New Study: More Vaccines Increase Infant Mortality Rates

by Sarah, the Healthy Home Economist
May 5th, 2011

Excerpt:

A new study published today in the Journal of Human and Experimental Toxology found that countries that administer a higher number of vaccines during the first year of life experience higher infant mortality rates.

The infant mortality rate (IMR) of a country is one of the most accepted and critical indicators of the socioeconomic well being of its citizens. It also reflects public health conditions and whether those conditions are improving or worsening over time.

The United States ranks 34th in infant mortality rate which means that 33 countries outrank the USA in this critical measure of public health. In addition, the United States’ immunization schedule for infants under 1 year of age recommends 26 vaccinations – the highest in the entire world.

Read the rest...

I read the article and found it interesting. Of course, it's understood that almost anything that's done to large numbers of people will result in some illnesses or deaths; there will be the occasional fatal allergic reaction or whatever, and that may even result in an increase in the infant mortality rate.

But the important issue that's not addressed in the article, or in any anti-vac material I've seen, is whether the net effect of such vaccinations is more deaths or less. In other words, could it be that 1000 more infants die annually as a result of vaccinations, but 2000 or 3000 or 4000 lives of slightly older children (who wouldn't be included in the infant mortality rate) are saved? If so, isn't that a good trade-off?

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Dixon:

I read the article and found it interesting. Of course, it's understood that almost anything that's done to large numbers of people will result in some illnesses or deaths; there will be the occasional fatal allergic reaction or whatever, and that may even result in an increase in the infant mortality rate.

But the important issue that's not addressed in the article, or in any anti-vac material I've seen, is whether the net effect of such vaccinations is more deaths or less. In other words, could it be that 1000 more infants die annually as a result of vaccinations, but 2000 or 3000 or 4000 lives of slightly older children (who wouldn't be included in the infant mortality rate) are saved? If so, isn't that a good trade-off?

---

It's certainly possible that the net effect is less deaths. Are you aware of any evidence to support that idea? It's something that is difficult to determine, especially since vaccines were introduced around the same time that people started recognizing the importance of hygiene. Death rates from most infectious diseases had already fallen tremendously before the vaccines were introduced, and diseases for which vaccines were never widespread followed the same pattern, suggesting that improved hygiene was more responsible for the improvement than the vaccines.

One of my biggest concerns with vaccines is the additives they contain. Here's a quote from the study in the article: "Common vaccine substances include antigens (attenuated viruses, bacteria, toxoids), preservatives (thimerosal, benzethonium chloride, 2-phenoxyethanol, phenol), adjuvants (aluminum salts), additives (ammonium sulfate, glycerin, sodium borate, polysorbate 80, hydrochloric acid, sodium hydroxide, potassium chloride), stabilizers (fetal bovine serum, monosodium glutamate, human serum albumin, porcine gelatin), antibiotics (neomycin, streptomycin, polymyxin B), and inactivating chemicals (formalin, glutaraldehyde, polyoxyethylene)."

My personal position is that I would not eat foods that contain many of these substances, so I certainly would not inject them into a tiny infant! Even if the vaccines themselves are safe and effective (which I have doubts about), the things added to them are definitely not safe. Furthermore, a child's immune system is not fully developed until 2 years of age, so vaccinating before that age seems unreasonable to me.

I'd like to see more of an emphasis on promoting natural immunity, an area that the health authorities are strangely silent about. Vitamin A has been used with great success to reduce both infant and adult death in third world countries. In the 1930's, Dr. Weston Price observed impressive resistance to tuberculosis in areas of Switzerland where people still ate their traditional diet, rich in raw dairy products from pastured animals, which are high in vitamin A. In modernized areas of Switzerland, tuberculosis was epidemic at that time.

Laurel Blair, NTP
www.dynamicbalancenutrition.com

From the newsletter of the crusty and usually spot-on Dr. William C. Douglas II, MD, dated 1 May 2011:

Human DNA in shots causes brain damage
Hooooo-boy -- the drug industry's pro-vaccine cheerleaders are going to have a hard time shouting this one down.

A retired Big Pharma bigwig has looked at all the published research on autism since the condition was first identified in 1943 and -- wouldn't you know it -- found that vaccines may be responsible in at least some cases.

Just not how you might think.

I'm sure you've heard the theory that blames thimerosal, the mercury-based compound used in vaccines until recent years -- a theory I'm on record as saying I don't fully buy.

Well, Dr. Helen Ratajczak, a highly respected senior scientist formerly with Boehringer-Ingelheim, has a different theory: human fetal tissue used in vaccines.

You read that right -- some vaccines are actually grown in cells from aborted fetuses.

And if that's not ghoulish enough, consider this: Ratajczak believes human DNA that remains in the vaccine can cause the body to attack its own brain cells, leading to the inflammation linked to autism -- especially in kids already prone to the condition.

To back her theory up, Ratajczak points to spikes in autism rates when human DNA was added to the MMR II vaccine in 1983, again in 1988 when a second MMR II shot was added for some kids, and yet again in 1995 when they began using a chicken pox vaccine grown in human fetal tissue.

She also points to similar patterns overseas.

If Ratajczak's theory is right, don't expect the autism epidemic to slow anytime soon -- human tissue is now part of at least 23 vaccines.

Naturally, since the mainstream can't fight Ratajczak with science, they're attacking her instead.

Shoot the messenger with a DNA-laced needle!

One critic says Ratajczak's experience in the drug industry doesn't automatically make her an expert -- which is a lot like saying someone's experience in the National League doesn't make him a ballplayer.

Another griped that she's "only" been involved in four published studies over the past decade -- ignoring the dozens she authored or co-authored in the preceding years.

Ratajczak, for her part, told CBS News that she was restricted in what she could publish before she retired.

But it looks like there'll be no stopping her now.

Sounds like my kind of gal.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by DynamicBalance:

by Sarah, the Healthy Home Economist
May 5th, 2011

Excerpt:

A new study published today in the Journal of Human and Experimental Toxology found that countries that administer a higher number of vaccines during the first year of life experience higher infant mortality rates.
...

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by DynamicBalance:

by Sarah, the Healthy Home Economist
May 5th, 2011

Excerpt:

A new study published today in the Journal of Human and Experimental Toxology found that [COLOR=#000000]countries that administer a higher number of vaccines during the first year of life experience higher infant mortality rates. ...

---

Oh my. Did anyone actually look at the study? I don't have to. I looked at the names of the authors:
Neil Z Miller
Independent researcher, Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA
Gary S Goldman
Independent computer scientist, Pearblossom, California, USA

I did make an attempt to read the article, just for kicks. The link is circular and returns you to the "abstract." Oh well.

So, these guys have NO credentials. This magazine that published their article? It has no credibility.

But let's look at a few facts. First, infant mortality means what it says: most of them died before they ever got immunized. Did the authors consider that? No. Next, in the United States we have a terrible infant mortality rate for our poorest citizens and for recent immigrants. Take those out of the equation and we rise to near the top of the list. Coincidentally (or not), it's these relatively impoverished groups that are least likely to get early immunizations for their kids. Hmmm. The plot thickens.

So that article can be safely ignored, just like all the other poorly written anti-vax articles.

Oh, and there's been no increase in autism rates either. You can read all about it here: https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showt...ned&highlight=

Meanwhile, get your kids vaccinated. If you want to slow down the rate at which you immunize, fine, but don't let your kid become another whooping cough statistic. Kids are dying in Sonoma County.

-Jeff

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by DynamicBalance:

It's certainly possible that the net effect is less deaths. Are you aware of any evidence to support that idea?

---

Nope. I'm fairly ignorant of the subject, and therefore do not have a strong bias one way or the other. But I will say this: if you also don't know whether the net effect of vaccination is more or fewer deaths, it's also inappropriate for you to take a strong position one way or the other, regardless of the lengthy list of scary-sounding substances that are involved. That list is essentially irrelevant in the face of the one most important issue: do vaccines save more lives than they take, or vice versa?

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Dixon:

... if you also don't know whether the net effect of vaccination is more or fewer deaths ...

---

Here's an article on that topic. It was written by some of the leading experts in the world on vaccinations. I suppose that will disqualify it immediately for some people. Oh well ...

What Would Happen If We Stopped Vaccinations?

-Jeff

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Braggi:

Oh my. Did anyone actually look at the study? I don't have to. I looked at the names of the authors:
Neil Z Miller
Independent researcher, Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA
Gary S Goldman
Independent computer scientist, Pearblossom, California, USA

I did make an attempt to read the article, just for kicks. The link is circular and returns you to the "abstract." Oh well.

So, these guys have NO credentials. This magazine that published their article? It has no credibility.

---

Hi Jeff,

Yes, I did look at the study. You've implied here that only the abstract is available, which is not true....the full text is available for free.

Are you saying that because a researcher is independent they automatically have no credibility? Apparently the editors of the journal Human & Experimental Toxicology disagree with you and found the study credible enough to publish. As for the Healthy Home Economist, I read her stuff often and find her to be very credible.

Essentially, I disagree that a person has to have credentials in order to be credible. A person is credible if they put forward information that is accurate. That is all that is necessary to be a credible source of information. Sometimes credentials can actually get in the way of presenting accurate information. For example, Registered Dietitians are more likely than other nutritionists to recommend eating according to the USDA's recommendations, which have been shown to be based on an inaccurate representation of the available science. That is what they are trained to recommend.

Quote:

---

First, infant mortality means what it says: most of them died before they ever got immunized. Did the authors consider that? No.

---

The definition of infant mortality rate has nothing to do with children dying before they could be immunized. It is defined as the number of deaths before the age of 1 year old per 1000 live births. Most vaccines start to be administered at 2 months of age.

Quote:

---

Next, in the United States we have a terrible infant mortality rate for our poorest citizens and for recent immigrants. Take those out of the equation and we rise to near the top of the list. Coincidentally (or not), it's these relatively impoverished groups that are least likely to get early immunizations for their kids.

---

This statement is not entirely accurate. Most of our recent immigrants are Latino, and Latinos actually have a slightly lower IMR in the United States than Non-Hispanic Whites. Asians and Pacific Islanders have a significantly lower IMR than Whites. It is true that Non-Hispanic Black Americans have a significantly higher IMR than other ethnic groups.

In light of this information, it would seem that recent Latino immigrants, if they are indeed least likely to get early immunizations for their children, have a slightly better IMR in spite of lower rates of vaccination. This information doesn't support your point of view on this issue.

Laurel Blair, NTP
www.dynamicbalancenutrition.com

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Dixon:

Nope. I'm fairly ignorant of the subject, and therefore do not have a strong bias one way or the other. But I will say this: if you also don't know whether the net effect of vaccination is more or fewer deaths, it's also inappropriate for you to take a strong position one way or the other, regardless of the lengthy list of scary-sounding substances that are involved. That list is essentially irrelevant in the face of the one most important issue: do vaccines save more lives than they take, or vice versa?

---

Hi Dixon,

By the same logic, I could say that it's inappropriate for people to be strongly pro-vaccine, since they do not know the long-term effects of injecting neurotoxins into the bloodstreams of babies. I think this is an equally important issue to consider: even if vaccines do technically save more lives than they take (and we don't know for sure if this is the case), do the additives in vaccines or the vaccines themselves increase the risk of immune or neurological problems in the long run?

The list of vaccine ingredients I posted is not merely "scary-sounding". MSG is a potent neurotoxin that causes lesions in the brain. It is used to induce obesity in lab animals. Aluminum is clearly toxic and I can only imagine it would be far worse for an infant. I think we all are familiar with the serious health hazards of mercury.

I don't find my position inappropriate at all. I simply prefer to go the natural and non-toxic route for immunity. Maternal vitamin A deficiency has been implicated in higher rates of infant mortality, and a single dose of vitamin A given at birth has been shown to reduce infant mortality by 15%.

Laurel Blair, NTP
www.dynamicbalancenutrition.com

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by DynamicBalance:

By the same logic, I could say that it's inappropriate for people to be strongly pro-vaccine, since they do not know the long-term effects of injecting neurotoxins into the bloodstreams of babies.

---

If these substances are indeed toxic in humans (as opposed to lab animals)and at the dosages involved (as opposed to megadosages that may have been used in experiments), I agree with you on this.

Quote:

---

I think this is an equally important issue to consider: even if vaccines do technically save more lives than they take (and we don't know for sure if this is the case), do the additives in vaccines or the vaccines themselves increase the risk of immune or neurological problems in the long run?

---

I agree. Deaths aren't really the only issue (I oversimplified by suggesting that); other problems should be factored in, possibly leading to thorny issues such as "How many instances of immune or neurological problems should we be willing to accept in trade for saving one life?" No easy answers there.

Quote:

---

I don't find my position inappropriate at all.

---

Even assuming everything you've said is true, and taking into account nonlethal effects as well as deaths, it's still not clear whether the net effect of vaccinations is positive or negative. Thus I stand by my statement that neither a strong pro-vac nor a strong anti-vac position is appropriate.

That assumes that we don't know whether the net effect of vaccinating is good or bad. I must say, though, that the article Braggi just linked to has me leaning toward supporting vaccination, because it looks like the net effect is, in fact, good.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Dixon:

If these substances are indeed toxic in humans (as opposed to lab animals)and at the dosages involved (as opposed to megadosages that may have been used in experiments), I agree with you on this.



I agree. Deaths aren't really the only issue (I oversimplified by suggesting that); other problems should be factored in, possibly leading to thorny issues such as "How many instances of immune or neurological problems should we be willing to accept in trade for saving one life?" No easy answers there.



Even assuming everything you've said is true, and taking into account nonlethal effects as well as deaths, it's still not clear whether the net effect of vaccinations is positive or negative. Thus I stand by my statement that neither a strong pro-vac nor a strong anti-vac position is appropriate.

That assumes that we don't know whether the net effect of vaccinating is good or bad. I must say, though, that the article Braggi just linked to has me leaning toward supporting vaccination, because it looks like the net effect is, in fact, good.

---

I appreciate your reasonable approach to this issue. I wouldn't characterize myself as strongly anti-vaccine. While I wouldn't choose them for myself or my future children, I support the rights of others to educate themselves on this issue and make their own informed decisions. Although I do think that if parents do vaccinate their children, it would be wise for them to wait until the child is 2 years old.

As for the article Braggi posted, in my opinion the government is not a reliable source of unbiased information, due to the incredible influence of special interest groups. There are numerous examples of the government bowing to industry pressure in the information that they put forward.

Laurel Blair, NTP
www.dynamicbalancenutrition.com

The issue of "all the other stuff" in vaccines is an appreciable one. In his book Healing the New Childhood Epidemics, the author and another doctor who is also the mother of 4 children who were severely impacted by vaccination observed that the mercury in vaccines tends to be immunotoxic and cause trouble with the gut, while the aluminum compound is neurotoxic. Unfortunately there is no way to tell which child is going to have a problem with a vaccine or an other medication. It's almost literally a shot in the dark.

Laurel makes a good observation with respect to timing and quantity of vaccines. The number of vaccines recommended to be administered is something like 4 times what children in the 1950s received. Some vaccines do make sense and to leave ones child without protection would be taking a risk -- polio for example. Rubella maybe, diptheria and pertussis probably. Measles, mumps and chicken pox -- what are the chances of a child dying or being disabled by those?

The "just say no" champ is a hepatitis vaccination within 48 hours of birth. (And if you are a boy and your parents are not so bright, you get your genitals mutilated within 48 hours of birth, too. Girls get a pass on this one, at least, because they are protected by federal legislation.) What are the chances of a child, much less an infant, getting hepatitis in this country? Miniscule, that's what. The hepatitis vaccine seems to be particularly troublesome for children with certain physiognomies. Unfortunately, there's no good way to tell before administering.

"Consider the source" is very apropos advice for vaccines, as with all allopathic medicine. It is an excellent example of the capitalized, for-profit medical industry really *not* working in our best interest, especially our long-term best interest.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by DynamicBalance:

I appreciate your reasonable approach to this issue. I wouldn't characterize myself as strongly anti-vaccine. While I wouldn't choose them for myself or my future children, I support the rights of others to educate themselves on this issue and make their own informed decisions. Although I do think that if parents do vaccinate their children, it would be wise for them to wait until the child is 2 years old.

As for the article Braggi posted, in my opinion the government is not a reliable source of unbiased information, due to the incredible influence of special interest groups. There are numerous examples of the government bowing to industry pressure in the information that they put forward.

Laurel Blair, NTP
www.dynamicbalancenutrition.com

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Glia:

... Measles, mumps and chicken pox -- what are the chances of a child dying or being disabled by those? ...

---

Measles is still a very dangerous illness.: Measles

Chicken Pox isn't much fun if it invades the brain of an infant. Best to have less of it going around, I think.

-Jeff

PS. BTW there's a lot of real information out there from reputable sites. Might want to stick with "allopathic" medicine. Homeopathy is pure fraud. But you knew that.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Glia:

... "Consider the source" is very apropos advice for vaccines, as with all allopathic medicine. It is an excellent example of the capitalized, for-profit medical industry really *not* working in our best interest, especially our long-term best interest.

---

I'm just curious Glia; how many doctors, and I mean real MDs or DOs, do you know personally? ... as opposed to professionally? How many people do you know that work in the pharmaceutical industry? How many pharmacists? How many chemists? How many drug company representatives? I'm curious how you come to the conclusion that the medical industry is not working in our best interests. Clearly you know something I don't.

-Jeff

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Glia:

The issue of "all the other stuff" in vaccines is an appreciable one. In his book Healing the New Childhood Epidemics, the author and another doctor who is also the mother of 4 children who were severely impacted by vaccination observed that the mercury in vaccines tends to be immunotoxic and cause trouble with the gut, while the aluminum compound is neurotoxic. Unfortunately there is no way to tell which child is going to have a problem with a vaccine or an other medication. It's almost literally a shot in the dark.

---

When was that book written? I'm asking because Thimerosal, which has been proven safe in dozens of well conducted studies, was removed from childhood vaccines in 1991, due not to safety concerns, but to the hysteria sweeping the nation over the tiny quantity of mercury molecules it contains. BTW, that mercury is in a form the body does not metabolize well, so most of it is excreted. That's opposed to the kind of mercury that comes from coal fired power plants and winds up in tuna. That's the same tuna that's considered safe to eat; within reasonable limits. A can of tuna contains about 1,000 times the amount of mercury in a typical flu shot, but remember that childhood vaccines contain none.

Let's talk about another of the "other stuff(s)." How about that aluminum? Pretty toxic and dangerous, eh? Says who? Who that's qualified to talk about it? It's that old song that aluminum causes alzheimer's, is that it? You know that's not true, right? That was proposed a couple decades ago but shot down almost immediately. Aluminum doesn't cause brain damage unless you're taking it in some pretty hefty doses. It's the second most common element on planet Earth and our bodies handle it pretty easily. The chemicals Nature didn't invent are more suspect to me.

-Jeff

The book was written in 2007 and the paperback version printed in 2008. The author is an MD who actually has quite a bit of common sense and comes across as an exemplary practitioner and "medical detective" to use his term. He has been working with the 4As kids since the epidemic, as he calls it, started in the early 1990s. If this is an area that you want to be informed and conversant with, you would do well to read the book!

A fundamental issue with the 4As is that these children -- and adults -- have fundamental differences in their metabolisms that cause them to be unable to detoxify and excrete things like mercury and aluminum compounds from a variety of sources in our increasingly toxic environment. Since they cannot process and remove these compounds, they build up and wreak increasing havoc with their bodies. Among other issues, these folks are missing the genes for making certain enzymes in their sulfonation and/or methylation pathways. These are lifetime problems that must be managed and dealt with. An aggressive chelation and detox program is toward the top of the list for treatment, which Dr. Bock outlines in his book.

What would be a minor load of "a few molecules" for an adult with a normal detox metabolism is a different story for an infants/toddlers, especially those with these precarious physiognomies. When you add up the amount of "other stuff" that these kids are getting courtesy of the gung-ho recommended immunization programs, it quickly racks up a significant lifetime exposure and toxic load.

This stuff is also being *injected* directly into their bloodstream or tissues rather than being ingested and going through the gut. Throw in mercury amalgam dental fillings, mercury in the environment thanks to coal-fired power plants and the coal-fired Chinese, bizzaro hormone analogs from everything made of plastics nowadays, and food that provides too many calories and nowhere near enough nutrition, it adds up to a real mess for these kids and the adults they become.

Another problem that these individuals share is anomalous immune systems. They also tend to have very troubled guts and abnormal gut flora. They are sensitive and allergic to an amazing array of foods. Antibiotics wreak havoc with these folks. One of the triggers for their cascade of problems is the obscene over-use of antibiotics by ass-covering allopaths.

Hopefully that clarifies the issues for you! :thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Braggi:

When was that book written? I'm asking because Thimerosal, which has been proven safe in dozens of well conducted studies, was removed from childhood vaccines in 1991, due not to safety concerns, but to the hysteria sweeping the nation over the tiny quantity of mercury molecules it contains. BTW, that mercury is in a form the body does not metabolize well, so most of it is excreted. That's opposed to the kind of mercury that comes from coal fired power plants and winds up in tuna. That's the same tuna that's considered safe to eat; within reasonable limits. A can of tuna contains about 1,000 times the amount of mercury in a typical flu shot, but remember that childhood vaccines contain none.

Let's talk about another of the "other stuff(s)." How about that aluminum? Pretty toxic and dangerous, eh? Says who? Who that's qualified to talk about it? It's that old song that aluminum causes alzheimer's, is that it? You know that's not true, right? That was proposed a couple decades ago but shot down almost immediately. Aluminum doesn't cause brain damage unless you're taking it in some pretty hefty doses. It's the second most common element on planet Earth and our bodies handle it pretty easily. The chemicals Nature didn't invent are more suspect to me.

-Jeff

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Glia:

The book was written in 2007 and the paperback version printed in 2008. The author is an MD who actually has quite a bit of common sense and comes across as an exemplary practitioner and "medical detective" to use his term. He has been working with the 4As kids since the epidemic, as he calls it, started in the early 1990s. If this is an area that you want to be informed and conversant with, you would do well to read the book!
...

---

Why is it that one out of a thousand in a profession has opinions that the other 999 think are absurd, yet it's the one that makes it on to Oprah with his book? We spend so much time and money chasing our collective tails proving well known and accepted facts and disproving nonsense such as HIV is not related to AIDS, amalgam fillings cause brain damage (or multiple chemical sensitivity), vaccines cause autism, homeopathy has some basis in fact ... the list goes on and on. Our population just doesn't learn from science. We want to believe in demons. See Sagan's Demon Haunted World if you want to become informed about how this all works.

No, I won't read the book, thanks. I've read all the bogus theories and it sounds like this person has cobbled them all together in one tidy package. Anything to sell a book, I guess.

Never mind.

-Jeff

PS. Does the author know Thimerosal was removed from childhood vaccines in 1991? Oh, it doesn't matter, does it?

Oprah? How did Oprah get into the discussion? BTW, the author bio lists several media appearances, and Oprah is not on the list.

I found the book on Amazon and it came well recommended. this man has been a practicing pediatrician for quite a while and he developed his testing methods and techniques over many years and many kids. Yes, he is aware of the removal of Thimerosal from vaccines in 1991, but it was not removed from the kids who were exposed, now was it? He and several other colleagues started Defeat Autism Now (DAN), which is now a "comprehensive biomedical treatment" for the 4As.

One thing that the author and the other woman doctor mentioned in the book noticed is that when the mercury compounds were removed from the vaccines and such and replaced with aluminum compounds (why is anybody using such things in something to be injected into the body anyway?), there was a shift in the nature of the symptoms.

So, Jeff, I'm not quite sure what your rant is about here. This guy and his colleagues used plenty of science. They believed what they saw rather than seeing what they believed or had been told in medical school. They took careful histories, recognized patterns, ran tests, tried treatments and tried something else if that did not work.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Braggi:

Why is it that one out of a thousand in a profession has opinions that the other 999 think are absurd, yet it's the one that makes it on to Oprah with his book? We spend so much time and money chasing our collective tails proving well known and accepted facts and disproving nonsense such as HIV is not related to AIDS, amalgam fillings cause brain damage (or multiple chemical sensitivity), vaccines cause autism, homeopathy has some basis in fact ... the list goes on and on. Our population just doesn't learn from science. We want to believe in demons. See Sagan's Demon Haunted World if you want to become informed about how this all works.

No, I won't read the book, thanks. I've read all the bogus theories and it sounds like this person has cobbled them all together in one tidy package. Anything to sell a book, I guess.

Never mind.

-Jeff

PS. Does the author know Thimerosal was removed from childhood vaccines in 1991? Oh, it doesn't matter, does it?

---