Junk science quotes
Quotes  Medical control ploys Junk science  [back] Medical study ploys

Mercury amalgam
    Unhealthy babies excluded from trials, making vaccines look better
    Trial information kept secret
    Antibody theory

    No trial ever done using 100% unvaccinated controls
         And the reason for that is here
   Animal safety tests--you couldn't make it up
  Safety testing left to makers

"I found a CDC paper called 'Isolation of the Measles virus.'  If we think a patient might have Measles get some fluid from that patient...and put in fridge.  Next, get a marmoset monkey, kill it, take it's cells and put cells in cell culture because they are 10,000 times more responsive to measles than our human cells.  The cell culture isn't ready yet to grow measles virus.  Next thing is to make the monkey cells cancerous by exposing to radiation.  Next give those monkey cells Epstein Barr virus, which is a horrific disease.  Next, add a toxin to the cell culture that is so dangerous the advice is to wear rubber gloves, don't let human skin touch it.  The CDC says at this point the cells are starting to fall off the sides of the vessel, in other words they are poisoned, they have cancer and EBV and they are falling over, they are ill.  Give them 2 days to recover and add nutrients.  Now get sample out of fridge and add to these diseased and cancerous cells.  Watch with microscope for 2 days.  If after this time 50% of the cells are distorted then you have an isolate of measles virus and you are instucted to put in fridge and keep to be used as vaccine.  At no point is measles virus seen, at no point is the measles virus proved to cause the illness in the cells.  We know they are poisoned, we know they have been given cancer & Epstein Barr syndrome.  That is now ready to be made into a vaccine to be put into our kids.  This noxious mixture is the basis that can be used in vaccines."  ~  Janine Roberts on how they make the Measles vaccine, start at 5:00  https://youtu.be/7r8Mw6D0bX4?t=300

 “The medical profession is being bought by the pharmaceutical industry, not only in terms of the practice of medicine, but also in terms of teaching and research. The academic institutions of this country are allowing themselves to be the paid agents of the pharmaceutical industry. I think it’s disgraceful.” ~Dr. Arnold Seymour Relman, Harvard Professor emeritus of Medicine, Former Editor in Chief of the NEJM

 “I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.
    “Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.
    There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.”
“… Finally, I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E = mc². Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.””[2016 April 13] What’s with DeNiro’s Tribeca co-founder, Jane Rosenthal? BY JB HANDLEY

  As I’ve stated on many occasions, medical science is ideal for mounting and launching covert ops aimed at populations—because it appears to be politically neutral, without any allegiance to State interests.  Unfortunately, medical science, on many fronts, has been hijacked and taken over. The profit motive is one objective, but beyond that, there is a more embracing goal:  Totalitarian control.[2015 May] A totalitarian society has totalitarian science by Jon Rappoport

The entire vaccine program is based on massive fraud. The so-called H1N1 “pandemic” is a case in point. ......Yet the CDC, the media, medical academia, and the pharmaceutical vaccine manufacturers all participated in this deception....The H1N1 vaccine alone generated $1.5 billion in addition to the $1 billion generated by the seasonal flu vaccine, neither of which has been shown to be either effective or safe. You have been told this safety and efficacy has been scientifically shown, when this is a shocking, provable lie. Russell L. Blaylock, M.D.

 For the past 25 years, most of the laboratory research into metastatic breast cancer has been based on a single breast tumor cell line known as MDA-MB-435. At least 650 papers have been published on studies involving this cell line. Yet it has been revealed that this supposed breast cancer cell line may in fact not be composed of breast cancer cells at all. Instead, it appears that the cells are derived from melanoma. For 25 years, therefore, breast cancer research using this cell line - and it is one of the most widely used - has been based on an incorrect model. Melanoma-derived tumor cells are not biologically equivalent to breast cancer cells; they have different molecular and genetic characteristics. STARTLING REVELATION ABOUT BREAST CANCER RESEARCH

When intellectual dishonesty becomes a crime: Nature and its cynical promotion of bad science
http://www.aidsorigins.com/content/view/219/2/  I think it is now high time for me to make a frank public statement about Nature and its nefarious role in this debate. The fact that Nature regularly publishes alleged "refutations" of the OPV theory and that it does so to enormous fanfare, the fact that it has competed vigorously with its rival Science in order to publish such "refutations", and the fact that it has never published an exposition of the OPV theory, or allowed a single paragraph of space to any proponent of the OPV theory, reveal that the rejection slips from Nature have nothing whatsoever to do with the volume of correspondence that that journal receives. Instead, they are reflections of Nature's determination to promote an explanation for how AIDS began that is supported only by certain powerful governments, and by a perversion of sound scientific method.
   ....In short, on this particular topic, Nature has abandoned the most basic principles of scientific enquiry. Instead the journal has consistently acted as if it is a stooge of certain powerful governments and interst groups.

"A story was told to me about an article written which detailed serious side effects to the whole-cell whooping cough vaccine in a large group of children. The medical journal refused to publish it, saying that before it would publish the article, the author must state categorically in the conclusion, that "the vaccine was safe and effective". Thinking this was a joke, the author added the required sentence, and the article was published. When told this story, I didn't believe it. I was handed a copy, and was flabbergasted.
      I was told that in order to have ANYTHING published, the only way that authors could voice reservations was to couch them in as bland a language as possible, and hide these reservations in the body of the article unless the "problem" was blatantly obvious to a blind man."--Hilary Butler p. 203

Drugs such as antibiotics, hypertension drugs and the first treatments for cancer proved their worth in trials.  Until the 1980s, these were run in universities. Independent academics did the research and published the results. But for the past 20 years the drug firms themselves have increasingly run trials. The result has been to undermine the value of the whole system. Now company employees analyse the data and medical journalists are hired to write them up for publication. Then Oxbridge and Ivy League professors are paid several thousand pounds to be credited as the authors of these articles.......I have also seen company memos asking who would be the most 'useful' academics to have as the authors of articles already written.  Once published in top medical journals, these confections will deliver more sales than any number of drug representatives, but all too often they are not accu­rate reports of the trial results.  In other organisations when evidence of disregard for public safety emerges, heads roll. But there have been no resignations following these drug disasters — barely a flicker of embarrassment. Why you should never trust new wonder drugs by Prof David Healy

Professional medicine reporting has no doubt tainted the once respected scientific method. Today, drug companies utilize a large majority of their profits to pay for and design their own studies. Additionally, "ghost writers" are hired to write favorable reviews of drugs despite their known dangers. These reviews are published in peer reviewed medical journals, which are used by medical doctors to get information on FDA approved drugs. Ultimately, doctors are hoodwinked into thinking that a given drug is safe and effective when, in reality, it poses great risk without benefit. [2006] Interview of Shane Ellison author of Health Myths Exposed

Despite the tendency of doctors to call modern medicine an 'inexact science', it is more accurate to say there is practically no science in modern medicine at all. Almost everything doctors do is based on a conjecture, a guess, a clinical impression, a whim, a hope, a wish, an opinion or a belief. In short, everything they do is based on anything but solid scientific evidence. Thus, medicine is not a science at all, but a belief system. Beliefs are held by every religion, including the Religion of Modern Medicine." Robert Mendelsohn MD Preface by Hans Ruesch to 1000 Doctors (and many more) Against Vivisection

Whether a drug makes it to market simply only means that someone has had enough money to put it through, and pay the right politicians. That's all. It doesn't mean it works or it doesn't work....... we're very familiar with the people who developed the double-blind, placebo-controlled study. And we know what they know about medicine and science, and they all admit that they don't know anything about it. ......The problem with the placebo controlled, doubled-blind study is that you are using two human beings as controls against one another. There is no more out-bred species on Earth than two human beings. A person from the North Pole can procreate with a person from the South Pole, and can have an infant. There is no animal on Earth that is as out-bred as human beings, including two identical twins, they are not the same. Because, as soon as the zygote divides there are different positions, there's different antigens to which they are exposed. The bottom line is that these double-blind, placebo-controlled studies are run by people who don't know much about science. [1993 Interview with Dr. Alan Levin.] Modern Medicine and its Military Links

"I'll give you an example. This is the New England Journal of Medicine......Eighty-three percent of its revenues comes from drug advertising. What do you think this costs? Eighty-three percent of its revenues comes from drug advertising."--Dr Levin MD http://www.consultclarity.com/blazing/levin.html [1993 Interview with Dr. Alan Levin.] Modern Medicine and its Military Links

"For the public ever to break command science it must first understand the basis of its enormous powers. The medical establishment derives these powers from three sources: (1) enforced consensus through peer review, (2) through commercialization, and (3) the fear of disease, particularly infectious disease. Traditionally, the power of medical sciences has been based on the fear of disease, particularly infectious disease."--Peter Deusberg (Inventing The AIDS Virus) www.duesberg.com

"The British media has been enjoying a feeding frenzy over a report that suggests "minerals and vitamins can cause cancer and liver damage" (The Times), that people are "poisoning themselves" (Sunday Times), and that their health could be "irreversibly damaged" (Daily Telegraph).
    The report and the ensuing press articles come at an ideal time for the pharmaceutical industry - just when the EU is determining safe levels of vitamins to be sold over-the-counter to consumers.  Safe upper levels will be incorporated into a directive that will restrict the sale of vitamins and other nutrients throughout the EU in two years' time.
    The report, from the UK Food Standards Agency, and the press coverage that followed will between them probably sound the death knell for the nutritional industry in Britain and beyond.  Success in restricting vitamin sales in Europe will be followed by a fresh attempt from the pharmaceutical lobby to reintroduce tighter controls in the USA."--WDDTY May 2003

"Amazingly, 85 percent of prescribed standard medical treatments across the board lack scientific validation, according to the New York Times. Richard Smith, editor of the British Medical Journal, suggests that "this is partly because only one percent of the articles in medical journals are scientifically sound, and partly because many treatments have never been assessed at all." ---Kenny Ausubel

“JOURNALS have devolved into information-laundering operations for the pharmaceutical industry,” ~Dr. Richard Horton, Editor in Chief of The Lancet

“The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness."...."Scientists too often sculpt data to fit their preferred theory of the world. Or they retrofit hypotheses to fit their data. Journal editors deserve their fair share of criticism too. We aid and abet the worst behaviours. Our acquiescence to the impact factor fuels an unhealthy competition to win a place in a select few journals. Our love of “significance” pollutes the literature with many a statistical fairy-tale. We reject important confirmations. Journals are not the only miscreants. Universities are in a perpetual struggle for money and talent, endpoints that foster reductive metrics, such as high-impact publication."  ~Dr. Richard Horton, Editor in Chief of The Lancet

"In view of this control and the conflicts of interest that permeate the enterprise, it is not surprising that [drug] industry-sponsored trials published in medical journals consistently favor sponsors' drugs-largely because negative results are not published, positive results are repeated in slightly different forms, and a positive spin is put on even negative results. A review of seventy-four clinical trials of antidepressants, for example, found that thirty-seven of thirty-eight positive studies were published. But of the thirty-six negative studies, thirty-three were either not published or published in a form that conveyed a positive outcome."---Marcia Angell, former editor-in-chief of The New England Journal of Medicine

"Consider the clinical trials by which drugs are tested in human subjects. Before a new drug can enter the market, its manufacturer must sponsor clinical trials to show the Food and Drug Administration that the drug is safe and effective, usually as compared with a placebo or dummy pill. The results of all the trials (there may be many) are submitted to the FDA, and if one or two trials are positive-that is, they show effectiveness without serious risk-the drug is usually approved, even if all the other trials are negative." ---Marcia Angell, former editor-in-chief of The New England Journal of Medicine

'The august editors of medical journals have a game they can play. Suppose a drug company has just finished writing up the results of a clinical drug trial and has submitted the piece to a journal for publication. The editor knows the company carried out a half-dozen other such trials on the same drug...and they didn't look good. The drug caused wild fluctuations in blood pressure and blood sugar. There were heart attacks. Strokes. But this ONE study, the one submitted for publication, looks very positive. The editor knows if he prints it and forgets about "ethics," the drug company will order re-prints of the piece from him and distribute them to doctors all over the world, and to reporters, professors, government officials. The drug company will order and pay for so many re-prints, the medical journal can make $700,000 from publishing THAT ONE STUDY. Let's see. In one hand, the editor sees: I won't publish it=no money. In the other hand, he sees: I'll publish it=$700,000. What to do?'------Jon Rappoport

 He charges that as much as 90 percent of the published medical information that doctors rely on is flawed......he worries that the field of medical research is so pervasively flawed, and so riddled with conflicts of interest, that it might be chronically resistant to change—or even to publicly admitting that there’s a problem...80 percent of non-randomized studies (by far the most common type) turn out to be wrong, as do 25 percent of supposedly gold-standard randomized trials, and as much as 10 percent of the platinum-standard large randomized trials. The article spelled out his belief that researchers were frequently manipulating data analyses, chasing career-advancing findings rather than good science, and even using the peer-review process—in which journals ask researchers to help decide which studies to publish—to suppress opposing views.
......Of the 49 articles, 45 claimed to have uncovered effective interventions. Thirty-four of these claims had been retested, and 14 of these, or 41 percent, had been convincingly shown to be wrong or significantly exaggerated. If between a third and a half of the most acclaimed research in medicine was proving untrustworthy, the scope and impact of the problem were undeniable.[2010 Nov] Lies, Damned Lies, and Medical Science

"According to Clinical Evidence, only 15 % of the thousands of treatments they have reviewed have been beneficial.  A further 23% are likely to be beneficial, 7% are a trade-off between benefit and harm, 5% are unlikely to be beneficial, 4% are likely to be ineffective or harmful and a whopping 46% are of "unknown effectiveness."--Private Eye 9 June.

"Most patients probably assume that when a doctor proposes to use an established treatment to conquer a disease he will be using a treatment which has been tested, examined and proven. But this is not the case. The savage truth is that most medical research is organised, paid for, commissioned or subsidised by the drug industry (and the food, tobacco and alcohol industries). This type of research is designed, quite simply, to find evidence showing a new product is of commercial value. The companies which commission such research are not terribly bothered about evidence; what they are looking for are conclusions which will enable them to sell their product. Drug company sponsored research is done more to get good reviews than to find out the truth."----Dr Vernon Coleman

"Most of the cheats in science are MDs."---Linus Pauling, twice winner of the Nobel Prize

"The core system by which the scientific community allots prestige (in terms of oral presentations at major meetings and publication in major journals) and funding is a non-validated charade whose processes generate results little better than does chance."---David F. Horrobin

Cawadias (1953) has said that "the history of medicine has shown that, whenever medicine has strayed from clinical observation, the result has been chaos, stagnation, and disaster."--British Medical Journal, Oct 8th, 1955, p.867 (Quoted in Clinical Medical Discoveries by Beddow Bayly)

"The enduring feature of the TOS saga is that it provided a blueprint for the international scientific community. If even a theory as palpably bogus as the "toxic oil" syndrome can be sustained internationally, then suppressing the truth must be remarkably straightforward. All it takes is a series of epidemiological reports, accredited by scientists of a similar persuasion, and then published in reputable scientific journals. There are, as Disraeli might have said, lies, damned lies and peer-reviewed scientific papers."--Bob Woffinden

"A medical myth is an aggressive defensive device used by orthodox medicine to retain the status quo and impede progress in the introduction of new and valuable therapies. ....The myth originates in some inadequate sloppy in vitro or animal experimental work from which unwarranted broad conclusions are drawn as to possible effects on man. There is never any hard human evidence involved, just pure speculation. The second step is that the news media pick it up and being more interested in sensationalism than in facts, magnify these speculations and terrify a gullible public. Further repetition of these unwarranted conclusions by the medical press gives them the status of medical dogma to be quoted and requoted."----Irwin Stone and A. Hoffer, M.D.

"University scientists studying Remune last year accused Immune Response of trying to stop publication of a failed Remune clinical trial, and the Food and Drug Administration warned the company in 1995 not to manipulate data to show positive findings."---Immunization Newsbriefs

"Immune Response filed for binding arbitration on Sept. 1 to stop the University of California and lead researcher Dr. James Kahn from publishing the study of Remune."--Immune Response Falls on Critical Study of HIV Drug

"One feels rage as well at the complicity of the "peer reviewed" journals which print these awful productions. It is abundantly clear, if further proof were needed, that "peer review" means simply preventing criticism of certain commercial interests and blocking the emergence of competing viewpoints. Finally, one feels rage and exasperation at the total inability of journalists -- who are reputed to be professional sceptics -- to see through, and expose, this duplicity."--Harris Coulter http://www.healthy.net/library/articles/coulter/critique.htm

"What really happened, we all know, is that tobacco companies spent hundreds of millions of dollars funding and publicizing "research" purporting to prove tobacco doesn't cause cancer, and at the same time created one of the most powerful political lobbies in history to prevent tobacco regulation."--John Stauber

The Government's scientists will often ask for conclusive proof when they are challenged. It is a word often used when you wish to win your side of the argument. Scientifically conclusive proof is impossible to obtain – let me explain.
    I was at a legal hearing in Torquay representing a community and the barrister representing the communications industry said "there is no conclusive proof that these microwaves will cause damage". I argued: if somebody stood up and shot me in this courtroom there would be three levels of proof. You would have everybody as a witness and that would be accepted in a Court of Law. A pathologist could perform a post mortem, decide that the bullet killed me and that would be a second level of proof. If, however you wanted conclusive proof that the bullet killed me, you would have to argue that at the split second the bullet went into my body every system in my body was working perfectly because there are thousands of reasons why I could drop dead on the spot before the bullet went in and you would have to prove conclusively that all of these systems were working perfectly before the bullet went in. Clearly, this is scientifically impossible; there is no such thing as conclusive proof, yet it is what is demanded by government scientists when challenging their decisions.
Confidential Report on TETRA for the Police of England and Wales by B Trower

"The fact is that all of the studies that have been supervised by the National Cancer Institute should now be re-examined by congressional committees to see wether or not there is real corruption in all of them."--Ralph Moss http://www.whale.to/c/moss.html

"If you want to change it you change the law that establishes the need for double blind clinical studies in drugs. You eliminate the efficacy clause from the Harris amendment to the food and drug act, which Harris himself didn't even want. This was imposed by the FDA and the drug industry. This upped the ante and made a regulatory barrier. Now instead of it taking 1 million dollars to establish the safety of a drug, you now need 300 million dollars. So none of the small inventors, or the people with good ideas can ever hope to possibly hope to get their drugs approved. They put you in administrative limbo where the best you ever hope to get is this backburner simmering kind of thing, and I know of a number of good scientists who have got IND's (Investigative New Drug Applications) to test drugs, but when you try to market the drug they will put you out of business, and Dr Burzynski is the prime example. Brilliant scientist, wonderful results in cancer, validated by the NCI, and yet he is on the verge of federal indictment."--Ralph Moss http://www.whale.to/c/moss.html

Moertel CG, Fleming TR, Rubin J, Kvols LK, Sarna G, Koch R, Currie VE, Young CW, Jones SE, Davignon JP.  A clinical trial of amygdalin (Laetrile) in the treatment of human cancer. N Engl J Med 1982 Jan 28;306(4):201-

"Two alleged trials took place under the direction of Dr. Charles Moertel at the Mayo Clinic. However as one might expect from a proven swindler operating at such a dishonoured location, these bore little resemblence to scientific methodology.    Moertel cooked the first trial…by packing the trial with patients whose immune systems had already been destroyed by toxic chemotherapy. He then rigged the second trial by treating the patients with ascorbate for only two and a half months and then continuing with the "trial" for another 2 years. He then issued a perjured press statement in which he announced that vitamin C therapy had been proven ineffective, carefully concealing the fact that he had almost certainly caused the death of several patients by reason of this iniquitous fraud. The resulting carefully devised publicity on the subject also caused the deaths of several other patients who had been happily surviving on ascorbate."---Dr Richards & Frank Hourigan.

"Just how many errors was not clear until recently when Harri Hemilä of the University of Helsinki and Zelek Herman of the Linus Pauling Institute published a retrospective analysis of Chalmers’ review citing an appalling number of mistakes, almost all of which were prejudicial against vitamin C."--S Fowkes http://www.ceri.com/ed-vitc.htm

"This man (Moertel) of the Mayo Clinic, no less….had the effrontery to defend the employment of two toxic preparations, with no curative value, in cases of metastasised intestinal cancer lest they (the patients) otherwise seek it (hope) from the hands of quacks and charlatans. In other words Moertel urged the use of a hramful substance of no value…on patients who are, presumably, paying a fee for their therapy,…and are hoping for a cure,…just to keep some other therapist from trying to save them!…….(you) can find a permanent record of the distinguished Dr. Moertel’s recommendations in the New England Journal of Medicine, 1978."—Dr Richards & Frank Hourigan

 Organized medicine quickly adopted the stance that his alleged "cures" fell into three categories: those who never had cancer in the first place; those who were cured by prior radiation and surgery; and those who died. When Healing Becomes a Crime --Kenny Ausubel

Mercury amalgam
You know, I’m not suggesting that. I am absolutely accusing them of that, because I’ve seen it happen. For example, this was done at the University of Kentucky where I’m located, and they did a study and they published it in the Journal of the American Dental Association: a study that was earlier rejected by the Journal of the American Medical Association and the New Eng-land Journal of Medicine. So they published it in the Journal of the American Dental Association, which isn’t a refereed journal… which isn’t a journal that would normally address neurology or Alzheimer’s disease at all. I mean they’re not competent to review research in this area. Dentists don’t know neuro-chemistry. Then they called a press conference and announced the release. What they actually did report in this JADA study was that they couldn’t find increased mercury level in people who had huge numbers of amalgam fillings. It is the only study that’s ever said that, that you can have a large number of amalgam fillings and they couldn’t find elevated mercury in these subjects, any elevation of mercury even though they were massively exposed to mercury versus those that weren’t being ex-posed at all. So, they found no differences. They didn’t find that amalgams weren’t correlated. They didn’t find amalgams were correlated or not correlated to anything. In my opinion, it was the assumptions made in the dental amalgam indexing that ob-fuscated the final analysis.
         So again, it’s the construction of confusion by these people by publishing papers that are poorly done, poorly designed, and give them the answer they want which is, “We didn’t find any-thing wrong, therefore everything is okay.” It’s that old saying you know, “Absence of proof, isn’t proof of absence,” and they try to modify that and say, “Well, if we don’t find anything, we can still say it’s safe.” That’s exactly what they do. The study that was negative, they couldn’t find anything. The only people in the world who ever did a study to show that there was no correlation between mercury, blood or body burden and amal-gams, and then announced it saying, “Therefore amalgams have nothing to do with Alzheimer’s disease.” Interview of Dr. Boyd E. Haley by Teri Small:

Look, over the 90% of the mercury – and this is on an average person with four or five amalgam fillings – over 90% of the mercury in the bodies of mothers who give birth to autistic children, and in the blood of not only the mother but anybody else that has amalgam fillings, it comes from their dental amalgams. And yet our government will absolutely – and when I say ‘our government’ I mean the dental branch of the Food and Drug Administration and the National Institutes of Dental Research – will do everything they can to protect and defend the use of amalgam fillings and to keep this data from being known to the American public.
          For example, there is a children’s amalgam study that was done on four children on the East coast and children in Lisbon, Portugal. It was funded by the National Institutes of Dental and Cranial Facial Research, put in the hands and under the control of dentists who said the objective of the thing is to show that amalgams are safe for children. Not to test whether or not they’re safe or not, but to show it. So they’ve done this study, and they’re going to report on it in the next few months. And they’re going to find out they couldn’t find anything wrong. But the one thing is, all they did was measure urine and hair and blood mercury levels at the most. They didn’t look at fecal levels where 90% or plus of the mercury is excreted, so they’re going to say they didn’t see much mercury in these children, probably. They didn’t do the porphyrin profiles. That’s what was needed to be done to show if a physiological system in the child was being damaged. They’re looking at things where you don’t find anything different.
     Again, it’s symptomatic of that Danish study where you did a Thimerosal causal on a population that doesn’t have an autism epidemic, and you find nothing. So this is, again, it’s part of the government; look where you won’t find anything and when you don’t find anything, then sell it to the American public because if, “Well, if we didn’t find anything therefore it’s safe.” And you’re going to see that come out and that is done by taxpayer dollars and people ought to be extremely mad about it.
Interview of Dr. Boyd E. Haley by Teri Small:


"A story was told to me about an article written which detailed serious side effects to the whole-cell whooping cough vaccine in a large group of children. The medical journal refused to publish it, saying that before it would publish the article, the author must state categorically in the conclusion, that "the vaccine was safe and effective". Thinking this was a joke, the author added the required sentence, and the article was published. When told this story, I didn't believe it. I was handed a copy, and was flabbergasted.
      I was told that in order to have ANYTHING published, the only way that authors could voice reservations was to couch them in as bland a language as possible, and hide these reservations in the body of the article unless the "problem" was blatantly obvious to a blind man."--Hilary Butler p. 203

Allowing other than sterile saline to be used as the placebo in short-term vaccine adverse-reaction studies to suppress the relative incidence rates to the point that these relative adverse-event rates show “no statistically significant” increase over the “placebo” (that, in some cases, has been allowed to be an experimental vaccine or the vaccine formulation without the biological antigens).
    Permitting vaccine safety studies to be restricted to a few days or, at most, a few of months even though some severe adverse outcomes do not begin to emerge until several years after vaccination (e.g., childhood MS 4 years after vaccination).
    Consenting to reductions in the size and number of persons in the phase-III clinical trials that not only reduce the vaccine makers costs but also reduce the risk that the study will find the rare but deadly adverse effects that a vaccine may have.
    Allowing surrogate endpoints (e.g., the reactivity of the patient’s blood to animal anti-sera) for specific antibodies to be used to assess vaccine efficacy instead of requiring comprehensive testing to establish both general and specific immunity in those vaccinated that is comparable to the immunity found in those who have had the disease.
    Recommending widespread use of new vaccines long before the long-term (at least 10-year) outcomes can be assessed in the trial population, and
    Licensing vaccines and recommending their “universal” use in populations that have near-zero risk of contracting a disease (e.g., the hepatitis B vaccine in young children or the HPV vaccine in non-sexually-active children) or where the clinical cases of the disease occur at low rate and are virtually absent in most demographic segments of U.S. population (e.g., the rotavirus vaccine). Key realities about autism, vaccines, vaccine-injury compensation, Thimerosal, and autism-related research----Gary S. Goldman, Ph.D & P.G. King PhD

Our health officials continue to pump out junk science, for example the recent, seriously flawed NIAID study on H1N1 vaccine safety in pregnant women reported over the major media, to deceive Americans and enroll them in their national vaccination campaigns. The protocol in that study listed any pregnant woman who had a history of alcohol or drug abuse during a 6 year period, diabetes, compromised immune systems, asthmatic and allergic conditions, history of cancer-treatment drugs for 3 years, prescription to psychiatric drugs, and many other conditions as unqualified for the study. These conditions alone would disqualify the large majority of the nation’s pregnant women. Furthermore, any pregnant woman who enrolled in the trial, who spiked a temperature of 100 degrees or greater during the first 72 hours following vaccination, were excluded from the trial. Nevertheless, the CDC and its cronies in the media, particularly the pharmaceutical shills at The New York Times, touted this deranged trial as conclusive evidence that the swine flu vaccine was safe for all pregnant women. These are the kinds of medical distortions we have come to expect from the Federal health agencies. [2009 Nov] Federal Health Agencies Continue to Deceive Americans: Congressional Report on a Vaccine

'The results were also so unexpected that many experts simply refused to believe them. Jackson’s papers were turned down for publication in the top-ranked medical journals. One flu expert who reviewed her studies for the Journal of the American Medical Association wrote, “To accept these results would be to say that the earth is flat!” When the papers were finally published in 2006, in the less prominent International Journal of Epidemiology, they were largely ignored by doctors and public-health officials. “The answer I got,” says Jackson, “was not the right answer.”[2009 Oct] Does the Vaccine Matter? by Shannon Brownlee and Jeanne Lenzer  '

Our health officials continue to pump out junk science, for example the recent, seriously flawed NIAID study on H1N1 vaccine safety in pregnant women reported over the major media, to deceive Americans and enroll them in their national vaccination campaigns. The protocol in that study listed any pregnant woman who had a history of alcohol or drug abuse during a 6 year period, diabetes, compromised immune systems, asthmatic and allergic conditions, history of cancer-treatment drugs for 3 years, prescription to psychiatric drugs, and many other conditions as unqualified for the study. These conditions alone would disqualify the large majority of the nation’s pregnant women. Furthermore, any pregnant woman who enrolled in the trial, who spiked a temperature of 100 degrees or greater during the first 72 hours following vaccination, were excluded from the trial. Nevertheless, the CDC and its cronies in the media, particularly the pharmaceutical shills at The New York Times, touted this deranged trial as conclusive evidence that the swine flu vaccine was safe for all pregnant women. These are the kinds of medical distortions we have come to expect from the Federal health agencies. [2009 Nov] Federal Health Agencies Continue to Deceive Americans: Congressional Report on a Vaccine Mercury-Autism Link Ignored for Six Years by Richard Gale and Gary Null, Ph.D

I soon began to realise that what is held up as ‘science’ is not a truthful quest for knowledge on an even playing field, quite the contrary, you get the science you pay for. This is how it works: first of all you have to get someone to pay for your study – so it has to be on a subject they like. Then you have to produce results that they like – or the results may be canned and never see the light of day.  Then you have to get a journal to publish it – which they won’t if it seems contrary to what they regard as appropriate, and then it has to get through the review by the referees – people who work in the field in which your study/ paper deals and who do not like what does not support the status quo, depending on the strength of the status quo, and vaccination is a very strong one....So the ‘science’ that we all look up to and the ‘scientists’ that we all trust are made up of nothing more than people who are trying to make a living and pay their mortgages – you get the science you pay for and he who pays the piper calls the tune. http://www.jayne-donegan.co.uk/gmc  Dr Jayne Donegan, MB

Unhealthy babies excluded from trials, making vaccines look better
All trial participants have to be healthy. You won't find babies in these trials who have ongoing health issues, family history, immunodeficiency, failure to thrive, or any ill health..........If it's not acceptable to vaccinate babies with any possible health problem in any vaccine study, why does it become acceptable after the vaccine has been licensed to vaccinate premature babies? Or to vaccinate at birth, babies from at risk mothers who have exactly these problems that excluded them from the study in the first place, or babies who have just come out of intensive care?......That's why the data which say vaccines are safe, looks so good.......Think about this for a minute.  Think about those animal safety tests as well.---- [Book June 2006] Just A Little Prick by Peter and Hilary Butler p118, 120, 121

Trial information kept secret
Most people don't realise that the findings from these trials always include a no public disclosure clause, and you are not allowed to see the data gleaned from these clinical trials.  Even the FDA or CDC in the USA gets to see only the filtered final statistics....The IAS requested all information.....relating to the Meningococcal Meningitis B vaccine.....Almost everything we asked for, even the protocols, were witheld under confidentiality provisions...of the Act. ---- [Book June 2006] Just A Little Prick by Peter and Hilary Butler p 121

Antibody theory  [See: Antibody Theory quotes]
"Human trials generally correlate "antibody" responses with protection - that is if the body produces antibodies (proteins) which bind to vaccine components, then it must be working and safe. Yet Dr March says antibody response is generally a poor measure of protection and no indicator at all of safety. "Particularly for viral diseases, the 'cellular' immune response is all important, and antibody levels and protection are totally unconnected."--Private Eye 24/1/2002

"Just because you give somebody a vaccine, and perhaps get an antibody reaction, doesn’t mean a thing. The only true antibodies, of course, are those you get naturally. What we’re doing [when we inject vaccines] is interfering with a very delicate mechanism that does its own thing. If nutrition is correct, it does it in the right way. Now if you insult a person in this way and try to trigger off something that nature looks after, you’re asking for all sorts of trouble, and we don’t believe it works."—Glen Dettman Ph.D, interviewed by Jay Patrick, and quoted in "The Great American Deception," Let’s Live, December 1976, p. 57.

No trial ever done using 100% unvaccinated controls
" One of the flaws in studies of vaccines is that there are no true placebo groups. The vaccine is tested in one group of immunized children and is compared to another group of immunized children."--Peter Baratosy

Anyone analyzing the “vaccine safety studies” done by vaccine makers and vaccine proponents can see that they were purposely designed to show safety by omitting people in the study who truly reflected the population being vaccinated and who were, by all standards of science, at risk of harm by the vaccines.
    They do studies that use as placebo controls people injected with a vaccine adjuvant. Placebos are supposed to be completely inert. The evidence shows that the greatest danger from vaccines is from the vaccine adjuvant — so, how can they use adjuvant-injected people as controls? Yet, all of their studies used such vaccinated controls — this is blatantly manipulated, and they know it.
    The studies that are quoted endlessly by these elite members of academia and government agencies and used to close the door on the vaccine connection to neurodevelopmental problems are purposefully designed so as to suggest no link between vaccines and any complication.
    This falsified research is protected by academia, the media, and government agencies. Yet, they have the audacity to stand in judgment of Wakefield. This is not to say that Wakefield should be free of scrutiny — all researchers should be carefully scrutinized for bias. [2011 Jan] Big Pharma Vilified Researcher for Threatening Vaccine Program By Russell L. Blaylock, M.D.


"the US National Academy of Sciences published a report in Sept 1993 in which the American Academy of paediatrics reaffirmed "its long standing position that the benefits of immunisation far outweigh the risks". However, Russell Alexander, a panel member and professor of epidemiology at the University of Washington, says he is disappointed that the panel did not compare the risk of vaccination with the risks of going unvaccinated!.....Since there was no comparison of immunisation with another procedure, or with being unimmunised, the conclusions of the American Academy of Paediatrics are not based on scientific reasoning and are almost meaningless. Their position only serves to illustrate the prejudice that exists within many of those interested in promoting vaccines."---Trevor Gunn BSc

"The Prevnar pre-licensure clinical trials, which Wyeth Lederle paid Kaiser Permanente to conduct, compared two experimental vaccines against each other. To compound this basic methodological flaw, Kaiser and Wyeth Lederle, allowed most of the children in the trial to be given the more reactive DPT vaccine rather than use the safer, less reactive DTaP vaccine. This placed the children in that five-year experiment in greater danger and allowed the drug company to write off the seizures that occurred as being caused by DPT and not Prevnar, when in fact, they didn't know. Even so, the groups of children who got Prevnar suffered more seizures, higher fevers, more irritability and other reactions than did the children who got the other experimental vaccine. It was a no-brainer as far as I was concerned: Kaiser and Wyeth Lederle had proved nothing about Prevnar vaccine safety."--Barbara Loe Fisher

"P.Aaby et al, Pediat Infec DisJ 8:197-200,1989---By comparing groups of children with apparently different vaccination status, this study suggests that measles vaccination reduces mortality by 30%.  However, their comparisons in this study would lead one to have serious misgivings about their conclusions. The group used as a "non-vaccinated" group were in fact vaccinated between certain dates. They were found to have undetectable levels of antibody and therefore it was assumed that the vaccine did not work, hence this was used as a ‘control’ non-vaccinated group.  Most of a second group of 123 individuals, vaccinated at another time were found to have responded and were therefore used as the vaccinated group. However 15 of this vaccinated group did not seroconvert and they were excluded from the results! Three of these children died!"---Trevor Gunn BSc

"It is a pretty bad habit of vaccine researchers to give several vaccines simultaneously where the effect of only one of them has to be studied and evaluated. Obviously this leads to confounding results..........for evaluation of side-effects in most studies was restricted to 48 to 72 hours. Needless to say that many serious adverse effects show up long after that time span; by definition they could never be mentioned in those studies. Nevertheless most of these studies pretend to prove the safety of the vaccine."--Kris Gaublomme MD

And the reason for that is here:
"I have not seen autism with the Amish," said Dr. Frank Noonan, a family practitioner in Lancaster County, Pa., who has treated thousands of Amish for a quarter-century.  "You'll find all the other stuff, but we don't find the autism. We're right in the heart of Amish country and seeing none, and that's just the way it is."
       In Chicago, Homefirst Medical Services treats thousands of never-vaccinated children whose parents received exemptions through Illinois' relatively permissive immunization policy. Homefirst's medical director, Dr. Mayer Eisenstein, told us he is not aware of any cases of autism in never-vaccinated children; the national rate is 1 in 175, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. "We have a fairly large practice," Eisenstein told us. "We have about 30,000 or 35,000 children that we've taken care of over the years, and I don't think we have a single case of autism in children delivered by us who never received vaccines. "We do have enough of a sample," Eisenstein said. "The numbers are too large to not see it. We would absolutely know. We're all family doctors. If I have a child with autism come in, there's no communication. It's frightening. You can't touch them. It's not something that anyone would miss."
       Dr. Jeff Bradstreet, a Florida family practitioner with ties to families who homeschool their children for religious reasons, told Age of Autism he has proposed such a study in that group. "I said I know I can tap into this community and find you large numbers of unvaccinated homeschooled," said Bradstreet, "and we can do simple prevalence and incidence studies in them, and my gut reaction is that you're going to see no autism in this group." http://www.upi.com/ConsumerHealthDaily/view.php?StoryID=20060728-111605-3532r

Animal safety tests--you couldn't make it up
The only safety testing that has ever been done on the pertussis vaccine in the past 50 years is an unproven method called the Mouse Weight Gain Test. The "scientists" inject the vaccine to be tested into the stomachs of baby mice. If the mice continue to gain weight and don't die right away, it is assumed the vaccine is safe and effective for humans. That's it! I'm not making this up!.......The only toxicity test required for the initial licensing of the DPT vaccine in the United States was this mouse weight-gain test 60 years ago."-----The Sanctity of Human Blood By Tim O'Shea p. 69

Safety testing left to makers and easy to fix
"FDA virologist Peter Reeve........ acknowledged that the FDA suspended its own independent tests of vaccine purity 15 years ago, leaving it entirely up to the manufacturers to ensure the vaccine is contaminant free."--'The Virus and the Vaccine': Atlantic Monthly 

One finding was that when vaccines are tested for viral contamination, results of these tests differ according to the time frame in which they are performed.  Reading from the report, Sneed says, “The testing of cell cultures used in vaccines is commonly done 14 to 21 days after the cells are planted, the usual period for most virologic studies.  At that time, only 2-4 percent show viral infections, but if the same lots are examined 29 to 55 days after planting, a significantly higher percentage of cultures show viral infection.” Vaccines: A Second Opinion by Gary Null

[2009 Dec] The Council of Foreign Relations Enters the Vaccine Biz. Desperate Attempts to Salvage a Corrupt Science with Sound-bites by Richard Gale and Dr. Gary Null Federal health officials have been criminally negligent in looking at the thimerosal-autism connection, aside from relying on disputable and fallible cohort and epidemiological studies as a means to cover their backs. Data from these kinds of studies provide valuable fodder for pro-vaccine campaigns and have been shown to be an effective way to avoid paying vaccine injury compensation to parents with permanently damaged children..   The pro-vaccine agencies are very satisfied to sponsor, fund and propagandize cohort studies to discredit any one of hundreds of various adverse effects that have been associated with one or more vaccines.  Cohort studies are relatively cheap to perform, provide instant results, and do not involve real clinical science to observe and measure actual biomolecular activity in the subjects.  A good analogy would be vaccination cohort studies are to gold standard methodology as astrology is to astro-physical observation with the Hubble telescope. The medical literature is absolutely riddled with this kind of inaccurate science and Garrett and the rulers she represents at the CFR, the vaccine makers and our health officials, are all too happy that she rely on crap data of cohort and epidemiological calculations to sustain the vaccine miracle myth.  It basically boils down to if you fear the results of undertaking a gold standard clinical trial, then resort to a cohort study.



It is only during the last day of the conference that we learn that most of the objections concerning the positive relationship between thimerosal-containing vaccines and ADD and ADHA were bogus. For example, Dr. Rapin on page 200 notes that all children in the study were below age 6 and that ADD and ADHD are very difficult to diagnose in pre-schoolers. She also notes that some children were followed for only a short period. THE TRUTH BEHIND THE VACCINE COVER-UP By Russell Blaylock, M.D.

"In the UK the government Health Authority quotes figures of the measles vaccine as being 90% effective (which means that) 90% of the recipients of the vaccine, produce a certain level of antibodies to the viral agents in the vaccine, 10% have produced no or undetectable levels of antibody. This information has NOT been derived from population studies and as we have already acknowledged, this does NOT indicate what percentage of those people are actually immune, (or, for that matter, how long that apparent immunity lasts).  So, to state that the vaccine is 90% effective is somewhat misleading and at any rate inaccurate with regard to a statement of immunity in a real disease situation."--Trevor Gunn BSc

"A number of clinical laboratory studies demonstrate that vaccines may cause chronic damage to the G.I. tract, immune system, brain, and other organs. Several such studies have been reported in past issues of the ARRI. Wakefield, Sabra, Singh, O'Leary and Kawashima are among the authors whose work documents lingering vaccine effect on children on the autistic spectrum, compared to normal controls. The IOM report pays little heed to this evidence, instead focusing attention on several deeply flawed epidemiological studies."---Dr Rimland MD

"The CDC did two studies, one study on diabetes and one on asthma.............The studies represent pure junk science that is primarily propaganda."--Bart Classen

"In a follow up study they changed the study design by adding unorthodox mathematical coefficients "fudge factors" to substantially reduce the true risk of diabetes associated with  vaccination and  now their data would make it appear that the vaccine is safe."--Bart Classen testimony

"In July 2002, the Indianapolis Star newspaper quoted the lawyers Waters and Kraus as saying that "Lilly flim-flammed scientists for years with a 1931 study that concluded thiomersal wasn't harmful to humans". The Star went on: "The study, published in the American Journal of Hygiene, reported that merthiolate has a very low order of toxicity......for man".   Digging further, Waters found out that the study's toxicity data came from experimental use of thiomersal by doctors from Lilly and Indianapolis City Hospital on meningitis patients during a severe outbreak in 1929-30. 'The 1931 study on a cohort of severely ill people (who all died) ended up being quoted in Lilly brochures into the 1980s', Waters said. 'It very clearly demonstrates an effort to do an unethical study and then paint the results in a certain way that helps them sell this product'. Lilly ignored or covered up later evidence that thiomersal, which contains 50 per cent mercury by weight, can be dangerous to humans", Waters said."--David Thrower

Hoffman HJ, et al (1987).    Diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis immunization and sudden infant death: results of the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Cooperative Epidemiological Study of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome risk factors. Pediatrics. 1987 Apr;79(4):598-611. PMID: 3493477; UI: 87146149

"This sort of attempted (statistical) comparison can only be described as a shambles, a grotesque imitation of scientific method designed to fool the public (and the journalists who are supposed to be monitoring precisely this sort of intellectual dishonesty). It would have made as much sense to interview the first 1600 people they could pick up in the Greyhound Bus Station and ask them about their vaccination status. But this article had its effect. Dr. Torch was effectively silenced, and for years this pseudo-science has been cited as one of the medical establishment's principal weapons in its drive to extend childhood vaccination programs. How do you react when your own government lies to you systematically about life-and-death questions? As I have noted earlier, the answer is political action in the state legislatures, and one weapon in the hands of the public is an understanding of the pseudo-science and pseudo-epidemiology represented by articles like this one."--Harris Coulter http://www.pnc.com.au/~cafmr/coulter/sids.html

Griffin MR, et al.  Risk of sudden infant death syndrome after immunization with the diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis vaccine. N Engl J Med. 1988 Sep 8;319(10):618-23. PMID: 3261837; UI: 88318811.
Griffin MR, et al. Risk of seizures and encephalopathy after immunization with the diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis vaccine. JAMA. 1990 Mar 23-30;263(12):1641-5. PMID: 2308203; UI: 90172513.
"Two studies by teams of epidemiologists headed by Marie R. Griffin represent perhaps the absolute worst I have encountered in many years of reading this literature.......It is amazing that such a study (1988 NEJM) could be accepted by a reputable scientific journal. The reason was doubtless that the study was funded by the CDC and the FDA, and that two of the coauthors (Griffin and Ray) were at the time "Burroughs Wellcome Scholars in pharmacoepidemiology" (whatever that is). Burroughs-Wellcome is, of course, a major producer of the pertussis vaccine. Have these people never heard of conflict of interest?........These kinds of articles bring the Public Health Service, the CDC, the FDA, the "peer-reviewed" journals, and the rest of the medical-industrial-government complex into disrepute. Physicians can swallow this garbage if they want, since they make their living from it, but parents who expect at least elementary honesty from those who call themselves "scientists," and whose children are being maimed and crippled by the very vaccines which are proclaimed innocuous by authors such as Griffin et al. are already taking steps to put this invalid out of its misery. The relations between the public and the vaccine establishment are surely going to get a lot worse before they start getting any better."---Harris
Coulter http://www.pnc.com.au/~cafmr/coulter/vacc-deb.html

 "All the sources of error identified in the (Danish) study distort it in the same direction: obscuring the role of the MMR vaccine and exonerating it from any suspicion that it may cause autism. This strongly indicates deliberate fraud. The reason is not hard to guess. Most of the authors of the report are medical doctors and it is safe to assume that they are - or have been - ardent pro-vaccinators. By now they should be well aware of the many scientific studies of the injuries caused by vaccines. They will know that there is now an autism epidemic, that only the vaccinated are affected and that autism always occurs after vaccination and not before. In other words the authors of this report are people with blood on their hands, who fear the retribution of parents, whose children they have killed, mutilated and rendered autistic. People who are prepared to kill and injure helpless children for money will hardly hesitate to lie and cheat if it will keep them out of jail and enable them to avoid paying compensation to their victims. This report is a desperate and despicable attempt by child abusers to remove the noose that is tightening around their necks. Their report (and this one) belongs in the hands of the prosecutor."-----Ulf Brånell

Taylor B. Miller E. Farringdon PC. Petropolous M.C. Favot-Mayaud I. Lij & Waight A.  MMR Vaccine and Autism: No Epidemiological Evidence for A Causal Association.  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query?db=m_s

"It is clear that the study was commissioned to dismiss the hypothesis that there may exist a relationship between the MMR vaccine and autism. In reality the study is fatally flawed and statistically inadequate. Despite clear findings supporting the relationship hypothesis, the authors discard their own clearly unexpected, statistical findings and manipulating the results to ‘prove’ their own pre-existing hypothesis.
    This approach, coming from the Medicines Control Agency, is an outrageous attempt to pervert public perception of the potential relationship between the MMR vaccination and autism.
    In the continuing interests of the children and adults represented by our organisation, AiA calls for the resignation of all key members of the Study Group, on the grounds that they are prepared to place a skewed and feeble study into the public arena in an attempt to defend the MMR vaccination."---Allergy Induced Autism organisation press release

" The Taylor study is seriously flawed in many ways, as had been noted in a number of letters to the editor of The Lancet  and in a number of additional letters on the subject which have been posted on the internet.  It was subject to strong attack at a recent meeting of the British Statistical Society.  I have been a full-time researcher my entire professional life, for almost 50 years, and I respectfully asked Dr. Taylor for a copy of the data so that I could reanalyze them.  He refused this ordinary professional courtesy, and I have subsequently written to the editor of The Lancet  requesting that an impartial committee be asked to reexamine Dr. Taylor’s statistical methods.  If he refuses again, I urged The Lancet  to retract his paper."--Dr Rimland

[Home]  [Vaccination]   [Cancer]