitano, disse várias vezes que as máquinas eram seguras, a verdade é que um estudo citado pela TSA e Segurança Nacional era falso. O estudo de acordo com Napolitano havia sido feito pelo Instituto Nacional de Padrões e Tecnologia (NIST), mas este nunca ocorreu. NIST lançou recentemente uma aclaração e disse que o Instituto Nacional de Padrões e Tecnologia nunca realizou testes de segurança em scanners de corpo inteiro.

Aparentemente, o alarme sobre o câncer começou quando um diretor federal de segurança em Boston Logan International Airport, disse que estavam preocupados sobre o número de trabalhadores com diagnóstico de câncer. Em um e-mail com o assunto: “O câncer de Boston + Riscos de Radiação para a Saúde e preocupações de segurança”, o diretor mais uma vez implorou para receber os dispositivos de monitoramento radiológico que havia solicitado em várias ocasiões. No mesmo e-mail sublinha a sua preocupação e a de muitos outros trabalhadores sobre “o número de operadores diagnosticado com câncer” e “a preocupação nossa que TSA tem monitorado erradamente a ameaça que eles enfrentam a os operadores e os trabalhadores que monitoram a bagagem dos passageiros. ”

Alguns trabalhadores da TSA estavam preocupados com a exposição à radiação nos últimos meses, alegando que o TSA em si não tinha compartilhado as suas conclusões sobre a segurança de exposição à radiação. De acordo com o Dr. David Brenner, da Universidade Columbia descobriu que “os scanners corporais provavelmente conduzirám a um aumento de um tipo comum de câncer de pele chamado carcinoma basocelular, que afeta a cabeça e pescoço. ” Além disso, Dr. Michael Love, do Departamento de Biofísica e Química Biofísica da Universidade Johns Hopkins, disse publicamente que “estatísticamente alguém vai ter câncer de pele da radiação emitida por essas máquinas. ”

“Não há realmente nenhuma outra tecnologia que podemos usar com raios-X que não contamine um grande número de pessoas. É realmente sem precedentes no mundo da radiação “, diz Brenner. Enquanto os cientistas e a mídia alternativa alertaram sobre os perigos dos scanners, o governo dos EUA diz que as máquinas eram seguras.

Muitos professores de ciências e outros cientistas alertaram o governo sobre a pouca ou nenhuma pesquisa existe sobre a segurança dos scanners. Alguns sugeriram que deveria haver formas de alcançar os mesmos objetivos que o governo tinha, sem prejuízo para os trabalhadores e passageiros. “Ainda não há dados concretos, claros, para determinar a segurança dos scanners utilizados nos aeroportos”, disse um grupo de professores da Universidade da Califórnia, observando que os testes só foram feitos pelos fabricantes dos scanners.

Vale lembrar que a mesma tecnologia está sendo implantada pelos governos e suas agências de segurança nacional em lugares como estádios, postos de controle, e, em tamanhos menores nos tribunais, shoppings e até mesmo algumas escolas.

Obama Administration wants License to Lie Op/Ed

The Examiner
October 31, 2011

It’s not often that the liberal American Civil Liberties Union and conservative Judicial Watch agree on anything, but the Obama administration’s lack of transparency has brought the two together. Obama’s Justice Department has proposed a regulatory change that would weaken the Freedom of Information Act. Under the new rules, the government could falsely respond to those who file FOIA requests that a document does not exist if it pertains to an ongoing criminal investigation, concerns a terrorist organization, or a counterintelligence operation involving a foreign nation.

There are two problems with the Obama proposal to allow federal officials to affirmatively assert that a requested document doesn’t exist when it does. First, by not citing a specific exemption allowed under the FOIA as grounds for denying a request, the proposal would cut off a requestor from appealing to the courts. By thus creating an area of federal activity that is completely exempt from judicial review, the proposal undercuts due process and other constitutional protections. Second, by creating a justification for government lying to FOIA requestors in one area, a legal precedent is created that sooner or later will be asserted by the government in other areas as well.

Under FOIA’s current national security exemption, bureaucrats can already deny access to documents without acknowledging their existence. This was noted by the ACLU (joined by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington and in a comment on the proposal. In instances where there is a legitimate grounds for not confirming a document’s existence, “the agency should simply respond that ‘we interpret all or part of your request as a request for records which, if they exist, would not be subject to the disclosure requirements of FOIA pursuant to section 552(c), and we therefore will not process that portion of your request.’ This response requires no change to the current FOIA regulation.” Such a response would preserve a requestor’s right to appeal to a federal court.

Chris Farrell, director of investigations and research for Judicial Watch, may have the answer for why the Obama administration wants the new liar’s rule. Judicial Watch has been fighting the White House over a FOIA request for copies of its visitor logs. The White House insists, absurdly, that the documents are theirs, not the property of the Secret Service, and therefore withholdable. “Every day,” Farrell notes, “the Obama administration misrepresents and conceals the true, complete record of who is going in and out of the White House — all the while proclaiming themselves champions of transparency. It’s truly Orwellian.” The proposed new rule could add a patina of legality to the refusal to acknowledge the existence of the visitors logs as White House documents. Despite its flaws, FOIA is one of the few checks on excessive executive branch power. It should not be weakened by Obama’s proposed “license to lie.”


What is the White House Trying to Hide?

The Obama administration refuses to make public the log of visitors as well as documents from the Solyndra scandal.
October 15, 2011

The Obama administration is appealing a judge’s ruling that Secret Service records of visitors to the White House complex are subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act.

The Justice Department filed a formal notice of appeal Friday afternoon regarding U.S. District Court Judge Beryl Howell’s August ruling rejecting arguments that the so-called WAVES records belong to the White House even though they are maintained and used by the Secret Service.

The decision to appeal the ruling to the D.C. Circuit would appear to be in tension with Obama’s repeated pledges to operate the most transparent administration in history. The White House announced in Sept. 2009 that it was voluntarily releasing the names of most White House visitors from Sept. 15 forward. However, the conservative group Judicial Watch sought information on visits before that date.

The position taken by the Obama Justice Department, namely that White House visitor records are presidential records and not agency records, is essentially the same one that the department took under President George W. Bush.

Howell did not rule that every White House visit had to be disclosed. However, she concluded that all the data had to be made public unless the government asserted a specific exemption from FOIA, such as provisions protecting national security and privacy.

There was no immediate comment on the appeal from the White House or the Justice Department.

And on Solyndra…
October 15, 2011

Congress isn’t getting a glimpse of what’s on President Barack Obama’s Blackberry – or any more internal White House communications related to the bankrupt solar company Solyndra, which received a $535 million loan guarantee from the federal government.

House Republicans investigating the loan controversy had requested all internal White House documents about the issue. House Energy and Commerce subcommittee chair Rep. Cliff Stearns said that includes emails on the President’s Blackberry.

On Friday the White House Counsel sent a letter to the House Energy and Commerce Committee explaining they won’t comply with the request because it “implicates longstanding and significant institutional Executive Branch confidentiality interests.”

The response is hardly a surprise given past administrations’ refusal to comply with similar congressional requests. The difference here? President Obama is the first Chief Executive to carry a Blackberry, so it’s the first time a White House counsel has – even indirectly – turned down an attempt to peek at his email. Neither the Blackberry nor his personal email is explicitly mentioned in the letter.

On October 5, Republican Chairmen Fred Upton and Cliff Stearns requested “all communications among White House staff and officials related to the $535 million loan guarantee to Solyndra” because they believed “the White House was closely involved in the monitoring of the Solyndra loan guarantee after it was issued.”

They said these documents are necessary “to better understand the involvement of the White house in the review of the Solyndra loan guarantee and the Administration’s support of this guarantee.’

In her letter Friday, White House Counsel Kathryn Ruemmler said, “the three federal agencies most directly involved in the Solyndra loan guarantee, the Department of Energy, the Office of Management and Budget and the Department of the Treasury, are all cooperating with the Committee’s investigation into the Solyndra loan guarantee.”

Together she says the three agencies have turned over 70,000 pages of documents and are continuing to do so “on a rolling basis.” The letter states the White House has turned over another 900 pages related to communications between the White House and Solyndra, its representatives and investors. She offers to cooperate further with the investigators.

CNN has attempted to reach the Chairs of the Energy and Commerce Committee for comment. Expect some kind of political fallout.

Solyndra is a California solar panel manufacturer that had received $535 million in federal loan guarantees before it was forced to halt operations and file for bankruptcy at the end of August, putting more than 1,000 workers out of work.

Before its failure, the company had been touted as an example of the benefits of creating green jobs by the Obama administration. But since then, it has become the center of congressional criticism and a probe by the FBI.

Brian Harrison, the CEO of Solyndra, resigned Wednesday amidst the scandal.

Operadores de Escáneres en Aeropuertos Sufren de Cáncer

Por Luis R. Miranda
The Real Agenda
28 de junio 2011

Ha tomado solamente unos pocos años para que las consecuencias de la continua exposición a la radiación de los escáneres se manifieste. Los operadores de escáner a los cuales muchos pasajeros están sujetos antes de abordar un avión descubrieron grupos cancerígenos en sus cuerpos después de sólo una década o menos de trabajar con estas máquinas. El descubrimiento de esta información se llevó a cabo después de que el Centro de Información sobre Privacidad Electrónica obtuvo documentos que muestran cómo los trabajadores de aeroportuarios enfermaron de cáncer, problemas cardíacos y cerebrovasculares.

En lugar de proporcionar a los trabajadores con una atención médica adecuada y, realizar las evaluaciones del caso en las máquinas, la Agencia de Seguridad Aeroportuaria (TSA), trató de mantener este asunto en silencio para evitar una oposición aún mayor a los escáneres instalados en muchos aeropuertos alrededor de los EE.UU. y el mundo. Es la proximidad y continua exposición a la radiación del escáner lo que causó que varios trabajadores que comenzaron a usar los escáneres al comienzo de 2003 ya sufran de condiciones médicas irreversibles.

Incluso cuando los empleados y supervisores con frecuencia solicitaron medidores de radiación a fin de evaluar con realismo la cantidad de radiación a que se estaban exponiendo, la TSA no honró esas solicitudes. De hecho, la TSA no había evaluado los escáneres para determinar la seguridad o inseguridad de los mismos. Aunque la secretaria de Seguridad Nacional de EE.UU., Janet Napolitano, dijo varias veces que las máquinas eran seguras, la verdad es que un estudio citado por la TSA y Seguridad Nacional era falso. El estudio que de acuerdo con Napolitano había sido hecho por el Instituto Nacional de Estándares y Tecnología (NIST), en materia de seguridad de los escáneres, en realidad nunca tuvo lugar. NIST salió recientemente a “lavarse las manos”, e indicó que el Instituto Nacional de Estándares y Tecnología nunca realizó las pruebas de seguridad en los escáneres de cuerpo entero.

Al parecer la alarma sobre los casos de cáncer comenzó cuando el director adjunto de seguridad federal en Boston Logan International Airport, manifestó preocupaciones relacionadas al número de trabajadores diagnosticados con cáncer. En un correo electrónico cuyo asunto dice: “Boston cancer+Radiation Safety and health risks concerns”, el director suplica una vez más para que se envíen los dispositivos de vigilancia radiológica solicitados en varias ocasiones. En ese mismo e-mail destaca su preocupación y la de muchos otros trabajadores por “el número de operadores diagnosticados con cáncer” y “nuestra preocupación de que TSA haya monitoreado erróneamente la amenaza que enfrentan por la radiación tanto la los operadores como los encargados de monitorear el equipaje de los pasajeros”.

Algunos trabajadores de TSA manifestaron su preocupación por la exposición a radiaciones en los últimos meses alegando que la propia TSA no había compartido sus conclusiones en relación con la seguridad de exposición a la radiación. De acuerdo con, el doctor David Brenner de la Universidad de Columbia encontró que “los escáneres corporales probablemente conducirán a un aumento de un tipo común de cáncer de piel llamado carcinoma de células basales, que afecta a la cabeza y el cuello.” Además, el Dr. Michael Love, del departamento de biofísica y química biofísica en la Universidad Johns Hopkins, dijo públicamente que “estadísticamente alguien va a tener cáncer de piel por la radiación emitida por estas máquinas”.

“Realmente no hay otra tecnología que podamos usar con rayos X que no contamine un número enorme de personas. Es realmente sin precedentes en el mundo de la radiación “, afirma Brenner. Mientras que los científicos y los medios alternativos advirtieron sobre los peligros de los escáneres, el gobierno de EE.UU. dijo que las máquinas eran seguras.

Muchos profesores de ciencias y otros científicos advirtieron al gobierno acerca de la poca o ninguna investigación que existía respecto a la seguridad de los escáneres de cuerpo entero. Algunos de ellos sugirieron que debería haber formas diferentes de lograr los mismos objetivos que el gobierno, sin necesidad de perjudicar a los trabajadores y los pasajeros. “Todavía no hay datos rigurosos, claros, para determinar la seguridad de los escáneres usados en los aeropuertos”, dijo un grupo de profesores de la Universidad de California, y señaló que las únicas pruebas realizadas fueron las hechas por los fabricantes de los escáneres.

Vale la pena recordar que esta misma tecnología de escaneo está siendo desplegado por gobiernos y sus agencias de Seguridad Nacional a lugares como estadios, puntos de control y en tamaños más pequeños en los juzgados, centros comerciales e incluso algunas escuelas.