Sunday, September 26, 2010

Autism, INC.: Mercury and Corporate Quotas in an Economic Recession!

Anyone who reads this blog knows that I frequently steer off the autism track in an effort to make sense of the whole debacle.  The autism web is quite sticky and a great deal of detective work is necessary to put all the pieces together.  Our children are unquestionably beautiful but the trail that precedes them... not so much.  It is one including but not limited to gross incompetence and/or negligence, greed and political corruption.  Those of us who treat our children bio-medically are often surprised to find the myriad of toxins present in these little bodies.  High levels of Cadmium, Lead, Aluminum, Arsenic and Mercury are not uncommon, in fact it's a near given that one or more will be present at higher than acceptable levels.  When Dr. Anju Usman a prominent Defeat Autism Now (DAN) doctor and frequent lecturer on the subject was asked if she had ever seen an autistic child that was not toxic she replied, "then they wouldn't be autistic".  But this is anecdotal information and not definitive proof, right?  Nevertheless, we are often preoccupied with unraveling the what and the how.  The what can often be revealed with testing, the how is a little trickier... perhaps.  It may or may not be surprising to anyone at this point that all of the above mentioned toxins can be present in your children's toys, food, water, medications and vaccines (to state just a few).  It may however surprise people outside of the autism circle to know that despite the fact that Thermerisol is one of the most toxic substances known to man it is still being used in most of the 2010-2011 seasonal flu shots.
(Wikipedia: Thiomersal is very toxic by inhalation, ingestion, and in contact with skin (EC hazard symbol T+), with a danger of cumulative effects. It is also very toxic to aquatic organisms and may cause long-term adverse effects in aquatic environments (EC hazard symbol N).[9] In the body, it is metabolized or degraded to ethylmercury (C2H5Hg+) and thiosalicylate.),

In addition this year's shot is a 3 in 1 also meant to protect against H1N1 (Swine Flu) which has never been tested for safety on pregnant women despite CDC recommendation that ALL people over the age of 6 months should receive this vaccine especially pregnant women.  Hmmm.... Confused yet?  Well here's more, the package insert clearly states "this product has not been tested for safety on pregnant, it should not be giving to pregnant women, the effects on a pregnant women or her unborn fetus are unknown...." and on it goes.  Last years 2009-2010 H1N1 shot was also approved for pregnant women despite the lack of safety testing (none) and it is estimated by the CDC that 1,588 pregnant women reported miscarriages as a side effect of their inoculations while the National Coalition of Organized Women (NCOW) said that the Center for Disease Control's numbers did match up with their estimated 3,587 miscarries as a side effect of the drug.  Furthermore, the efficacy of the flu shot has long been in question.  This excerpt was taken from The Cochrane Report, a website put together by a variety of health care providers.

"Without laboratory tests, doctors cannot tell the two illnesses apart. Both last for days and rarely lead to death or serious illness. At best, vaccines might be effective against only influenza A and B, which represent about 10% of all circulating viruses. Each year, the World Health Organization recommends which viral strains should be included in vaccinations for the forthcoming season."(http://www2.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab001269.html).

In previous years recommendations have been reserved for the elderly and a certain high risk population due to their increased chance of influenza related death; however, this year's recommendation being for a much broader spectrum begs to ask the question, how many people actually die from the flu?   For this information I went to the Dr. Sherry Tenpenny's website.  On it I found a table that actually breaks down the CDC's own numbers and it clearly illustrates that unlike the 35,000 people the CDC claim die from the flu each year the actual number has been an average of 1303 people per year since 1999.  They conveniently include deaths from pneumonia which is not protected by the flu shot.  (Remember the number of miscarriages from the H1N1 shot above.)  Other side effects include aches and pains, fever, fatigue (you mean like the flu?), Guillain Barre Syndrome, anaphaylaxis (a severe allergic reaction which is life threatening), etc., etc.


There are "preservative free" vaccines (a misleading term as there are always preservatives such as Monosodium Glutamate (MSG), Aluminum, Formaldehyde, etc. present) available which may only contain a "trace" amount of mercury and a nasal spray known as the FluMist which contains live viruses and was recalled several times last year.  While there hasn't been a lot of focus on it as the outcome is purely speculative, I have personal concerns about the safety of a 3 in 1 shot based on previous effects we've seen with other similar inoculations like the infamous DTP/DTap and MMR (MMR never contained mercury).

So let's recap.  If it doesn't work, it isn't necessary and it's potentially seriously harmful why do we still have an influenza vaccine? 

Needless to say, I'm not a fan and you can imagine my disgust when the first week of September (a very early flu season I presume) the Sunday paper was riddled with ads by Walgreen's, CVS and Target urging customers to come in for their inoculation.  I felt compelled to let them know the facts since this information was not awarded to me at anytime when I had my children vaccinated.  I was never offered a copy of a vaccine insert or given a waiver to sign listing all the possible known side effects (oh sure, the anecdotal stories were around but that's not proof, right?); however, I quickly discovered that the customers of these pharmacies WERE given such disclosures at the time of vaccination and that many people were reading and refusing.  This was good to hear but still not good enough as you never know how "informed" the "informed consent" really is, particularly when there is a monetary incentive involved.  I frequently checked the fan pages of these stores on Facebook and whenever I saw a flu shot advertisement I made sure to make a comment that provided pertain information without disclosing any personal experience or getting too heated.  This was merely informative and while that may sound a bit precious again, I and my fellow concerned citizens were looking to insure that the "informed" part of "informed consent" was intact.  What I found was that while most people were not planning to take the shot and were quite irritated by the campaigns especially the one toted by the famous Dr. Oz showing himself get vaccinated by a Walgreen's pharmacist on his show despite his own wife's refusal for herself and their children.  The people were smart and recognized the hippocracy and the conflicts not only of Dr. Oz but the relationship between policy makers, the CDC, the FDA and the pharmaceutical companies.  The Walgreen's fan page was a bit of a different story.  There were several comments from both sides of the issue but those in favor of the vaccine seemed to have a bizarre loyalty to the company even using their slogan "I got mine for..."  Others seemed to know way too much about how many vaccines they carried, the type, whether they were "preservative free", the CDC recommendations, etc.  It did not take me long to realize that many were Walgreen's employees.  I was not surprised that they would exhibit loyalty but I was surprised to discover (quite by accident) that they had more invested in getting people into the store and vaccinated.  A few days ago, I clicked the wrong link entitled "Mark your calendar! There are officially 100 days left in 2010! What are your big to-do's before the year is over?" and discovered that the employees weren't merely loyal but actually were given quotas for how many people they could get vaccinated.   Most of the comments were normal such as, "I'd like to lose weight" or "I'd like to go on vacation", etc., etc. but a couple remarks caught my eye.  One that read "My team still needs to give about 5500 flu shots to make our goal..." and another stating "meet my goal FOR FLU SHOTS!!!!!!!!!!"  I was once again disgusted with Walgreen's tactic and found it exploitative of the economic recession and while the corporation may lead us to believe that flu shots are "loss leaders" meaning that they do not make profit on them but rather on the products sold while customers are in the store, it is not greeting cards nor batteries that the staff are being rewarded for selling.  This conjured up the question as to whether or not it is ethical to offer an incentive for such an item.  Is it not very different then asking a person if they want fries with their burger?  I do not have any reason to believe that any Walgreen's employee has acted in a way that was misleading to anyone receiving the flu vaccine nor do I know what the actual quota incentive is or how many stores are adopting this strategy.  I would however like to know whether this corporation or any other that offer similar incentives are at all concerned about the potential "down playing" of side effects in order for a team to make quota.   It is tempting if not necessary for us to cut corners by shopping at discount stores like these but what price do we ultimately pay in the end?  As I write this I realize the "how" is becoming increasingly clear.