World Health Organization sees ‘weak evidence’ of human poisoning by endocrine disruptors in chemicals

While admitting humans are experiencing the highest incidence of disease and that thousands of dangerous chemicals are used in products people consume, a World Health Organization report says there is only weak evidence that human health has been adversely affected by the abundance of those chemicals in food and other products.


There are two facts that are undeniable when it comes to human health. First, despite great advances in science and technology, humans are sicker beings today –both mentally and physically–, when compared to half a century ago, for example. Even worse, the incidence of previously unknown or inexistant diseases has grown exponentially due to ‘inexplicable’ reasons. Second, those who were charged with verifying the safety of the production processes and the goods that are mass-produced for human consumption, failed to point out the dangers, and the side effects of thousands of substances used in the manufacture of industrial products.

The reason for the failure to properly guard human health and the environment from toxic chemicals varies, and it needs to be investigated on a case to case basis, but generally it occurred either due to lack of knowledge or because those watching out for our safety overlooked clear evidence that certain chemicals posed a direct threat to humanity and the environment. Three cases in point: DDT, fluoride in the water, mercury in vaccines, pesticides and herbicides.

In 2013, 41 years after its creation, the World Health Organization finally decided to publish a document where it expresses its concern about the adverse effects that toxic chemicals may have in humans; specifically on the human endocrine system. The document issued by the WHO titled Global Assessment of the State‐of‐the‐Science of Endocrine Disruptors, addresses what millions of people around the world, and thousands of health care practitioners have warned about for many years: chemicals put in the foods we eat, the water we drink and others used in industrial processes harm human health and gravely contaminate the environment.

Unfortunately, the report starts by playing down the role of industrial chemicals in the exponential appearance of disease among humans. The WHO cites as its final conclusion that “although it is clear that certain environmental chemicals can interfere with normal hormonal processes, there is weak evidence that human health has been adversely affected by exposure to endocrine-active chemicals.” As many other unaccountable global organizations, the WHO refused to look at independently gathered evidence that raised concerns about the poisoning of humans and the environment by the industrial process and how chemicals used in the production of food, for example, was the origin of previously unknown diseases.

It took 16 years for the WHO to accept and implement the advice provided by various health groups about the serious problem with the way food is produced as well as the way toxic chemicals are used in the production of the food we ingest. Back in 1997, the Intergovernmental Forum on Chemical Safety and the Environment Leaders of the Eight regarding the issue of EDCs, the International Programme on Chemical Safety (IPCS), a joint programme of WHO, UNEP and the International Labour Organization, began preparing the report issued in 2013.

Along with its general conclusion that its panel of scientists did not find enough evidence –despite all the evidence that exists– that human health is indeed adversely affected by exposure to endocrine disruptors found in toxic chemicals, the WHO report highlights just over a dozen other warning signs that humans, animals and the environment as a whole MAY be experiencing the consequences of systematic poisoning.

After explaining that life on Earth depends on its ability to reproduce and developed normally, the WHO report explains that there is a high incidence and a growing trend of endocrine-related disorders in humans; that there are observations of endocrine-related effects in wildlife populations; and that there is enough evidence that chemicals to which everyone is exposed to have endocrine disrupting properties linked to disease outcomes in laboratory studies. Amazingly, the WHO admits that there is more evidence to suggest that toxic chemicals DO cause endocrine disruptions on animals than on humans.

Endocrine Disruption

Figure 2. Overview of the endocrine system. Obtained from WHO report “State of the Science of Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals”. 2013.

The report found that endocrine-related diseases and disorders are on the rise, especially on young men. It related that in some countries, up to 40% of young men show low semen quality, which translates in their inability to have children. In addition to infertility, the report calls attention to the incidence of genital malformations, adverse pregnancy outcomes, neurobehavioural disorders associated with thyroid disruption, an unexplained rise in endocrine-related cancers that include breast, endometrial, ovarian, prostate, testicular and thyroid, earlier development of the breasts in young girls and the prevalence of obesity and type 2 diabetes, which increased exponentially all over the world for the past 40 years.

The World Health Organization reports that some 800 chemicals are confirmed or suspected to interfere with hormone receptors, hormonal synthesis or conversion and that only a small amount of those chemicals have been properly studied to determine their negative effects on the organisms. That is to say, health watchdogs –both at the national and international levels– traditionally failed to test for the potential or demonstrated threats that toxic chemicals used in the manufacture of food products presented to humans and other forms of life. “The vast majority of chemicals in current commercial use have not been tested at all,” the study admits.

As many independent observations have previously warned, humans and all life on this planet are continuously exposed to Endocrine Disruptive Chemicals (EDC), which traditionally occurs in low but permanent levels. The WHO report confirms this fact by saying that evidence shows that humans and wildlife are exposed to more EDCs than just those found in persistent organic pollutants. The report also confirms that food and drinking water are two major contributors of human and animal poisoning, but that the list of those elements that poison us all is long.

“Children can have higher exposures to chemicals compared with adults—for example, through their hand-to-mouth activity and higher metabolic rate. The speed with which the increases in disease incidence have occurred in recent decades rules out genetic factors as the sole plausible explanation.”

Endocrine Disruption in Babies

Figure 3. Sensitive windows of development. Each tissue has a specific window during development when it is forming. Obtained from WHO report “State of the Science of Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals”. 2013.

The statement above is damning evidence that most, if not all supposedly genetically transmitted diseases, are not really passed on to humans by their progenitors, but by their exposure to chemicals created or used during the production of food and other products. The report goes on detailing that chemicals such as DDT, PCB’s, diethylstilbestrol (DES) and polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs), often used in pesticides and herbicides, or for controlling insect reproduction, are to blame for breast cancer, prostate cancer, non-descended testes.

How can they then say that the evidence is weak when it comes to the relation between toxic chemicals and mass spread disease?

The assessment on endocrine disruptors clarified that much of the damage caused by toxic chemicals happens during pregnancy or early in human life. “Numerous laboratory studies support the idea that chemical exposures contribute to endocrine disorders in humans and wildlife.”

Again, where is the weak link then?

“Developmental exposures can cause changes that, while not evident as birth defects, can induce permanent changes that lead to increased incidence of diseases throughout life.

These insights from endocrine disruptor research in animals have an impact on current practice in toxicological testing and screening. Instead of solely studying effects of exposures in adulthood, the effects of exposures during sensitive windows in fetal development, perinatal life, childhood and puberty require careful scrutiny.”

The WHO report openly admits that organizations that are supposed to be vigilant about the adverse effects of poisons used in the industrial manufacture process have failed time after time to do that very task. “There has been a failure to adequately address the underlying environmental causes of trends in endocrine diseases and disorders.”

Is there room here for liability?

According to the WHO, disease risk induced by endocrine disrupting chemicals may have been significantly underestimated. That is to say, doctors and other health care practitioners who up until today follow the teachings of modern medicine as their base to diagnose disease while ignoring –sometimes purposely– the evidence presented by many studies on the adverse effects of EDC’s, are also to blame for current wave of ‘unknown’ or ‘untreatable disorders.

“We know that humans and wildlife are simultaneously exposed to many EDCs; thus, the measurement of the linkage between exposure to  mixtures of EDCs and disease or dysfunction is more physiologically relevant. In addition, it is likely that exposure to a single EDC may cause disease syndromes or multiple diseases, an area that has not been adequately studied.” Why not? Certainly nor because of lack of funding. Perhaps disinterest from the part of large pharmaceutical conglomerates who conduct their own studies with the ONLY intention to show whether a product is effective, but not to determine its safety or the long-term adverse effects on humans. The same is true for companies like Monsanto, DuPont, Syngenta and others which brag about their technological discoveries even though many independent tests prove, beyond reasonable doubt that their GMO’s, herbicides and pesticides are killing people all over the world.

Despite the mounting evidence presented in its own study, the skyrocketing incidence of disease in the last 50 years and the growing trends that show how EDC’s are more and more involved in causing adverse effects on human populations, the WHO again limits the relation between EDC’s and disease as a matter of association, instead of going beyond and calling it a matter of cause and effect. The report says that human studies can show associations only. But what happens when those associations continue to appear, study after study? Doesn’t that build a clear relationship of cause and effect?

Since most main stream corporate or government financed studies do not properly test for the effects of EDC’s on humans, because they are conducted with a very low number of subjects and for a very short time, the WHO has determined that this ‘association’ does not go beyond casual results that do not offer enough evidence to pose a cause and effect relationship. This is so, because although the mounting evidence, most tests are not designed to show that cause-effect relationship, which immediately invalidates them as reliable proof or evidence that toxic chemicals have –for a long time– caused disease in people and polluted the environment.

The report correctly points out that the shift already taking place from determining associations to testing for links –cause and effect– is the way to go to show what it deems as solid evidence that toxic chemicals indeed cause disease. But the WHO still fails to recognize what many studies have determined: that the adverse effects of early and continuous exposure to toxic chemicals are only detected late in life. Those effects, as explained before, are usually misdiagnosed by most doctors, who usually tell their patients that the origin of their illness is still unknown and that there is no way to treat the causes; only the symptoms. At this point, patients are condemned to taking pharmaceutical drugs for the rest of their lives, which eventually end up killing them due to their own adverse effects.

So, the state of human health today is equally bad from two different fronts. People are either killed by long-term exposure to toxic chemicals used in the production process of food or in the food itself, or they die while trying to ‘cure’ their diseases with industrialized pharmaceuticals whose own side effects are as deadly as those from the chemicals people are trying to get rid of. Either way, people die long, painful deaths.

So what is next? What needs to be done to end this vicious circle of disease? Can long-term studies be the solution? I think it is too little too late for that. Waiting another 10 or 20 years to see the result of long-term tests is not something a lot of people can afford now. That does not mean that those studies should not be done. It means that people need to find solutions by themselves. Now that the World Health Organization has finally confessed they have not done their job to protect people from dangerous substances –quite the opposite is true–  people need to understand that their nutrition is their responsibility. It always has been so. From the part of the organizations that are supposed to keep us safe from the dangers of toxic chemicals, it is time to stop talking and start walking.

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.

Mercury is not out of vaccines and neither are the conflict of interest or the cover-up


We know that mercury is a toxin. We know that it was removed from most vaccines more than a decade ago. End of story, right? Wrong. The debate has resurfaced. If the AAP and the WHO have their way and can successfully influence the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP), some vaccines will still contain thimerosal.

The UNEP, as part of an effort to reduce mercury exposure, is considering banning thimerosal worldwide. The AAP and the WHO’s Strategic Advisory Group of Experts (SAGE) on Immunization are asking the UN to reconsider. Their statements are included in the online version of the January issue of Pediatrics. Although you can’t read the article without purchasing it, you can see a summary of the recommendations on the WHO’s website. [1]


According to the AAP, multi-dose vials that contain thimerosal are used for vaccines in developing countries where money and other resources are scant. The thimerosal prevents contamination. Louis Z. Cooper, MD, says, “As many as 84 million children globally are dependent on vaccines whose safe distribution requires availability of thimerosal as a preservative.” In the United States, only one childhood vaccine (influenza) contains thimerosal, and several others have “trace amounts.” [2]

That last statement comes directly from the AAP website. However, according to the CDC chart of vaccine ingredients, thimerosal is in more than one childhood vaccine: the Td (Decavac) and Flulaval (with no mention of multi-dose vials for either); the Meningococcal MPSVR Menomune and Fluzone (multi-dose vials only); trace amounts in the DT (Sanofi), DTaP (Tripedia), and Td (Mass Biologics), with no mention of multi-dose vials; and Fluvirin (multi-dose vials, trace only in prefilled syringes). [3]

The WHO has tried to tell other countries that the amount of mercury is “extremely small,” and if disposed of properly the release of mercury is minimal. The organization cites numerous problems involved in removing thimerosal from all vaccines (making them all single-dose), from affecting “the quality, safety, and efficacy of vaccines” to—obviously—finding an alternative preservative. Then, there are the issues of manufacturing, storage, waste disposal, supply interruption, unavailability of some vaccines, and “a high risk of serious disruption to routine immunization programs and mass immunization campaigns … with a predictable and sizable increase in mortality, for exceedingly limited environmental benefit.” [4]

For an excellent rebuttal of all the WHO’s arguments, see the Coalition for Mercury-Free Drugs website. [5]


Here are some proposed reasons not to include thimerosal in the global mercury ban.

Multi-dose vials (which must contain thimerosal) are cheaper and easier to produce, not to mention much faster in case of a pandemic. And thimerosal is safe. Although research has shown serious neurotoxic effects from methyl mercury, there is no such evidence for ethyl mercury, its organic counterpart. [6]

A huge part of the pro-thimerosal side is based on the conclusion that it should have never been banned in the first place. It was banned in the early 2000s because of public pressure and a few researchers who asked if the amount contained in vaccines fell within the safe level. Basically, the decision was made to err on the side of caution and “do no harm” until further studies could be conducted to prove its safety. [7] Since then, as the argument goes, overwhelming evidence has shown that thimerosal is not harmful. [8] “At the time,” Walter Orenstein, MD, says, “we just didn’t know what the toxic effects might be or might not be, and one of our concerns was, what if we did the studies and three years later found there was harm?” [9] And Dr. Offit’s two cents worth—or should I say “millions of dollars worth?”: It was “a mistake” to remove thimerosal from vaccines. “To make the same mistake now, with the information we have now, it could result in thousands of deaths.” [10]


Here are some reasons to include thimerosal in the ban.

The Coalition for Mercury-Free Drugs disputes the proof that thimerosal is safe and says it’s an “injustice” to use it in developing countries when it’s not used in developed countries. [11]

Eric Uram, executive director of SafeMinds, believes the practice is “egregious, offensive, and unacceptable.” However, he says health officials in several countries he has communicated with are hesitant to speak up because the WHO says thimerosal is safe. [12]

Barbara Loe Fisher, president of the National Vaccine Information Center, puts it this way: “If unused vials of thimerosal-containing vaccines must be disposed of as hazardous waste because of the mercury content, then why is the AAP strongly advocating that thimerosal-containing vaccines continue to be injected into children’s bodies?” The FDA and EPA “have not rescinded the 1999 directive to the pharmaceutical industry to take thimerosal out of childhood vaccines.” [13]


Those who want to keep thimerosal in vaccines cite multiple studies proving its safety. One is a 2002 NIAID-funded University of Rochester study claiming that the amount of ethyl mercury in vaccine falls below the safe level. Lead investigator Michael E. Pichichero, MD, said that it’s eliminated from the blood much faster than once thought. So, “by the time a child receives another round of vaccines containing mercury, virtually all of the compound from the previous doses has been eliminated.” [14]

Notice those words, “virtually all of.” What about the part that remains? The part that crosses the blood-brain barrier? Has anyone measured those levels? Is ANY mercury of ANY kind safe in the brain? Has anyone looked at the levels of mercury in the brains and bodies of children with autism? Has anybody looked at the cumulative effects of all the mercury in the dozens of vaccines injected into our children?

Most arguments claim that, while there are known neurological side effects connected with methyl mercury, ethyl mercury is safe. That is simply not true. The damage has been documented in study after study. [15, 16] Thimerosal proponents conveniently ignore these studies.

In July 2001, in a presentation to the Institute of Medicine (IOM) Immunization Safety Review Committee, Dr. George Lucier concluded that ethyl mercury is a neurotoxin and “should be considered equipotent to methyl mercury as a developmental neurotoxin.” [17]

The House Government Reform Committee, under Rep. Dan Burton’s oversight, conducted a three-year investigation of mercury. During a 2002 session, David Baskin, MD, Professor of Neurosurgery and Anesthesiology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, stated that ethyl mercury penetrates cells better than methyl mercury, so their concentration in the cells is probably more pronounced than methyl mercury. Also cited in the hearing report is a 1985 Archives of Toxicology study showing that ethyl mercury was more toxic in rats than methyl mercury. [18]

All studies aside, perhaps the strongest evidence comes from the transcript of the secret Simpsonwood meeting held in June 2000. The meeting, which was not announced publicly, consisted of 52 attendees. They included representatives from the CDC, FDA, and WHO, as well as major vaccine manufacturers. Participants were instructed not to copy or leave with any documents. Tom Verstraeten, a CDC epidemiologist, had analyzed over 100,000 children’s medical records, and he believed thimerosal was to blame for the “dramatic” increase in autism. The data, which spoke for itself, was received with comments like “You can play with this all you want,” but the results “are statistically significant,” and “I do not want my grandson to get a thimerosal-containing vaccine until we know better what is going on.” [19]


Next came the cover-up [20], triggered by concern over how the truth would “affect the vaccine industry’s bottom line.”

Dr. Bob Chen, CDC head of vaccine safety: “given the sensitivity of the information, we have been able to keep it out of the hands of, let’s say, less responsible hands.”

Dr. John Clements, WHO vaccines advisor: the study “should not have been done at all” and the results “will be taken by others and will be used in ways beyond the control of this group. The research results have to be handled.”

Dr. Robert Brent, Alfred I. DuPont Hospital for Children, Delaware: “We are in a bad position from the standpoint of defending any lawsuits. This will be a resource to our very busy plaintiff attorneys in this country.”

Dr. Marie McCormick, the IOM’s Immunization Safety Review Committee’s chair: “We are not ever going to come down that [autism] is a true side effect” of thimerosal exposure.

Verstraeten went to work for GlaxoSmithKline and published his study in 2003 with “reworked” data that showed no link between thimerosal and autism.

Dr. Samuel Katz turned out to be a paid consultant for many vaccine manufacturers. He also shares a patent with Merck on a measles vaccine.

The CDC “lost” the data on the 100,000 children.

The IOM was instructed by the CDC to produce a study showing no connection between thimerosal and brain disorders, saying that the evidence was “inadequate to accept or reject a causal relation.” No further research necessary. According to chief staffer Kathleen Stratton, that was the result “Walt [Dr. Walter Orenstein] wants.” And the study was done exactly as ordered.

Vaccine manufacturers got help from the CDC, who allowed them to continue using thimerosal in some vaccines and to buy and ship them to developing countries.

Lawmakers also got help—in the form of huge contributions from pharmaceutical companies. One example is Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist. After receiving $873,000, he started trying to protect manufacturers from liability. To quote his legislative assistant: “The lawsuits are of such magnitude that they could put vaccine producers out of business …”

Note: You can read Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s article, “Deadly Immunity,” published by Rolling Stone (July 14, 2005) in its entirety online. It raises a lot of questions that need to be answered and tells many truths that need to be told. You have to subscribe to Rolling Stone to read it, but if you Google the title, you’ll find it like I did. And before anyone raises this question, I’ll put it to rest. Rolling Stone NEVER retracted Kennedy’s article. Read the statement on their website. [21] You can also see the entire Simpsonwood transcript online. [22]


So, here we have proof that thimerosal is not safe. Proof that has been ignored and covered up for years. A very profitable cover-up. Then, we have the American Academy of Pediatrics publish a statement filled with dozens of reasons why thimerosal should remain in vaccines. How it’s safe and necessary. How children will die needlessly if it is included in the UN ban. As if that’s all not reprehensible enough, the AAP has the gall to tell us, as they’ve done time and time again, that the authors of the Pediatrics article have reported no conflicts of interest. [23]

Let’s look at the writers.

Louis Z. Cooper, MD, is a former AAP president and a trustee of the Sabin Vaccine Institute. [24] Sabin’s mission, in part, is “to reduce needless human suffering from vaccine-preventable diseases by developing new vaccines” and to advocate for “increased use of existing vaccines.” [25]

Samuel Katz, MD, known as “a vaccine ambassador” by Dartmouth University, [26], has been awarded Sabin’s Gold Medal. [27]

Katherine King, PhD, is a research associate at St. Michael’s Hospital in Toronto where she works at the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation’s Global Health Program. [28]

Walter A. Orenstein, MD, has helped lead the CDC’s National Immunization Program for 30 years and served as the liaison member to the National Vaccine Advisory Committee for more than 14 years. He has also been a CDC liaison to the AAP Committee on Infectious Diseases and a consultant to the WHO. [29]

Question for the AAP: Define “conflict of interest.”


The House Government Reform Committee’s report of its mercury investigation ended with this statement: “Thimerosal used as a preservative in vaccines is likely related to the autism epidemic. … This epidemic in all probability may have been prevented or curtailed had the FDA not been asleep at the switch regarding a lack of safety data regarding injected thimerosal, a known neurotoxin.” The FDA and other public-health agencies failed to act out of “institutional malfeasance for self-protection” and “misplaced protectionism of the pharmaceutical industry.” [30]

Orenstein actually raised an excellent point when he asked, “[W]hat if we did the studies and three years later found there was harm?” [31] What if they did studies on any other vaccine ingredient and three years later found there was harm? Or what if they did studies on the combination of some of the ingredients—even two—and three years later found there was harm? Or what if they did studies on giving multiple vaccines at the same time and three years later found there was harm? That is why they haven’t and won’t do the studies. Or if they do, they will lie about their findings. Because they KNOW what they will find. Harm.


You can help by signing SafeMind’s petition to Rep. Darrell Issa, which requests:

The AAP must reverse support for unrestricted use of mercury in vaccines. To prevent injecting mercury (thimerosal) into pregnant women, infants and children around the world by supporting a global phase-out of mercury from all medical, pharmaceutical and personal care products. The second most toxic element on Earth has no place in 21st century medicine. [32]


































Fetal Deaths up 4000% after pregnant mothers took Flu Vaccine

CDC had recommended the double-dosing of the pregnant population with the seasonal flu vaccine with mercury and the untested H1N1 vaccine with mercury.


Documentation received from the National Coalition of Organized Women (NCOW) states that between 2009 and 2010 the mercury-laden combined flu vaccinations have increased Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting Systems (VAERS) fetal death reports by 4,250 percent in pregnant women. Eileen Dannemann, NCOW’s director, made abundantly clear that despite these figures being known to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), the multiple-strain, inactivated flu vaccine containing mercury (Thimerosal) has once again been recommended to pregnant women as a safe vaccination this season.

Outraged by the CDC’s total disregard for human life, Ms. Dannemann accused the CDC of ‘willful misconduct,’ saying that they are responsible for causing the deaths of thousands of unborn babies. She stated that the CDC deliberately misled the nation’s obstetricians and gynecologists and colluded with the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology (AJOG) to mislead the public by advertising the flu vaccine as a safe vaccine for pregnant women when they knew fully well that it was causing a massive spike in fetal deaths.

In a letter to Dr. Joseph Mercola, Ms. Dannemann wrote:

“Not only did the CDC fail to disclose the spiraling spike in fetal death reports in real time during the 2009 pandemic season as to cut the fetal losses, but also we have documented by transcript Dr. Marie McCormick, chairperson of the Vaccine Safety Risk Assessment Working Group (VSRAWG) on September 3, 2010, denying any adverse events in the pregnant population during the 2009 Pandemic season.” [1]


Because the H1N1 pandemic vaccine had never been tested on the pregnant population, and to lessen the intensity of fears of the unknown risks, Dr. Marie McCormick of the CDC was employed to keep track of all adverse events during the 2009 pandemic season, including those adverse events in the pregnant population. Dr. McCormick was responsible for sending monthly reports to the Secretary of the Health and Human Services (HHS), citing any suspicious adverse events.

According to Ms. Dannemann, NCOW has been unable to obtain access to these monthly reports. After sending a Freedom of Information Act request to the CDC, she was told that she may have to wait 36 months to access what should be published public reports.

The Mercola letter continues:

“The Advisory Committee on Childhood Vaccines (ACCV) and CDC were confronted with the VAERS data from NCOW on September 3, 2010, in Washington, D.C., and then again by conference call on September 10, and then again in Atlanta, Georgia, on October 28, 2010. On both September 3 and September 10, Dr. Marie McCormick clearly denied that there were any adverse events for pregnant women from the 2009 flu vaccine.”


To emphasize their point, on October 28, 2010, NCOW requested that Dr. Rene Tocco present their data at the CDC headquarters in Atlanta, Georgia. The CDC’s Dr. Shimabakuru gave a presentation on significant adverse reactions to the H1N1 vaccine, such as cases of Guillane-Barre Syndrome, which appeared to have risen three percent, claiming it as an insignificant signal.

No mention at all was made of adverse events related to pregnant women. Unfortunately for Dr. Shimabakuru, his attempts to pull the wool over the eyes of the audience were foiled when he was challenged by a member of the audience asking if the vaccine caused adverse events in pregnancy. Feeling cornered, he reluctantly looked in his bag and sheepishly presented a slide that corroborated the NCOW data, confirming that the CDC knew of the spike in fetal deaths in the fall of 2010. [2]

So, why did Dr. Shimabkauru have a slide containing compromising evidence in his bag? Why did he decide to hide the slide? Surely, if he had prepared a slide outlining this crucial data, it would have made sense to include the slide in his presentation. After all, a 4,250 percent increase in fetal deaths is far more significant that a three percent increase in Guillane-Barre Syndrome.

Ms. Dannemann believes that the existence of this slide, along with the omission of it in his presentation, confirms that the CDC knew of the spike in fetal deaths by the fall of 2010 and was attempting by any means possible not to make it public.

Outlining a catalog of events, Ms. Dannemann believes the CDC’s continual cover ups puts the lives of pregnant women and their unborn children in serious jeopardy. She maintained:

“Continuing the vaccine program without notifying the public or the healthcare practitioners of the VAERS miscarriage/stillbirth incoming data was clearly a purposeful decision. The CDC, aware of their own incoming stream of early vaccine adverse events reports, clearly decided to allow the obstetricians to continue, unwittingly, murdering and damaging the unborn so that the CDC’s blunder of recommending the double-dose vaccination of pregnant women could be kept under the radar.”


Despite evidence that the CDC knew of the 4,250 percent increase in fetal death reports in 2009/2010, in order to ensure the continuance of the vaccine program for pregnant women, the CDC published a study in AJOG authored by Dr. Pedro Moro of the CDC in the fall of 2010. The study articulated that there were only 23 miscarriages caused by the single flu vaccine in 19 years between 1990 – 2009, an average of 1.2 miscarriages per year. This study formed the basis of a CDC worldwide publicity campaign that the flu shot was safe for pregnant women by willfully and strategically excluding the 2009 pandemic data, which was available to them. Ms. Dannemann said:

“Both the CDC and AJOG were well aware of the fact that physicians and the public were awaiting the results of the 2009 H1N1 untested vaccine on pregnant women, amid solid assurances to the public at the beginning of the pandemic season that the CDC was on top of collecting any adverse reactions to the vaccine by establishing the Vaccine Safety Risk Assessment Working Group chaired by Dr. Marie Mc Cormick (VSRAWG).”

Ms. Dannemann stated that by including the 2008/2009 flu season’s data but excluding the available 2009 data from the 2009/2010 flu season in the study published in AJOG, Dr. Moro was able to give the impression that the 2009/2010 pandemic season was covered in the data, which of course it was not. Ms. Dannemann believes that this was a deliberate act on his part because he was aware of the fetal death spike in the 2009/2010 data at the time of preparing the study and purposely excluded the 2009 pandemic data from the study to hide this fact.

In the fall of 2010, just in time for the new flu season, media outlets all over the world publicized the AJOG, peer-reviewed CDC/Dr. Moro study as adamant proof that the flu shot is safe for pregnant women. The NCOW documents prove at the same time as widely publicizing advice that all pregnant women required the combined flu vaccination, the CDC was busy organizing ten non-profit organizations, to sign a joint letter to urge obstetricians and gynecologists to continue to vaccinate their pregnant patients.

One of the organizations to sign the letter was The March of Dimes [3] who urged health care providers to recommend the flu vaccine to pregnant women and those who expect to become pregnant. They wrote the following recommendation to all medical professionals:

“Advice from a healthcare provider plays an important role in a pregnant and postpartum woman’s decision to get vaccinated against seasonal influenza. The American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP), American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), American College of Nurse-Midwives (ACNM), American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (The College), American Medical Association (AMA), American Nurses Association (ANA), American Pharmacists Association (APhA), Association of Women’s Health, Obstetric and Neonatal Nurses (AWHONN), March of Dimes, and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) are asking for your help in urging your pregnant and postpartum patients to get vaccinated against seasonal influenza.

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommends that pregnant and postpartum women receive the seasonal influenza vaccine this year, even if they received 2009 H1N1 or seasonal influenza vaccine last year. Lack of awareness of the benefits of vaccination and concerns about vaccine safety are common barriers to influenza vaccination of pregnant and postpartum women.”

Representatives from all ten organizations signed the letter.


This year, on September 27, 2012, the Human and Environmental Toxicology Journal (HET) published Dr. Gary Goldman’s study that confirms NCOWs data, a 4,250 percent increase in the number of miscarriages and stillbirths reported to VAERS in the 2009/2010 flu season. [4] The study points out an astounding fact that no one saw until the publishing of the Goldman study in HET: the CDC had recommended the double-dosing of the pregnant population with the seasonal flu vaccine with mercury and the untested H1N1 vaccine with mercury.

In his abstract, Goldman said:

“The aim of this study was to compare the number of inactivated-influenza vaccine–related spontaneous abortion and stillbirth (SB) reports in the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) database during three consecutive flu seasons beginning 2008/2009 and assess the relative fetal death reports associated with the two-vaccine 2009/2010 season.”

The facts that Goldman exposed are extremely disturbing. He highlights the fact that the safety and effectiveness of the A-H1N1 had never been established in pregnant women and that the combination of two different influenza vaccines had never been tested on pregnant women at all.

Even more worrisome is the fact that the A-H1N1 vaccine inserts from the various manufacturers contained this warning:

“It is also not known whether these vaccines can cause fetal harm when administered to pregnant women or can affect reproduction capacity.’’ (emphasis added)

Dr. Goldman also pointed out that the developing fetus is indirectly exposed to mercury when thimerosal-containing vaccines are administered to a pregnant woman. He outlined a study written by A.R. Gasset, M. Itoi, Y. Ischii and R.M. Ramer who examined what happened after rabbits were vaccinated with thimerosal–containing radioactive mercury. Goldman stated that from one hour post-injection to six hours post-injection, the level of radioactive mercury in the blood dropped over 75 percent. Yet from two hours post-injection to six hours post-injection, there were significantly increased radioactivity levels in the fetal brain, liver, and kidney.

Dr. Goldman concluded that because the rates of miscarriage reported to the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) for the single flu vaccine were relatively low, health care providers developed a false sense of security that flu vaccines administered during pregnancy were safe.  Goldman explained that just because a single vaccine has been tested and considered to be relatively safe, this does not mean that vaccinating pregnant women with two or more Thimerosal containing vaccines will be safe for them or their unborn babies. Overall, Goldman firmly believes that the VAERS grossly underestimates the true rates of miscarriage and other adverse events encountered in the US population. Remember, it is estimated that  less than a tenth of true adverse reactions are reported to the VAERS with a one percent reporting rate for serious adverse events, including death, according to a study led by former FDA Commissioner Dr. David A. Kessler. [5]

As seen in the Goldman study, with the return to a single flu shot, the flu vaccine-related reports of fetal loss have returned to a significantly lower level compared to the high level of fetal loss reports in the two-dose 2009/2010 flu season. However, higher than background flu shot vaccine-related fetal losses continue to be reported to the VAERS.

Furthermore, the Goldman study recommends that the babies who survived the deadly double dose in utero be monitored:

“In addition, because of the order of magnitude increase in fetal-loss report rates, from 6.8 fetal loss reports per million pregnant women vaccinated in the single-dose 2008/2009 season to 77.8 in the two-dose 2009/2010 season, further long term studies are needed to assess adverse outcomes in the surviving children. Additional research concerning potential synergistic risk factors associated with the administration of Thimerosal-containing vaccines is warranted, and the exposure-effect association should be verified in further toxicological and case-control studies.” (emphasis added)

Aside from fetal deaths, the CDC initiative to increase uptake of vaccines in pregnant women continues to fuel the increases in the levels of neurodevelopmental, developmental, behavioral abnormalities, and chronic illness in the surviving children. Due to omitting reports of fetal deaths, the CDC enjoys success in increasing the uptake and number of vaccines in the pregnant population. The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) is now recommending not only the flu shot (with mercury) but also the Tdap vaccine.


The work of NCOW and Dr. Goldman has proven that potential lives are being destroyed before they are even old enough to draw their first breath. Developing fetuses who are fortunate enough to survive the onslaught of vaccinations now being recommended to pregnant women then need to play a form of Russian Roulette from the day they are born, because their caring parents followed the advice they were given by professionals who have been deliberately misguided.

Eileen Dannemann and her team have proven with their remarkable work that both public and professionals alike are being lied to and deceived by organizations put in place by the government to sanction our vaccination programs. In my opinion, this is genocide and the sooner people realize that all vaccines come with an element of risk and begin to research the dangers for themselves, the sooner these insane experiments will end.


  1. Official transcript CDC’s Dr. Marie McCormick denies miscarriages, Sept. 3, 2010 ACCV. See page 37.
  2. Influenza Vaccine Safety Monitoring (slide 20).
    CDC’s Dr. Tom Shimabukuro confirms NCOW data , Oct. 28, 2010 ACIP
  3. Letter from March of Dimes, inlcuded in this article.
  4. Dr Gary Goldman Comparison of VAERS fetal-loss reports during three consecutive influenza seasons: Was there a synergistic fetal toxicity associated with the two-vaccine 2009/2010 season? (abstract only)
  5. Kessler, D.A. The Working Group. Natanblut, S. Kennedy, D. Lazar, E. Rheinstein, P. et al. Introducing MedWatch: A New Approach to Reporting Medication and Device Adverse Effects and Product Problems. JAMA 1993 June 2. 269 (21): 2765-2768.

CDC Hides Evidence of Link Between Vaccines and Autism

Thanks to a FOIA request for documents, the CDC has been caught deliberately altering data to try to cover up evidence linking mercury in vaccines with autism.
October 2, 2011

Deniers of the link between mercury-laden vaccines and autism are going to have a hard time denying the latest findings by the Coalition for Mercury-Free Drugs (CoMeD). The nonprofit group has obtained critical documents via a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request that exposes the US Center for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) role in deliberately lying about and manipulating a key Danish study that showed a clear link between vaccines containing mercury and autism.In 2003, the journal Pediatrics published a study conducted in Denmark that observed a significant decline in autism rates following the country’s elimination of Thimerosal, a mercury-based component, from vaccines. But thanks to the CDC’s corrupting influence, the published version of the study in Pediatrics actually claimed the opposite, and alleged that removal of Thimerosal brought about an increase in autism rates. See here why the CDC’s published version of the study is bogus.

According to the documents, CDC officials removed large amounts of data from the study that showed a decline in autism rates following the removal of Thimerosal. The agency then twisted the remaining data to imply an increase in autism rates following the removal of Thimerosal, and suggested that there was no link between Thimerosal and autism.

Upon submission of the CDC’s tainted version of the study to Pediatrics, the study’s authors contacted CDC officials to let them know that the agency had incorrectly interpreted the data. They tried to tell the CDC that its figures and conclusions were wrong, and that corrections needed to be made. See here 14 studies commonly used to support the false assertion that vaccines DO NOT cause autism and other neurological conditions.

The CDC allegedly responded by saying that it would take a look at the incorrect data, but proceeded to submit the corrupted version of the study to Pediatrics anyway. After encouraging the editors of Pediatrics to perform an expedited review of the corrupted study, the CDC ended up convincing the journal to publish the fraudulent study, which it did in 2003.

Now that this critical information has been officially released for the world to see, CoMeD is pressing the CDC to conduct a full criminal investigation into the matter, and make a formal declaration about whether or not scientific fraud was involved. CoMeD is also calling for a full, immediate retraction of the corrupted study from Pediatrics.

“This should not be tolerated by those who are entrusted with our children’s health and well-being,” says Lisa Sykes, President of CoMeD.