Scientist Demands Apology and Retraction from CBC’s Marketplace

Scientist Demands Apology and Retraction from CBC’s Marketplace

Sent: 1/27/2020

Dear Marketplace Team and CBC Leadership,
I am writing to formally request a retraction and correction and request that you issue apologies for misrepresentation of the events which occurred at the VIP Event following the VIE Event in Washington, DC late last year.

I have, and the public has, scrutinized both your online written and video versions of coverage of the conversation I had with your reporter in which I explained – at some length – how IPAK runs Science Days – events at which I educate the public on peer-reviewed and forthcoming science from IPAK, The Institute for Pure and Applied Knowledge, in Pittsburgh, PA, USA.  We have found your representation of that conversation at striking odds with reality.  While the entire coverage leaves much to be desired in terms of factual content and objectivity, I am writing only with respect to aspects that directly impact me, my reputation, and potentially my livelihood.

First, your video coverage left off my phrase “If you want to support IPAK” – which specifically and obviously means if you want to support biomedical research. IPAK conducts objective scientific research in the public interest, and we have peer-reviewed publications from 2017-2020 of which any competent investigative reporting team would be aware.
Second, your written coverage clearly misattributed a phrase about “quid pro quo” to your reporter, and then put words in my mouth: “right”. In fact, when I describe “IPAK Science Days” to individuals requesting information such as that requested by your reporter, I am always careful to use the phrase “That way it’s NOT a quid pro quo”.  The online written version is therefore incorrect.  I categorically deny saying “Right”.  This is the lowest form of yellow journalism available to you.

Unfortunately, your highly edited video also leaves the impression that I, or someone, is saying “So we have a quid pro quo” because in the video caption, the quotation is in incorrect and the attribution to a speaker is ambiguous.  That video is highly edited because, I believe, if the actual video was shown, my mouth would be seen forming an ‘O’ shape on the word “No” in the phrase “No quid pro quo”.

People not affiliated with IPAK have contacted me since your airing and reminded me of past conversations in which I say (1) I do not charge to appear at local events at which I educate committees or elected officials interested in matters relevant to my research, (2) IPAK would run a local event to also educate the public, and charge a fee (donation), and (3) That way there is NO quid pro quo.

According to the Legal Dictionary, “Quid pro quo, or the exchange of valuable consideration, is required for the formation of a valid contract between individuals who are not merchants. This requirement of mutual consideration, or the exchange of something of value, indicates the sincerity of the parties’ intent to adhere to the contract between them.”
For me to say “That way there is no quid pro” is to assert, as I should, that although I may become physically located where it is convenient for me to offer education in public comments on matters related to my research, it is not intended, nor should it be expected, that I will necessarily testify nor comment in any way favorable to or in opposition to any particular vote, ruling, or legislation being considered.  Your reporter and I never discussed any details at any time of the nature of any specific comments or positions on legislation during or after the event. In fact, your reporter and I never discussed any legislation, or hearing, or committee meeting pending on any issue. Your reporter only asked about how to get me to Western Provinces in Canada, where he claimed to be organizing vaccine-interested groups.  Given that any such groups should form their positions on Science, the IPAK educational events themselves are of sufficiently high value that registrants who donate to IPAK will have received solid, well-referenced facts and my considered opinion on those facts from scientific studies.  There is never, however, any requirement of donations, and volunteers at such events are always instructed to allow anyone in regardless of their ability to donate.

Your coverage implies that I would be supplanting the value of the public service provided by the formal IPAK events I offer with the value of my uncontrolled, uninfluenced, self-generated testimony or opinion to panels, committees or legislative bodies,  I assure you and assert that was the opposite of my intent of discussing “quid pro quo” so as to avoid any such confusion and to prevent your reporter (posing as an activist) from presuming that I could be influenced in what I say in any way based on any donations that might (or might not) be received associated with such an event.  My comments are my own, personally, and I when I do educate legislators and public health officials, I always refuse to offer any opinion on pending legislation, in keeping with my understanding that individuals who operate not-for-profit organizations should not directly advise on pending legislation.

Your characterization of IPAK offering local educational events as a form of quid pro quo transaction is your own construction, and is inaccurate with respect to intent and to legal definition, and it is clear that your manipulation is intended to provide a falsehood that might be used to impede my participation at such events in the future.  Apologies and retraction via editing are both in order.

Your reporter also hurtfully and irresponsibly claimed in the published video report that I “want to be seen as a Scientist”.  I attach my NIH Curriculum Vitae which includes my past and present employment.  I have served on US NIH grant review panels and have assisted various funding agencies in their writing of issued calls for proposals.  I brought in >$27.5 million in collaborative funding while Full Faculty under Dr. Ronald Herberman at the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute.  I founded and ran the University of Pittsburgh’s Bioinformatics Core with support from the Dean of the School of Medicine and the Senior Vice Chancellor of the University of Pittsburgh.  I have advised graduate students and served on PhD dissertation committees. I have over 50 peer reviewed research studies, a fact that any competent investigative reporter would have discovered with a simple search of any number of research publication databases, including the US NCBi’s Pubmed:

Search NCBI’s Pubmed for AU=”Lyons-Weiler”

To date, none of my research studies have been retracted.  I am now, and will die, a Scientist, regardless of your reporter’s insensitive and uninformed implication that I am not.

I specifically request an apology from that reporter, and the team for failing to research my background and for failing to reach out to me for information on my resume and for calling my credentials and my lifelong service to Science in question.  A deep search in the Canadian Ministry of Science records should turn up my name on a collaboration while I was full faculty at the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute on a consortium that worked on a grant proposal which led to successful funding of Canadian scientists for the study of metastatic breast cancer.  I suggest you might be able to request and confirm said information from Dr. Arun Seth of the University of Toronto (cc’d).  A more in-depth look at my past will reveal that I was the Founding Editor-in-Chief of the international research journal, Cancer Informatics, and that my scientific integrity caused me to lead a revolt against the publisher to secure and protect the bona fide peer review process I had established upon founding the journal when lesser scientists proposed corrupting that process.  I have been a defender of Science in the public interest for some time and am now Editor-in-Chief of Science, Public Health Policy & the Law.

We have numerous ongoing and active studies at IPAK, including an IRB-approved “Vaccinated vs. Unvaccinated” study looking at the risk of chronic health outcomes. I am also currently working with Dr. Chris Shaw (University of British Columbia) in attempts to fund his laboratory to conduct dose escalation studies of aluminum hydroxide in infant mice – specifically because neither of our government’s regulatory agencies have pursued research capable of determining a per-body weight dose limit of aluminum hydroxide, an adjuvant used in about 60% vaccines recommended by US CDC pediatric schedule.  IPAK has estimated a per-body weight informed pediatric dose limit leading to two peer-reviewed publications (attached), in one of which we have estimated the number of days infants are in aluminum toxicity under the US CDC’s recommended schedule.  That estimate is 70% of days in the first seven months of life, and 25% of days in the first two years of life.  By comparison, under an alternative plan, infants are expected to be in aluminum toxicity 5% of days in the first seven months of life.  I will continue to try to fund Dr. Shaw’s research with a new Autoimmune Research Fund initiative at IPAK until we have successfully determined the dose effect of injected forms of aluminum in infant mice, a gaping hole in vaccine science.
I would expect that Canadian legislators, committees, and the public would want to make decisions on policies about the use or non-use of competing vaccination technologies and options on Canadian children, which is why I came to New Brunswick, at my own personal expense, and offer my insights in New Brunswick on August 27 2019.

Dr. Lyons-Weiler’s Testimony in New Brunswick, Aug 27, 2019 (Video)

I had no prior agreement for payment of any kind to me personally nor to IPAK with any Canadian citizen or Citizen’s group for my trip to New Brunswick, and I restricted my comments to what I know of the state of vaccine safety science.  I offered no “IPAK Science Day” associated with that event.  There is never any quid pro quo.

I believe it is in CBC’s best interest, and in the interest of the public’s view of the Marketplace team’s journalistic integrity, and in the interest of the public, that you issue an apology, retract and re-issue your edited and updated online written coverage, that you remove, edit and update the online video, also with an announcement of a correction in the first few minutes of the video, and include in both locations a copy of the apology letter addressed to me,  “Dr. Lyons-Weiler”, signed by all reporters and editors involved in both the online and video version.

I urge your team to conduct a more complete inquiry into the backgrounds of those you are targeting to spare others of the pain and suffering caused by your thoughtless and callous handling of my reputation.  It does not serveyour national reputation for CBC to misquote, misattribute, nor to misrepresent and malign the character and integrity of a productive citizen, to misrepresent the career title of any person you feature in a “news” video.  

I strongly advise you that your treatment of me as a professional has certainly done a disservice to your character as a team, and to CBC as a serious news organization.


James Lyons-Weiler, PhD

Working Scientist, Father


The Institute for Pure and Applied Knowledge


Invite Your Public Health Officials to the Emergency IPAK HPV Vaccine Science Crisis Webinar

Date of Webinar: 2/1/2020

Time: 3PM EST

James Lyons-Weiler, Pittsburgh, PA

To invite your Public Health Officials, send them the link to this blog article.

In a stunning revelation and a hopeful lean toward objectivity, a study reviewed by The Independent (See:”Cervical cancer rises among young women as progress on deadly disease ‘stalls’) brings forward results that I and others have predicted and reported: a net increase in cervical cancer rates in populations vaccinated against HPV. I first wrote about HPV type replacement in an article that was picked up by a number of news outlets (notably Epoch Times). I also then wrote further about type replacement, and penned an article on LinkedIn highlighting the increase in cervical cancer data in the UK.

In 2018, I sued the Allegheny County Board of Health for what I considered – and still consider – to be a violation of PA’s Sunshine (Open Meetings) act. I won a ruling from a judge that the stated that ACBOH’s non-binding resolution was null and void ab initio. The case cost me about US$15K. I sued neither for damages nor for monetary settlement for harm (nearly being arrested for exercising my citizen’s right to ask for a clarification on procedure was distressing; see Video).

I also did not hold out for an admission of wrong-doing. I simply wanted to correct a requirment not met by the ACBOH to call for open comments prior to voting for a motion, and for not advertising the specific motion in its minutes prior to the meeting. [NB: As of this writing, The Board of Health is still distributing their recommendation on their website with an active link, in violation of the rules governing their communications to the Public]

Why would a person spend so much time, energy and effort on an issue to repair a technical glitch?

It wasn’t that I was nearly arrested for requesting a point-of-order clarification. It’s not that I have any personal vendetta against any on the ACBOH, although I, and others, do find Dr. Lee Harrison’s repeated failure to report conflicts of interest related to HPV vaccines concerning and a likely source of bias in his decision to initiate a mandate of the HPV Vaccine in Allegheny County.

I sued because Public Health Officials serve and answer to the Public – and the public understands the reality of HPV vaccine science than they do. Board of Health members merely rely on CDC’s position on vaccines, which is one-sided, and they should be expected to understand the full body of science and form their own positions on recommendations for which they vote for, or against.

Reliance on CDC is risky. In fact, CDC’s study on type replacement failed to detect type replacement specifically due to the manner in which the study was designed and how the data analysis was conducted. I found ample evidence of type replacement (a result that Mary Holland, Kim Mack Rosenberg, and Eileen Iiorio included in their book, “HPV Vaccine on Trial“).

Many other studies have detected type replacement, and I have cited them in my articles. Since recommendations on HPV vaccine never include consideration of the details of the studies conducted that fail to detect type replacement, studies that find explanations for variation in HPV types other than the vaccine are not relevant to whole-population vaccination recommendations.

The CDC took over the Cochrane Collaboration’s review of HPV vaccines, leading to an uproar of controversy leading to resignation of Board Members – the reprehensible and wrongful excoriation of a Founder of the Cochrane Collaboration who spoke out against the violation of conduct of the Collaboration for accepting outside money. Notably, the CDC contact with Cochrane Collaboration was the same scientist who was the senior author on the CDC’s study on HPV type replacement.

The issue of type replacement was notably absent from the Cochane Collaboration’s report. I had of course contacted her when I found the error in their study, which I was tipped off to by IPAK Advisory Board member Josh Mazer. I showed CDC the results of my analysis showing unambiguous evidence of type replacement, and rather then act upon my concerns, they stopped replying to my emails.

The problem with Type Replacement is that evolution predicts that rarer, more lethal types of HPV not targeted by the vaccine will increase in prevalence as the vaccine clears the less lethal, more common HPV virus types from the population. Rarer viruses tend to be rare becausethey are more deadly – and they take their hosts out. The expected result is increased rates of more aggressive forms of cervical cancer in younger patients. I have predicted many times in many places that we will witness more aggressive cervical cancer in younger women – and that is precisely the finding of the new study reviewed by The Independent. Think “evolution of antibiotic resistance”; type replacement is “evolution of vaccine resistance” – the emergence of more persistent, aggressive and lethal forms of viruses due to the use of vaccines.

On February 1, 2020, IPAK, The Institute for Pure and Applied Knowledge will host a free webinar open to Public Health officials and concerned citizens from anywhere in the United States. We will review the evidence of not only type replacement, but also the clinical errors made in the administration of the vaccine, including MD’s informing vaccine recipients that they are now “protected from HPV”; how cancer experts have testified and the press has erroneously reported that the HPV vaccines represent a chance to “eradicate” HPV-related cervical cancer; and of course the evidence of the increase rate of frank cervical cancer attributable to over-confidence in the HPV vaccine and type replacement.

The CDC is entirely responsible for misleading the public on Type Replacement; they should have acted upon my communications. Given the obtuse nature of the analysis they conducted, it is difficult to see how they did not choose that particular means of analysis to obtain the specific, desired result. The results involved multiple hypothesis testing of shifts in individual types, not a test of overall type shifting between vaccine-targeted and non-targeted types (Figure above, CDC Data, IPAK Analysis).

Those who have represented smoking-related throat cancer as a cause for mandates or for increasing HPV vaccine uptake were working under the advisement of the cancer and public health “experts”.

These experts should have researched the research the CDC relied upon to reject type replacement and sought more information from non-CDC studies. But then, they likely do not understand evolutionary biology and ecology as well as they should to be able to predict that with about 223 other types of HPV, many of which are oncogenic, the HPV vaccine itself coupled with changes in personal behavior, medical screening and adherence to medical screening will cause type replacement.

Those conducting research on HPV efficacy relied on proxy outcomes of a reduction in HPV-Vaccine Targeted Type-Related CINs should have reported overall CIN differences and should not have cherry-picked the results that shed a favorable light on the HPV vaccines of CIN related to vaccine-targeted types only.

Perhaps everyone knows all of this, but no one is willing to hold Merck and Merck-funded researchers, including those at the CDC, accountable.

Therefore, IPAK will host a webinar at which the identities of the attendees are kept secret. This will be an informational webinar only. The evidence presented will be difficult for some to accept, especially those who we tried to warn, those who we had to sue to attempt to garner their attention on the seriousness of the issue with HPV vaccine safety science. We will review why adjusting for correlative outcomes (such as Chlamydia infection) or adjusting for lifestyle choice differences between those who seek and those who do not seek that vaccine does not rule out type replacement – and how important it is for Public Health Officials and medical doctors to communicate full details of attendant behavior-related risks to individuals who seek or accept the HPV vaccine.

To register for the webinar, go to this link or click on the “Register Now” button, below. We request a $1 donation to enable registration. Your information will be kept private by IPAK and never shared. Your affiliation information, however, would be appreciated so we can follow up with residents of your states so they know that SOMEONE in a role of Public Health Official has received and processed the evidence that the HPV vaccine program may be far worse than ineffective and that they can expect their Public Health Officials to base discussion and decisions on the balance of Science.

From Claus Nørgaard Gravesen:

Let’s look at the actual and factual data according to the Cochrane review (detailed Danish article about the review here):
Precancer for all HPV-types except 16 and 18:
Vaccinated: 249 (out of 10,000 women)
“Unvaccinated: 198 (out of 10,000 women)
We actually see a large increase in precancer in women 25 to 45 years of age of 25.76% from “unvaccinated” to vaccinated in the 223 other HPV-types apart from just HPV-16 and HPV-18.
That’s a very significant increase, caused by the vaccines, which in no way can be explained away.
The HPV-vaccines clearly cause precancer and should be stopped immediately.
Besides the Cochrane reviews additional own words:
“Pregnancy outcomes: The effects on congenital abnormalities and stillbirths are uncertain”
“Increased risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes after HPV vaccination cannot be excluded”
Which we are seeing further signs of adverse consequences of in this very recent study published as late as Monday, June 11th 2018:
A lowered probability of pregnancy in females in the USA aged 25-29 who received a human papillomavirus vaccine injection.”

CBC Marketplace’s Constructed Narrative Falls Even Further Apart

Yesterday, I penned an article with screen shots of the CBC’s Youtube video coverage of the VIP after party of the VIE event in Washington last year.

The video shown shows words in a manner in which it would seem to imply that I said “Now we have a quid pro quo” to the reporter during a cutaway where the person who is speaking about “quid pro quo” is not on camera.

I have made it clear that I never said “Now we have a quid pro quo”. The recording clearly is “SO THERE IS NO quid pro quo.” Their video editing, including their caption placement, clearly manipulate viewers leading to the impression that the reporter and I came to some arrangement. Never happened.

Their written version of the event online now represents it as if the reporter said it.

“So, what I would rather do is, I do a science day the day before,” he said. “I’d run an event where you … charge admission as per my website.”

“Sounds like a promo thing for you, a marketing thing for you,” said our journalist. “Now we’ve gotta quid pro quo.” 

“That’s right,” he said, later detailing through an assistant that for a group of 400 people, he would want about $20 US per person, netting around $10,000 Cdn.

No, I never said “That’s right”.

I can tell you that our fact-checking team, and many, many others hear ME saying “So there IS NO quid pro quo”, which is in keeping with my message about “What I’d RATHER DO” (is educate the public than be paid to travel to lobby). And while the Science days are educational, I can also tell you that we do a LOT of “marketing” at IPAK; it’s called promotion, it’s key to the success of any not-for-profit, but unlike other not-for-profits, we specifically limit the amount of revenue that we program to promotion. We don’t have to spend 90% of our revenues on promotion. Because we offer sincere, objective Science, which the public was chanting for on the Washington mall. Bring the unedited conversation forward, CBC.

Should Have Said “Donations”

I’ve explained in the first article that IPAK events do not require anyone to commit to a specific amount, that the numbers cited are suggested donations, and that we ask people in who can only donate less for any amount they can donate. We also invite people in who choose to not donate in without any transaction. I also explained that the reporter made up the number “400” so as to inflate the sum of whatever amount we quoted. We provided him with an estimate, which should have been between $15 and $20 for a suggested donation. And it’s clear that we put funds at IPAK to good use.

We all make mistakes. We at IPAK should not discuss “costs” of our donations, and we usually do not, but instead, we should discuss suggested donations. My assistant was corrected and apologized for not knowing, but I never spelled out for her the difference. She has not been involved in the planning or running of IPAK events. The program is active now; interested parties can contact us at

IPAK Events Are Not All About Autism

“Vaccines cause autism in some people” is what I said at the VIE event. A bold statement, a bit like holding a lightning rod on top of a mountain in a lightening storm to utter such words in public.

Except CBC was already informed before their yellow journalism piece came out, by me, with links to videos, that Dr. Julie Gerberding of the CDC and the late, great Dr. Bernadine Healy, former Director of the NIH said as much, on the air, in US television news many years ago (see links to videos in my scoop of CBC News here). And it’s no secret – I have published my understanding of specific mechanisms by which vaccines might cause autism in some people in writing. A good investigative reported would have known that, and they would have not treated like it’s some shocking secret. Their recording of me is from arguably the most public place in the world – my speech at theNational Mall.

What may be news is that I won’t back down. I won’t be intimidated by anyone to change my position, given what I’ve seen in the mechanism literature. Under any circumstances. Press hit pieces, personal threats, all mean nothing to the reality of the piss-poor nature of the CDC’s attempts to hide the link between vaccines and autism and the risk that some child somewhere may become permanently mentally disabled by a vaccine. #NotOneMore.

If you listen to the reporter voicing their constructed narrative, you will in fact hear her state that I say at IPAK Events that “Vaccines Cause… Autism”. She uses information she got from a VIE event (NOT an IPAK event), and, further, she leaves the incorrect impression that vaccines and autism are the only thing we discuss at IPAK events. We are planning an event on “Autoimmunity in Autism” in June 2020, filled with all sorts of science, reviews of science, new science, more science on autism and autoimmunity in autism than the Marketplace journalistic team could probably handle. Nevertheless, they are hereby invited. With or without hidden cameras. Open interviews would be decent.

One good thing is that I think I can now answer my question in my first post about CBC. No, CBC did not run an objective piece. They invited comments from their targets, and they ignored all of the comments they received. No, CBC is not a legitimate news source for health-related matters. Their journalistic integrity in my view is virtually non-existant. And that’s sad. Because I grew up watching CBC. And Beachcombers. And Superdave Obsborn on Bizarre. I used to love CBC News. It was refreshingly independent of US influences. It was Canadian. Seems now it’s mostly corporation-owned.

‘So There is No Quid Pro Quo’, or ‘So We Have a Quid Pro Quo’?

So, CBC, which is it? The video leaves the attribution ambiguous. I claim that I said “So it’s not a quid pro quo”. Your written article claims your reported said “So we have a quid pro quo”. Bring the full recording foward, CBC, unedited. Everything everyone at the event told you. Not cherry-picked and manipulated expressions taken out of context.

People can listen for themselves. The cutaway at exactly that time, and the existence of two edits of the video, as I discovered and described in yesterday’s post, is troubling. Their apparent sleight of hand plays well into their false narrative. But, for the record, “There is NO QUID PRO QUO”.

Regardless of such low-ball tactics, we have a team reviewing the video and the written article for false statements made by their reporter, and we will be setting the record straight on a future episode of Unbreaking Science. It should be eye-opening, perhaps even to the investigative reporters who did not do much investigative anything.

Perhaps CBC should look into CDC’s Walter Orenstein’s role in determining the outcome of the IOM’s look into vaccines and autism. And how Dr. Marie McCormick, who chaired the IOM’s Immunization Safety Review Committee, told her fellow committee member when they first met in January 2001 that CDC “wants us to declare, well, that these things are pretty safe” and “We are not ever going to come down that [autism] is a true side effect” of thimerosal exposure”, and how the committee’s chief staffer, Kathleen Stratton, even predicted that the IOM would conclude that the evidence was “inadequate to accept or reject a causal relation” between vaccines and autism. The committee was instructed that the outcome was what “Walt wants” — referencing Dr. Walter Orenstein, then director of the National Immunization Program for the CDC, who also played a role in putting Dr. William Thompson on leave for daring to inform Dr. Julie Gerberding of the link between on-time MMR vaccines and autism in African American boys.

Or maybe CBC should look into how Coleen Boyle changed the study design of at least one study after her team found an association between on-time MMR vaccine and delayed MMR.

At the very least CBC should investigate Poul Thorsen, on OIG’s Most Wanted List, a fugitive from justice, accused of stealing over $1Million US (and CDN) dollars that was supposed to go into autism research, who is still on projects funded by the US NIH, still publishing on papers appearing in NCBI’s Pubmed? Start with James Grunvig’s book “Master Manipulator“. He’s done all the legwork for you, CBC.

Or perhaps they might look into and report how Dr. Julie Gerberding left CDC after overseeing those fiascos for a cushy job at Merck and received millions in Merck stock. NOW you’ve got a quid pro quo to talk about!

Maybe you should interview Congressman Bill Posey, who entered into the Congressional Record how Dr. William Thompson shared with him files he was instructed to destroy on how the MMR vaccine might lead to ASD if given too early. Here, I’ll do the hard part for you.

Then investigate the experience of Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and Del Bigtree when they met a smiling and cooperative Anthony Fauci and Francis Collins with Whitehouse staff whose smiling faces turned to stone the minute the whitehouse staff members left the meeting. Then investigate by former CDC Director Thomas Frieden testified to a Congressional Committee that we (in the US) would not have an outbreak of Ebola unless there are mutations in the virus (in 2014/2015) and “there are none” – and whether that is related to the CDC’s PCR-based airport screening test for Ebola, based on the 1995 Zaire strain.

These are much more relevant to investigative reporting than a hypothetical event with 400 fictitious people your reporters made up.

CBC Marketplace, you are cynical, deceitful and blind. You missed the story of the last 50 years. You are misleading the Canadian public to accept a woefully dangerous import fromt the US – CDC-style vaccine risk and injury denialism – and Canadians will suffer as a result. You can redeem yourself by digging into the CDC cover-up and the crimes committed in the name of manipulating public opinion. Bring on Brian Hooker. Del Bigtree. Dr. Wakefield. I won’t appear on your show until you apologize for manipulating my words. The best you can get from me is a free copy of my book, “Cures vs. Profits: A Translational Success Story”, which contains the Chapter I wrote during which I chronicled my discovery of the facts that I wish were untrue, and in which I track down the details of the CDC fiasco and three other vaccine controversies.

CBC leadership, watch the documentaries Vaxxed and Vaxxed II. Invite Polly Tommey on, who even now spends 10-12 hours a day interviewing parents of vaccine injured children. You’re on the wrong side of history. We are building a new culture of decency, and respect, and the vaccine industry lobbyists’ heads are spinning, just as they should be. No amount of money for any politician and no new vaccine factory is worth the chronic illness, impaired autoimmune systems, and impaired neurodevelopmental disorders in your local town, city, province, or nation. As formulated, current vaccines are unsafe.

For now, here I address CBC’s misquote and/or misattribution, depending on which version of the CBC’s report you care to pick.

See the Evidence: Scientist Calls Out CBC’s “Marketplace” with Grave Allegations of Compromised Journalistic Integrity

I grew up across the St. Lawrence River from Johnstown, Canada. I spent my youth sharing many experiences with Canadians; their television stations would broadcast right into my living room. “Beachcombers” was one of my favorite shows in the 1970’s. As I informed a committee in New Brunswick, Canada last year, I’ve lived many places around the US, and no one understands why I wear socks with sandals.

Fast forward to 2020, and I find myself targeted by CBC’s “Marketplace” program for – gasp – being paid to educate the public about Science. In a hit piece on their program, they targeted me, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Del Bigtree and Dr. Andrew Wakefield. Their “undercover expose” itself leaves something to be desired overall. There was no need for any undercover reporters; we more than welcome media coverage at all of our events. Everything I said to CBC is precisely what I would have said if I had been asked in an open interview.

But I want to focus on one specific aspect of their coverage.

In their undercover interview of me, they never asked me for nor established my credentials. They claim I want to be seen as a Scientist. Sorry, CBC, I’m a PhD Scientist. And a Master’s. And a BA.

At the VIP event following the VIE Event in Washington, DC, a man, who identified himself as Canadian, asked me “So how much would it cost to bring you to Vancouver?”

“I don’t charge”, I replied. And the video has the rest of my response. Well, some of it. In one part of the exchange, I tried to make it clear that my intention was to not establish a quid pro quo – an exchange of testimony for money – because that would make me a lobbyist. I offered instead to run an IPAK Science Day – a purely educational event – at which I would go through the recent studies being conducted at IPAK, which were partly funded by donations for such event in the past. Such research includes our study on the expected chronic aluminum toxicity in infants under the CDC’s schedule.

In that exchange, I made it clear that it was not intended to be a “quid pro quo”, but, rather, since I would be on site at the same time as doing an IPAK Science Day, no one would have to pay for my airfare or lodging, etc. and if a Committee wanted to be educated, I would be available.

The reporter contacted IPAK and expressed further interest in running an IPAK Science Day. In the middle of communications, he made up an astounding number of people that he said he was sure he could get to attend. He wanted to know what the charge would be. Gretchen and I discussed it, and we let him know that we would have a sliding scale. Our intention was that these would be recommended donations, and in the past, I’ve instructed volunteers manning the check-in tables at IPAK conferences and other events to allow anyone in, no matter the size of their donation, and to let anyone in who cannot donate.

The video then shows a cutaway to a production booth – I presume at the CBC – and the video is running on the monitors in the production booth. The cut-away segment includes a lot of background noise, but you can hear me saying something about a quid pro quo.

Except that’s NOT what I said. I informed the man that we did it this way so as to AVOID a quid pro quo. As in “So there IS NO quid pro quo”. If you listen to it yourself (and many supporters have), you can see they twisted the words “So there is NO quid pro quo” into “Now we’ve got a quid pro quo”.

That would explain the cutaway, because if they showed my face up front, you’d be able to see my mouth forming an “Oh” on the “NO quid pro quo”.

Look at the monitor in the video during the cutaway. They are playing the sound of me saying “So there would be no quid pro quo”, but the text on the screen is from a few seconds before when I’m saying “So I’d come where you are, charge admission…” See for yourself.

Similar text is also played over a earlier timing in the video in their production:

This shows that the video is clearly very heavily manipulated to make specific words appear on the screen in a specific manner. Now, CBC clearly does not want anyone to see my face when the expression “quid pro quo” is stated. They have the video. They should produce the video, unedited, so everyone can see what they’ve done.

And they should apologize. Because I NEVER, EVER would suggest that anything I do is a quid pro quo. The only time I’ve used that phrase is to communicate to be perfectly clear that no one controls what I say, how I say it, or who I say it to. Anyone who knows me know that’s not possible anyway.

Get real, CBC.

I first alerted CBC directly on the comment section of their YouTube Channel:

When I checked the video for my comment on another person’s phone, and through another browser on my laptop, it was gone.

I had left the tab open where I originally commented so I added a comment – “CBC, are you removing my comments? Love, James Lyons-Weiler, PhD”

Nevertheless, neither comment is viewable by others, evidently.

As I was checking for their removal of my comments, an IPAK supporter and mom named Missy sent this message to me:

Shortly thereafter, another message

And an email from a colleague requesting help finding my comment:

Share your exact handle with us. I just searched for “James” and “Lyons” in the comments and it didn’t come up. It might be way at the bottom and the search feature might only search comments that have loaded… or they may have removed it already? Please let us know exactly what to look for.”

On Youtube, one can sort comments on Most Relevant or Most Recent. My two comments are not present anywhere.

So here are my missing comments to CBC on Youtube. There’s much more to come on the CBC’s Marketplace team’s lack of journalistic and professional integrity.

James Lyons-Weiler: Their assertions are paper thin. If you want to support IPAK, I’d host an event near you. That way there is NO QUID PRO QUO. That’s my message. Their video is 100% wrong and they are being dishonest. Watch at about 9:12 – I clearly state “NO quid pro quo”, meaning, if IPAK hosts a public event near you, those in attendance would be asked for a suggested donation. Why did they cut away? My bet is you can see me form an “O” when I say “NO quid pro quo”. That up-close video will be the focus of scrutiny. Also, their’ “$10,000” was based on their random number of 400 people that we were told. They were told it was a sliding scale more people, lower suggested donation. That’s how we operate. If we suggest donations of $15-$20 per head, and 100 people show up, we’re lucky. We put the funds to good use, with peer-reviewed research. Check Pubmed. I state VERY CLEARLY that if I were to be paid to be flown out to Vancouver (a place I love, BTW!) to testify, I’d be a paid lobbyist. Educating the public is what I offered. Is CBC Marketplace anti-science? Read their email to me inviting comment, and my reply to them sent immediately after they contacted me. Did they cover my reply and include all of the science I cited and the realities we are facing about vaccine safety science? No. Did they interview the 1,000s of parents of vaccine injured children in attendance at the VIE event to find out why they would come out and stand in the cold to support medical freedom, informed consent, and objective Science? No. It appears to me like their own cameras have caught them constructing a false narrative, not reporting the news. I don’t WANT to be SEEN as a scientist, I AM a scientist, and have been throughout my adult life and career. My bio is available online for all – including the reporters – to see – These reporters clearly WANT to be seen as objective reporters. Now pardon me as go back to analyzing human subjects research data for our Vaccinated vs. Unvaccinated study. Yes, it’s IRB approved. Yes, it will be submitted for publication for peer review. Shame on you, CBC, you have a lot to learn about being a sensible part of solving a very complex problem facing our society.

Watch “Unbreaking Science” tonight, 1/19/20 on Youtube and Facebook. I have a special treat for CBC tonight which I will add to this article.

Vaccine Risk Denialism Has Placed Pediatricians and Other Physicians in a Precarious Social Position

Following a lecture I gave at UCLA earlier this month reviewing our research on chronic vaccine aluminum toxicity expected from the CDC pediatric vaccine schedule, I was being dropped off at the LAX via a hotel shuttle. The shuttle driver, a middle-aged woman, asked me what I did for a living.

“I am a biomedical research scientist”, I replied.

“Oh, biomedicine, cool” she said. “What area?”

“Vaccine safety research” I said, pretty well knowing what to expect next.

“Vaccine safety research? I thought that had already determined that vaccines are safe and effective”.

I’ll leave the rest of the conversation, which went very well, to your imagination.

As I assess the anticipated future reaction of the rest of the American public as they realize that the success of the vaccination program as a primary driver in the reduction of infectious diseases is overstated, and as they realize that the vaccine safety science is not settled, I can fairly well tell where the axe of accountability is going to fall.

The public’s view is that the pristine reputation and awarded authority of the CDC is to be heralded. To cite a CDC statistic or fact quoted from CDC, say, on rates of specific health conditions is to imbue those statistics and facts with a sheen of trust. CDC’s reputation is impeccable. This fact puzzles the vaccine risk aware, who are aware that former CDC Director Julie Gerberding, who oversaw the CDC during the CDC’s key years in “investigating” vaccine safety with underpowered and manipulated studies, left CDC for a high-ranking job at Merck in their vaccine division. Most do not know that Dr. Gerberding also led the ATSDR – the toxicology division at CDC that cherry-picked aluminum safety data and, contra the rest of the world’s understanding of aluminum toxicity science, misinterpreted the one study they chose – an oral dose of ingested form of aluminum in adult mice – they relied upon to convince the world that vaccine doses of aluminum are likely safe.

Most Americans deflect the real significance of the knowledge that a CDC Director left for Merck with an eye-roll of how corrupt “the system” is, as if the status quo, as wrong as it is, is to be expected because it is the status quo. Most Americans seem to fail to process or let in the fact that this person oversaw the most corrupt era in biomedical science on the most imporant question of the latter quarter century: are vaccines safe for our children, our legacy, our reason as parents for everything we do?

The preamble to the United States Constitution reads

“…to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity…”

Our posterity is our children, our future generations.

Nevertheless, when Pharma convinced the Senate in the 1980’s that because there were so many lawsuits for injuries from vaccines they would pull out of the vaccine market unless their products were made liability-free, the result was the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act. Vaccine manufacturers were indemnified from liability – and since the Act became law, no American citizen can sue pharmaceutical companies for injury from their products. Part of the result has been a stagnation in technological development: vaccines would have been made safer due to recalls and losses in court. Instead, the paradigm that vaccine are “unavoidably unsafe” took hold, becoming codified, and it now represents the backbone legal paradigm upon which vaccine law and policies are based.

At the same time, the US public believes that “vaccine are safe, full stop” because that’s what the CDC says, and that’s what they are told by the media. This is not a paradox, but is, instead a direct contradiction of a statement of reality. The CDC and media are following a vaccine risk and injury denialist agenda that flies in the face of increasingly abundantly obvious facts:

(1) The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program has doled out over $4.5Billion in awards and settlements for vaccine INJURY.

(2) The US passed a law in 1986 mandating that vaccines be made safer, and that steps be taken to identify individuals who are at highest risk of vaccine injury or death. Those parts of the NCVIA have not been fulfilled, and yet vaccine manufacturers enjoy legal protection from liability.

When it became clear that vaccine makers were to become free from liability, pediatricians became concerned over their exposure to medical malpractice and injury lawsuits, and thus they, too were indemnified. The deal with those writing the act initially included that pediatricians would explain known risks to all patients and parents of patients so they could allow for prior and voluntary informed consent – in other words, parents would decide. The physicians countered with complaints that such a process would take too long and that the public really would not be able to make the right choice in the face of such information, and so a compromise was crafted by which physicians could become “learned intermediaries” who would communicate the risks via CDC’s Vaccine Information Statements (VISs). These sheets of paper were to be given to patients prior to any vaccination decision, and the physcian was to abide by the decision of the parents or patient.

That’s the law codified following the compromise.

Since then, the CDC has worked to change the language of the VISs out of concern that they were scaring parents away from vaccination. They went so far as to try to censor American citizens’ comments, including yours truly, in an open, public comment period against weakening the language of the MMR. Some simple legal communications reverse their very bad decisions.

Since then, the American Academy of Pediatrics has issued a statement that pediatricians can kick families who choose to not vaccinate out of their practices. Since then, the US Press has amplified irresponsible and Un-American calls to prosecute American doctors and citizens for discussing vaccine risk.

Let’s remember that since then, in 2017, Rachel Cohen, of The Boston Herald called speech against vaccines a “hanging offense”. Lynching – a mob act of violence that is the epitome of an expression of hate in America, does not belong in the minds of those seeking a rational future of healthy immunity.

Since then, in 2018, the WHO called so-called “Anti-vaxxers” (itself a form of hate speech) one of the top public health threats of 2019.

It is stunning, therefore, that the WHO scientists last month on Dec 2, 2019, were videotaped calling for vaccine safety science to shore up public confidence in vaccines.

These events are best covered, I think, by the Highwire’s Del Bigtree and team’s latest episode, their first in 2020, the snippets played capture language being used that some in the US would like to have labeled ‘hate speech’.

Some selected stunning admissions from WHO are here.

You can access the full WHO video here, and the Highwire coverage on Youtube.

In the WHO video of the event, Dr. Heidi Larson, a US anthropologist (not a biologist, nor a geneticist, nor an immunologist), says the following:

“We’re in a unique position in human history, where we’ve shifted the human population … to dependency on vaccine-induced immunity. And that’s on the great assumption that populations would cooperate. And for many years people lined up, the six vaccines, people were there, they saw the reason. We’re in a very fragile state now. We have developed a world that is dependent on vaccinations. We don’t have a choice but to make that effort, to make that extra… Our biggest, one of our biggest challenges, I think now, is getting rid of the term ‘anti-vax’, getting rid of the hostile language, and starting to have more conversations, to be open to questions, to make people feel like they shouldn’t be judged when they’re asking questions. As crazy as those questions might seem to you, as, as stupid as they might seem, or as ignorant as they might seem. We can’t risk losing another person’s confidence in safety right now.”

This is the same Heidi Larson who had previously called for tracking of vaccine dissenters (BBC Video Link, courtesy John Stone:)

The WHO’s Vaccine Confidence project represents a major paradigm shift, and governments of the world and the press should take note: All of the points made by the participants have been being made repeatedly over the years by the so-called “Anti-Vaxxers”, the “Vaccine Hesitant”, who prefer to be called “The Vaccine Risk Aware”, or, especially if they or their loved ones represent the initial observations of vaccine injury, “Ex-Vaxxers”.

The Vaccine Risk Denialism agenda has left pediatricians in an extremely socially vulnerable position. As studies come out in 2020 showing adverse health outcomes associated with vaccination, the public will be demanding answers from their pediatricians on how they could not have known. “I did not know, we were not taught anything about vaccines in medical school” is not going to be an acceptable answer. Proof of this is below, in the videos and the transcripts for selected clips.

I know the public will demand answers, and they will demand change. As a voice of reason, I propose that we take a civilized response as possible, and, along with parents of vaccine injured children, establish a Vaccine Injury and Death Truth and Reconciliation Panel, empowered by Congress with prosecutorial powers, to bring forward complete and full disclosure from all parties to scientific fraud and medical malfeasance and misconduct. There are a large number of changes that must be made right away to ensure safe passage of our population out of vaccine dependency into a future of healthy immunity.

(1) Vaccines should no longer to legally considered “unavoidably unsafe”.   A House and Senate resolution stating this should suffice.

(2) Pediatricians should no longer be protected from liability.  Informed consent in the officemust be mandated and existing laws and Federal regulations must be enforced.

(3) Vaccine makers should no longer protected from liability. 

(4) Mandatory active tracking of vaccine injury by a non-governmental institution should be enacted.

(5) Parts of the Act that mandate making vaccines safer and finding those at highest risk would have to be prioritized and such research should be independent of vaccine profit interests.

(6) Ban thimerosal.

(7) Ban aluminum.

(8) Ban unsafe epitopes.

(9) All vaccine safety science should be done with a pool of funds from Pharma and the US Gov’t, distributed via NIH-like grant reviews to investigators not vested in vaccinations.

(10) Ban incentives for vaccine quotas.

(11) Mandate the funding of curative treatments for vaccine injuries.

(12) Immediate compensation of all who have filed in the NVICP and reform the compensation program to seek out and identify those most harmed by vaccines.

(13) Reform vaccine risk education in medical schools.

I have a hard time considering not prosecuting someone to make an example of for violating the rights to informed consent for experimentation without consent; it’s in CFR, and violations are rampant. 

We need to codify real restrictions in regulatory agency personnel rights.
Most don’t know, for example, that Dr. Julie Gerberding headed up the ATSDR at CDC when they faked aluminum safety transmogrifying a PTWI (provisional tolerable weekly intake) from 1-2 mg/week to 1 mg/kg/day (adults).

Most do know that oral doses of aluminum have nothing to do w/injected doses, but most do not know that that FDA’s  850-1150 mcg per dose fiasco seems “safe” due to ATSDR’s bullshit on aluminum oral safety doses.

Dr. Gerberding headed up the ATSDR, buried the Destefano et al. fraudulent study, and made CYA statements in the press on vaccines and autism before she jumped ship.

The audacity of the social and societal impact of these comments today, in mid-January, 2020, may appear to be beyond the pale of objectivity or even reality to some. But I will predict, given the discussion that the WHO has now opened, that by January 13, 2021, we will see either major societal upheaval as the entrenched system of corruption fights to maintain its stronghold, or a Truth and Reconciliation movement that will carry forward a civil change in society.

I would be pleased to help create the panel of individuals that I think would be most able to adjudicate the proceedings. My selections will surprise some. Of course, trust in these people is key, and they should be non-partisan. They should have done their homework on vaccines, and in an established manner, they should have wisdom of experience. Most of all, they should be pro-science. We cannot have a future in which Science is blamed for Corruption’s influences.

And they should protect pediatricians and lead the charge for reform of vaccine risk education in medical schools.

Here is the Youtube-generated transcript of the Highwire’s selected clips, slightly edited from listening to the audio (emphases mine):

Prof. Heidi Larson, PhD (Director, WHO Vaccine Safety Confidence Project). There’s a lot of safety science that’s needed and without the good science we can’t have good communication so although I’m talking about all these other contextual issues and communication issues. It absolutely needs, science [it] is the backbone. You can’t repurpose the same old science to make it sound better if you don’t have the science that’s relevant to the new problem. So we need much more investment in safety science.

Soumya Swaminathan, MD (Chief Scientist, WHO Pediatician). I think we cannot overemphasize the fact that that we really don’t have very good safety monitoring systems in many countries and this adds to the miscommunication and the misapprehensions because we’re not able to give clear-cut answers when people ask questions about the deaths that have occurred due to a particular vaccine and this always gets blown up in the media. One should be able to give a very factual account of what exactly’s happened and what the cause of that saw but in most cases there’s some obfuscation at that level and and therefore there’s less and less trust then in the system.

Dr. Martin Howell Friede (Coordinator, Initiative for Vaccine Research, WHO/HW/IVR). Every time that there is an association be a temporal or not temporal the first accusation is it is the adjuvant and yet without adjuvants we are not going to have the next generation of vaccines and many of the vaccines that we do have ranging from tetanus through to HPV require adjuvants in order for them to work so the challenge that we have in front of us is how do we build confidence in this and the confidence first of all comes from the regulatory agencies.

When we add an adjuvant it’s because it is essential we do not add adjuvants to vaccines because we want to do so but when we add them it it adds to the complexity and I give courses every year on how do you develop vaccines how do you make vaccines and the first lesson is while you’re making your vaccine if you can avoid using an adjuvant please
do so Lesson two is if you’re going to use an adjuvant use one that has a history of safety and lesson three is if you’re not going to do that think very carefully

Stephen Evans (BA MSc FRCP Hon. FRCP, Professor of Pharmacoepidemiology, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine). It seems to me that adjuvants multiply the immunogenicity of the antigens that they are added to and that is their intention it seems to me they multiply the reactogenicity in many instances and therefore it seems to me that it is not too unexpected if they multiply the incidence of adverse reactions that are associated with the antigen but may not have been detected through lack of statistical power in the original studies.

Friede: You are correct as we add our events especially some of the more recent adjuvant such as the ASO and Saponin and derived adjuvant we do see increased local reactogenicity. The primary concern though usually is systemic adverse events rather than local adverse events and we tend to get in the Phase Two in the Phase Three studies quite good data on the local reactogenicity. Those of us in this room that are beyond the age of 50 who have had the pleasure of having the recent shingles vaccine will know that this does have quite significant localreactogenicity if you got the vaccine. You know that you got the vaccine.

But this is not the major health concern the major health concern which we are seeing are accusations of long term long term effects. So to come back to this once again I’m going to point to the regulators. It comes down to ensuring that we conduct the Phase Two in the Phase Three studies
with adequate size and with the ad with appropriate measurement.

Dr. David Kaslow, MD (VP Essential Medicines Drug Development Program (PATH Center for Vaccine Innovation and Access). So in our clinical trials we are actually using relatively small sample sizes and when we do that we’re at risk of tyranny of small numbers which is you just need a single case of Wegener’s granulomatosis and your vaccine has to solve Walt’s (Orenstein) “How do you prove a null hypothesis” and it takes years and years to try to figure to figure that out so it’s a real conundrum right getting the right the right size dealing with the tyranny of small numbers making sure that you can can really do it and so I think one of the things that we really need to invest in are kind of better biomarkers, better mechanistic understanding of how these things work so we can better understand adverse events as they come up.

Dr. Marion Gruber (Director, Office of Vaccine Research and Review, CBER, FDA). One of the additional issues that complicates safety evaluation is if you look at a new struggle is the length of follow-up that should be adequate in a let’s say pre-licensure or even post marketing study if that’s even possible… and again as you mentioned pre-licensure clinical trials may not be powered enough … it’s also the subject population that you administer the adjuvant to because we’ve seen data presented to us where in at event a particular achievement added to a vaccine antigen did really nothing when administered to a certain population and usually the elderly you know compared to to administering the same formulation to two younger age strata so so these are things which need to be considered as well and further complicate safety and effectiveness evaluation of achievements combined with vaccine antigens

Dr. Bassey Okposen, Program Director, National Emergency Routine Immunization Coordination Center, Nigeria). It comes back my mind to our situation in Nigeria where our six weeks 10 weeks 14 weeks a child is being given different antigens from different companies and these vaccines have different are different different preservatives and so on something crosses my mind is there a possibility of these advanced preservatives cross-reacting amongst themselves have they ever been study on the possibility of cross reactions among themselves that you can share the experience with us?

Dr. Robert Chen (Brighton Collaboration). Now the only way to tease that out is if you have a large population database like the Vaccine Safety Datalink as well as some of the other national databases that are coming to being where the actual vaccine exposure is tracked down to that level of specificity of who is the manufacturer what is the lab number etc etc And and there’s initiative to try to make the vaccine label information
bar-coded so that it includes that level of information so that in the future when we do these type of studies were able to tease that out. And and in order to be –each time you subdivide them the sample size gets becoming more and more challenging and that’s what I said earlier today about that we’re really only in the beginning of the era of large data sets where hopefully you could start to kind of harmonize the databases for multiple studies and there’s actually a initiative underway. Helen there may want to comment on it to try to get more national vaccine safety data base linked together so we could start to answer these type of questions that you just raised.

Larson: The other thing that’s a trend and in an issue is not just confidence in providers but confidence of healthcare providers. We have a very wobbly health professional front line that is starting to question vaccines and the safety of vaccines. When the front line professionals are starting to question or they don’t feel like they have enough confidence about the safety to stand up to it to the person asking them the questions I mean most medical school curriculums even nursing curriculums I mean in medical school you’re lucky if you have a half-day vaccines nevermind keeping up to date with all this.

Printable/Shareable (PDF or .doc)

What the Public Should Expect from Legitimate Scientists

What the Public Should Expect from Legitimate Scientists

WHEN IPAK launched our initial inquiry into the FDA logic behind lax regulation of pediatric dosing of aluminum, we had no idea what we would find in terms of the history of how and why dosing of aluminum in vaccines is stated per dose, rather than in terms of mcg/kg/day. We had no idea that we would find, when studying the provenance of information in the science behind vaccine aluminum toxicity, the use of information from oral doses of ingested forms of aluminum fed to adult mice and rats. We expected the bulk of the consideration would be data from dose escalation studies of injected forms of aluminum in infant mice. Failing to find any such studies, we wondered what a toxic pediatric dose limit might look like, thus leading to our “Reconsideration” study.

We also found studies that were based – roughly – on the plasma clearance rates of aluminum in adults – only to find serious issues with the studies providing the initial model parameters upon which the now infamous Mitkus study were based. The Mitkus study estimated pediatric plasma clearance of aluminum from available data from creatinine, not aluminum hydroxide salts – for which there can be no explanation other than the US FDA did not find it a priority to use Science to estimate pediatric clearance. Their multicompartment model itself has issues, not the least of which is the consideration that the initial model data were based on a single dose in a handful of human adults. The CDC schedule exposes infants to repeated doses in a manner completely independent of bodyweight and not based on any empirical data even from serum or plasma clearance. And, as I have pointed out more precisely, plasma clearance is irrelevant to the mechanisms of pathophysiology of aluminum. The tissue damage is not conducted in plasma. However, it is worth pointing out that 80% of injected aluminum is bound to transferrin, preventing dietary-sourced iron from being moved from the blood into the bone marrow, where red blood cells are made. An expected effect of aluminum, therefore, is anemia. There are other effects as well that will be explored in peer-reviewed articles that are being prepared.

There is a recent article – a very good one – by AHRP that outlines how the very same characters who have attacked my character, my personality, and insulted me regarding my career path – have similarly attacked another scientist, Dr. Gayle Delong, with the intent – and effect – of having a study she conducted to examine the question of whether the HPV vaccine reduces human fertility retracted. The same set of characters also attacked a Japanese researcher for demonstrating issues with aluminum injections in mice, a researcher from Spain who found horrific outcomes in sheep vaccinated with aluminum-containing vaccines.

A small vocal minority of people should not determine the course of scientific discourse in any inquiry, especially in an area of inquiry that influences the health of billions of people. Their tactics are telling. They would appear to want to leave the impression of being professional scholars when addressing editors of journals, only to turn around and act completely sophomoric with juvenile, inappropriate, and even defamatory statements (such as calling me an “Ex-Scientist”, or even calling me “Anti-vaccine”) in blog articles. The fact that the same people are involved in the letters to editors and in the public shaming exercises is evidnece of their scarcity. Perhaps three or four people are responsible for the veritable book-burning, skewing the balance of science in favor of ignorance, damaging Science, compromising the integrity of Science, leading to a continuance of the status quo, regardless of whether anything is seriously wrong with injecting aluminum and mercury into pregnant women and infants with developing brains and immune systems. These rogue agents are no doubt learning that their charade is becoming well known, their behavior predictable, and therefore the impact of their criticism in both arenas will become increasingly decreased – especially given the large number of studies currently underway being conducted on all aspects of vaccine safety and efficacy by institutions that have no financial interest in profits from vaccines.

The public, however, should also be aware that this is not how Science is conducted. Scientific discourse is an essential part of progress in Science, but the place for such discourse is not in secret letters to editors, but instead in the form of published discourse in the pages of a journal, to which the authors of the original study would have an opportunity to reply, point for point, in the open, for all to see and consider. Rational consideration of both sets of points by the Scientific community would then lead to individual and then joint (group) consensus on ther merits or demerits of a study.

In this way, all phases of Science –

There are three main phases in the lifecyle of Scientific inquiry. In the private phase, an investigator or team of investigators conceives of a study, designs the study, conducts the measurements, plans and conducts the analysis, writes the results in a paper. In the peer review phase, (optimally) anonymous reviewers have a go at the paper, offer critical review, and weigh in on whether a study should be published. In the public phase, the study is read by the community. Community members can offer feedback in the form of viewpoints in praise of (or critical of) the details of a given study. Fundamental flaws are unlikely given the peer reviewers would have already likely considered issues with the design features of a study. If, however, such flaws make the conclusions of a study unwarranted – and this requires a careful read of the actual conclusions of the author(s) of a study – the study might be withdrawn by the author(s), retracted by a journal, or allowed to stand if the authors’ replies ‘rehabilitate’ the study with, for example, further evidence.

There are other options instead of outright retraction. A revision is possible via the publication of an “Erratum” – in which which the study author(s) acknowledge a mistake, and state whether or how the error impacted the conclusions of the study.

So what can the Public expect from a legitimate Scientist? The Public can expect a Legitimate Scientist to stand up for his, or her, reputation, and, in so doing, stand up for Science as a way of knowing. I will defend and promote anything that enhances rationality in Science and will work to minimize anything that sustains an illegitate cabal of conspirators whose online tantrums reveal their true nature. In this manner, Science is created and sustained as a human enterprise.

Others, unfortunately, are waiting for newly published Science to destroy.

Is CBC’s ‘Marketplace’ Planning a “Spy vs. Spy” Hit Piece on IPAK and James Lyons-Weiler, PhD For Educating the Public on Science?

On New Year’s Eve, I received an email from a Katie Pedersen from CBC News informing me that CBC news had sent an undercover reporter to a VIP event following the VIE event in Washington, DC. I had a conversation with a man who represented himself as being interested in how best to organize vaccine risk awareness in the Western Provinces of Canada. I offered by opinion, and then he pursued setting up an IPAK Science Day (to my knowledge unconnected to any particular piece of legislation, but nevertheless) and asked an IPAK Science Facilitator (SF) to inquire about costs. In email exchanges, he proferred that he could bring in 400 people; obviously, the more people, the lower the cost. I think the last communication I had about this with my SF was a quote of $15 if it were that many people. We never agreed on a final donation level per person for the fictional event he was planning. Nevertheless, here is the statement I shared with Ms. Pederson. See what you think?

I notice in the message that they twist my words a bit to make it seem like I want to inflict damage to the public via “death by 1,000 cuts”; clearly, that would be rather psychopathic. I’m grateful to Katie for sharing their misinterpretation, and the chance to correct it. I represent the public’s interests in objective, evidence-based medicine and biomedical research. I am looking forward to their broadcast sometime after January 7th, I’m told.


Thank you for your email message.

My statement is provided below, with the proviso that the entire statement be used, and if you decide to use part of the statement, that you inform the public that you have edited by comment, and where they can
access the complete comment.

Given the misinformation campaigns that our, and other organizations have uncovered regarding the unscientific claims made by US CDC and other organizations on the universal safety of vaccines, I stand by my position that we must educate the public and the medical/regulatory community at all points (“death (of ignorance) by 1,000 cuts).

The question posed about strategy was in the context of whether one large organization would be effective. One organization would likely underrepresent the size of the population of vaccine risk aware Canadians. Clearly, one large organization would also be susceptible to capture by those who profit to the tune of $US27Billion a year from vaccines in the United States. Regulatory capture of US regulatory agencies is now 100%; FDA receives most of its funding from pharmaceutical companies’ fees for processing clinical trials submissions; CDC receives over $20 million per year from pharmaceutical interests via their “not-for-profit” CDC Foundation, which also funds activists organizations that deny that vaccine injury and death do occur. Whether such funds are also funneled into lobbying efforts is under investigation.

The US National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program has paid out over US$4.5 Billion in compensation and settlements for vaccine injuries in the US, and has become a seriously adversarial program when it was promised to US citizens that it would be set up as a non-adversarial application process for settlements following vaccine injury or death. There is so much wrong with the ethics of the regulation of vaccines that effective organizations would work on all points at oner time, thus keeping our adversaries’ (Pharma lobbyists’) heads spinning on how to counter the emerging truths. In speaking with me on how to organize vaccine risk aware organizations, your reporter asked my opinion, which I gladly gave, because I am convinced that we need vaccine risk research reform. The solution to ignorance is Science, and society has been kept in the dark on 1,000 issues on vaccine. The larger the number of orgnizations, the more effective the pursuit to educate as many as possible, and thus, my analogy is apt. Truly informed choice requires knowledge, and citizens should be entitled to free, prior, informed and voluntary consent, under international bioethics guidelines.

In my analytical and professional review of observational/correlation studies conducted and contracted by the US CDC and considered by the National Academy of Sciences’ Institutes of Medicine (IOM) on the question of vaccines and autism, the quality of the science used by CDC to propagate misinformation is extremely poor, with underpowered studies predominating, which are not capable of detecting an association between vaccines and autism given the type of study. This problem was recognized by IOM in a 2012 report in which they rejected 17/22 studies forwarded to them by CDC for consideration, including the now infamous Destefano et al. study, which excluded results showing increased risk of autism from on-time MMR vaccination in African American males and in children with isolated autism. In the end, the IOM did not find that vaccines do not cause autism. They found that insufficient evidence existed to determine whether a causal relationship exists or not. In a series of reports, that were supposed to continue into perpetuity under the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, the IOM found insufficient evidence, rejected 17/22 studies as flawed, and then came to a determination somehow that the issue was settled. HHS stipulated in a lawsuit to the Informed Choice Action Network, and to Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., that further bienniel safety reports by HHS/CDC to Congress never occured, in spite of the provisions in the 1986 act mandating continuing studies and reports. How the announced IOM determination came about is circumspect; it appears the chairperson unilaterally announced a determination at a press conference that was not quite what the committee had found and misrepresented the full committee’s position. In 2001, the IOM was informed by Dr. Marie McCormick that Dr. Walter Orenstein of the CDC did not want them to find evidence that supported the association between vaccines and autism. In minutes acquired by Safeminds (attached), Dr. McCormick had made it clear – the committee was not to conclude that vaccines are related to autism is any way, and that was the preferred outcome of the CDC. The IOM was supposed to be an independent research body, not one dictated to by the CDC.

Link 0:

I have further formally evaluated the 5 studies, along with the 46 sent to POTUS by AAP, and found methodological flaws that make the conclusion “Vaccine Do Not Cause Autism” an unlikely conclusion.

Moreover, no studies have been conducted on the presence of a genetic risk of vaccine sensitivity leading to autism. It is my published scientific view that autism is a detoxification deficiency syndrome with a genetic basis, and that vaccines are not exonerated as a causal factor. The late great Dr. Bernadine Healy, former Director of the US National Institutes of Health, and Dr. Julie Gerberding, former Director the US CDC, who left CDC for a lucrative high-ranking position at Merck, both stated on public television that individuals with certain genetic risk factors might be predisposed to develop autism following vaccination.

Link 1:

Link 2:

CDC studies on vaccines and autism have only focused on two vaccines. It is stunning, therefore, that CDC relies on an unwarranted and unscientific claim that “Vaccines Do Not Cause Autism” based on studies focused on two vaccines. Consider that most vaccines on the CDC schedule have not been tested for association. Science that has found association has been ignored by CDC. CDC has relied on the wrong types of studies because correlation studies cannot test causality, and not all vaccines have been tested for association with autism. The correct type of retrospective study seeking a genetic and vaccine interaction would look at those who are highest risk of ASD with, and without any vaccination. Such studies, we are told, would be unethical, but that position begs the question of the risk:benefit ratio of vaccines, which is unknown. Harvard-Pilgrim reported that only as few of 1% of vaccine adverse events are reported to the US HHS’s VAERS system, which is touted as evidence that vaccine adverse events are studied in so-called “post-market surveillance studies”. This is odd because any user of the VAERS system must acknowledge that the system cannot be used to assess causality. When CDC learned of the ESP-VAERS project results, they stopped returning phone calls.

Link 3:

Regarding payment for coming to any location to meet and educate citizens, lawmakers, or regulatory body members, it is a fair balance of the role of truly not-for-profit organizations to educate, while others lobby on any specific legislation that might be pending. Clearly, as a lifelong educator, it is not unexpected that I would be paid for services at an educational event. In my travels, I have neither testified for, nor against any particular pending bill, and in fact when I do testify or provide comment to elected bodies, I always make a point to state clearly, and up front, that I will not be sharing my position for, or against, any particular bill or piece of legislation. I also reveal that I have a potential conflict of interest given that I am an expert witness on numerous cases of vaccine injury pending and concluded in the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. It is not my position to lobby for votes or campaign for, or against any particular candidate for public office, and I refrain from doing so. If your reporter had asked me my position on any particular bill, which he did not, I certainly could have shared my position to him, for he is not an elected official charged with voting for, or against, any legislation, and I am free to voice my opinion to individuals. If any reporter were to ask me my opinion on any particular candidate, I would likely refrain unless that candidate was running for office in my district, and I do not spend time scrutinizing individual candidates nor elected representatives.

The IPAK Science Day program, new to 2020, has only just begun, but your math assumes a specific “cost” and attendance combination that is not assured, and does not include consideration of costs associated with running such a conference. IPAK has, and will continue to offer other, larger conferences in the past, including a conference on Vaccine Safety Science in 2017 (see e.g., ) with speakers from academia and from other organizations. IPAK offers online courses as well, focused on how to read, interpret and critically evaluate scientific research studies. Your reporter insinuated that there must be a way for me to “get paid”, and I merely informed him (or intended to inform him) of our planned Science Days as an alternative, which for maximum public benefit will occur the day before large gatherings in state capitols, whether I testify or offer public comment, or not. Regardless, for the record, IPAK, not I, as an individual, receives payment for such events as suggested donations for conferences, Science Days and online courses via registration “fees” collected as donations to IPAK via our website, and such funds are used to meet the cost of the events (venue, catering, AV, etc), and to support biomedical research in the public interest. We have allowed individuals who attend such events who do not wish to donate to attend without donation.

Rather than conduct politics, I much prefer to stay in the education and research zone to fill in the gaps by conducting the scientific biomedical research and education that US regulatory agencies and Universities have neglected. For example, US FDA has never published a per body-weight informed, per-day pediatric dose limit of aluminum for childhood vaccination practices. We have filled that gap with two recent peer-reviewed publication in the Journal of Trace Elements in Medicine and Biology (attached (Study 1 Study 2)) comparing the expected aluminum exposure in three vaccine schedules. Our results suggest that under the CDC schedule, we are subjecting infants to toxic levels (whole body burden) aluminum toxicity for 70% of days in the first seven months of life, compared to Dr. Paul Thomas’ “Vaccine Friendly Plan“, (an alternative vaccine schedule) which leads to an expected 5% of days up to seven months in aluminum toxicity. No body weight consideration is given to vaccination of pre-term, low birthweight infants in the NICU with 250 mcg of aluminum injected on Day 1 in the Hepatitis B vaccine. In 2017, in our #NICUChallenge, I issued a challenge to the medical community to provide evidence, in the form of peer-reviewed research, that 250 mcg of aluminum injections into 2kg infants in the NICU is safe; none provided any such evidence. About 80% of influenza vaccines contain thimerosal, and no reliable research studies have been conducted that show that aluminum in pediatric vaccines do not interact synergistically with thimerosal to cause problems with infant brain development. While vaccines are represented by some as universally “safe and effective”, the Informed Consent Action Network has provided a fantastically thorough assesment of the randomized clinical trials that have been conducted, and have reported that nearly all vaccines were tested against an adjuvant, or another vaccine, instead of an inert (inactive) placebo (See Vaccine Science White Paper, attached [Link]). No study of the health of children under the entire US CDC-recommended pediatric vaccination schedule has been compared to the health of children who are not vaccinated, and thus no such knowledge claims of universal safety and effectiveness are warranted. In the US, citizens in an identifiable at-risk group are entitled to equal protection from harm, and the denial of vaccine injury and death is a very cruel example of institutionalized and codified bigotry against the most at-risk families.

Your reporter neglected to ask me who the “them” was to which I was referencing, in terms of my comment of “keeping their heads spinning”, so I will take a moment to clarify: by “them”, I meant, specifically, the small number of agents working on behalf of pharmaceutical companies to misinform the public and lawmakers by exaggerations of the quality of vaccine safety science; those who misinform the public, through the media, on important facts that an informed public should want to know: that vaccines contain neurotoxins, immunotoxins, some are made with aborted fetal cells, that science certainly does exist that aluminum hydroxide induces conditions such as asthma, allergic rhinitis, Lupus, rheumatoid arthritis and other autoimmune conditions in mice and rats at doses that overlap the per-body weight doses of aluminum exposure in human children on the CDC schedule, and that if a genetic basis of autoimmunity is present, the dose used in animal studies is smaller. Most of the public does not know that autoimmune conditions can be reliably and reproducibly induced in rats and mice with aluminum hydroxide. In terms of ‘weaponizing books’ against misinformation and Science-Like Activities that have been used as poor substitutes for bona fide vaccine science, I believe such books, including “HPV Vaccine on Trial“, which reveals serious flaws in Merck’s submitted research to the FDA for approval of their Gardasil vaccine, and my own book, “The Environmental and Genetic Causes of Autism” (Simon & Schuster), which cites primary, peer-reviewed source material (1,000 peer-reviewed studies cited in the latter), are excellent tools to educate as many people as possible of the balance of the evidence and Science that exists in spite of cherry-picking by CDC, AAP, and others. (For what it’s worth, I borrowed the term “weaponize books” from an online detractor who accused us of weaponizing books. I think you will agree that books are an excellent weapon against ignorance?)

For the record, I am far from anti-vaccine; I am pro-science, and the problems with vaccines that have been buried by a denialist agenda are now becoming common knowledge in the public. Continued denial of vaccine risk and injury will only increase the number of families with vaccine injured members, increase the number of vaccine risk aware citizens, and we therefore need to chart a new path toward, as US Congress mandated in 1986, to make vaccines safer, and to identify those at highest risk.

Science is for asking questions, and vaccines are in no way immune to independent scientific inquiry. Studies on toxicity, safety and efficacy are all fair game to scientists worthy of the title. US regulatory agencies including CDC, NIH, and the FDA have abdicated their roles as keepers of the public trust in Science, and that explains why IPAK, the Institute for Pure and Applied Knowledge, has such broad and growing international appeal to the public as an alternative, truly not-for-profit entity is carrying the torch of objectivity in Science into the next decade. Hopefully, others will respond by following in kind with objectivity and concern for the safety of all children and adults who choose to vaccinate.

If you need any further details on statements I have made, I will gladly provide additional reference material.


James Lyons-Weiler, PhD
PS See http:/ for more information from that organizations’ research and legal dealings with the captured regulatory agencies in the US.

PPS The following is a direct quote from the IOM 2012 report in which IOM soundly rejected 17/22 studies as flawed. Those studies were cited by the Taylor meta-analysis, and by AAP, as if IOM had not scrutinized them. This is an example of fact white-washing that lead to ignorance, which must die by 1,000 cuts. The quote begins at “The committee”. I provided the link as Link 0, above.

The Taylor meta-analysis’ conclusion is based in part on studies rejected by IOM in 2012 as too flawed to be considered for the report on vaccines/autism link. In fact they rejected 17/22 studies. leaving five studies:

“The committee reviewed 22 studies to evaluate the risk of autism after the administration of MMR vaccine. Twelve studies (Chen et al., 2004; Dales et al., 2001; Fombonne and Chakrabarti, 2001; Fombonne et al., 2006; Geier and Geier, 2004; Honda et al., 2005; Kaye et al., 2001; Makela et al., 2002; Mrozek-Budzyn and Kieltyka, 2008; Steffenburg et al., 2003; Takahashi et al., 2001, 2003) were not considered in the weight of epidemiologic evidence because they provided data from a passive surveillance system lacking an unvaccinated comparison population or an ecological comparison study lacking individual-level data. Five controlled studies (DeStefano et al., 2004; Richler et al., 2006; Schultz et al., 2008; Taylor et al., 2002; Uchiyama et al., 2007) had very serious methodological limitations that precluded their inclusion in this assessment. Taylor et al. (2002) inadequately described the data analysis used to compare autism compounded by serious bowel problems or regression (cases) with autism free of such problems (controls).

DeStefano et al. (2004) and Uchiyama et al. (2007) did not provide sufficient data on whether autism onset or diagnosis preceded or followed MMR vaccination.

The study by Richler et al. (2006) had the potential for recall bias since the age at autism onset was determined using parental interviews, and their data analysis appeared to ignore pair-matching of cases and controls, which could have biased their findings toward the null. Schultz et al. (2008) conducted an Internet-based case-control study and excluded many participants due to missing survey data, which increased the potential for selection and information bias. The five remaining controlled studies (Farrington et al., 2001; Madsen et al., 2002; Mrozek-Budzyn et al., 2010; Smeeth et al., 2004; Taylor et al., 1999) contributed to the weight of epidemiologic evidence and are described below.”


On Tue, Dec 31, 2019, 3:18 PM KATIE PEDERSEN wrote:

Dear James Lyons-Weiler,

I am a journalist with CBC News: Marketplace, a national consumer affairs program with Canada’s public broadcaster.

Our team is working on a story about vaccine hesitancy and recently attended the V.I.E. Event in Washington, DC as part of our research.

While at the VIP event on the evening of November 14, we documented a conversation that took place between one of our journalists and yourself about the anti-vaccination movement and your role within it.

During this conversation, our journalist asked you for advice about how to start regional anti-vax movements in Canada. You told him among other things to use a tactic of “death by 1000 cuts.” You also told him “keep their heads spinning” in reference to how to further progress the cause with the public and legislators. You also recommended “weaponizing” books by giving out publications that raise questions about HPV.

You told the journalist that you wouldn’t charge to speak at an event in Canada because that would make you an “international lobbyist,” but you proposed another way to get paid where you would hold a “science day” the day before and charge admission in return for speaking.

When we later followed up with you and your team via email, we learned from these conversations that fees would be $20 to $45 USD depending on attendance. Based on an attendance of 400, this would have totalled $8,000 USD.

We plan to report what we’ve learned from our team’s conversations with you in an upcoming broadcast on Marketplace. We also plan to report that you have spoken at other events, claiming that vaccines “can and do cause autism.”

Over the course of our research, we spoke with many leaders in the anti-vaccination movement and consulted with scientists, medical doctors, researchers and vaccinologists about the issue of vaccine hesitancy in Canada and around the world. The broadcast is not about yourself specifically, but rather, a broader documentary about vaccine hesitancy.

Now in our 47th season, Marketplace is broadcast across Canada and is one of the longest-running current affairs programs in the country. We are committed to fair and responsible journalism in all our reports.

We would like to provide you the opportunity to respond to our findings. Our report will be one of our first episodes after the holidays, so we sincerely hope you can provide us with a statement by Tuesday, January 7.

If you have any questions, you can reach me on the phone at xxx-xxx-xxxx or via email at Thank you in advance for your response


Katie Pedersen

Katie Pedersen

CBC Marketplace
p: xxx-xxx-xxxx
c: xxx-xxx-xxxx

Pharmacist-in-Hiding AAAB Continues to Ignore the Obvious

Pharmacist-in-Hiding AAAB Continues to Ignore the Obvious

There is evidently another round of ignoring the obvious in the back-and-forth between AAAB, the Anonymous Aluminum Apologist Blogger (AAAB), who introduces themself thusly, and themselves:

“This article is by VaultDwellerSYR, a pseudonym used by a faculty member of a School of Pharmacy within a large medical school.”

Feigning fear of “attack” due to a “delicate time” in their career, this person appears to be afraid of losing a bid for career advancement in academia. For what? For engaging in open, rational discourse in the leaves of a peer-reviewed journal. Has part of academia fallen so low that bona fide publications on the question of aluminum toxicity, even in defense of its safety, have become taboo? If so, I am so very glad to be a truly independent research scientist.

AAAB pastes post-it notes of “victim” all over themself for my daring to call them out on their charades, and their mischaracterization of my criticism of them for failing to grasp at the real brass ring of honest, open dialog on issues that truly matter. But that’s all chatter, irrelevant to the points at hand.

In this latest retort, AAAB behaves less sophomorically than in his first tirade, realizing of course now that they are dealing with a true professional, a veteran of many, many academic engagements and research projects. The tone of the two articles is markedly shifted, which I take as me raising the standard of articles published at the website, Skeptical Raptor.

So let’s have a go at this latest rebuttal. First, I refute and negate that it is “my responsibility alone” to show that my null hypothesis – the curve outlined by Clark’s rule, is not “irrelevant”. It’s the only null hypothesis of a safe pediatric dose of aluminum ever published. AAAB side-stepped the challenge to come up with his own curve, pitching the challenge back to me.

I could, for the fourth time, throw down the guantlet to the FDA and ask What IS a the safe level pediatric dose curve for aluminum adjuvants in humans? I’m not the one who published so many recommendations of aluminum oxyhyroxide-containing vaccines; that was ACIP. I’m not the one who publishes a recommended schedule packed full of ACV’s; that’s CDC. I’m not the one who is eternally silent on a safe dose of aluminum for newborns, infants in the NICU, 1-year olds, 2-year olds and so on. My colleague Dr. Ricketson and I in 2018 proposed what might be – might be- a logical approach to addressing the pediatric safe dose limit, given that FDA has published limits per dose for adults, and we know roughly what adults weigh. So there’s our PDL for others to consider, to test; Science is, at its finest, a social enterprise: by all means, have it.

Does AAAB present new data on a new PDL refuting the hypothesis that Clark’s rule provided? No. Instead, AAAB carries on with the practice of obfuscation (of which FDA’s Mitkus paper is a glaring example), and thoroughly derails his own argument, again, of which I will shortly outline the shortcomings. But he does call upon me to test, with empirical data, the PDL implied by FDA’s 850 mcg per dose per adult body weight is, in fact, a correct estimate. Rest assured, AAAB, we are analyzing human subjects research data that seems likely to help us address that problem. We would expect, in a pediatric population, the rates of autoimmune conditions to be equivalent between children whose parents did not decline aluminum-containing vaccines and children whose parents did decline such vaccines. Please be patient, those data are in hand, but they are being written up right now.

We specifically undertook the studies we did because the FDA’s Mitkus study, and no other study, led to a PDL. AAAB would have his readers believe that because a multi-compartment model exists that is “complex, very complex”, Clark’s rule is irrelevant. That does not cut it for me. The mere existence of a complex multi-compartment model does not refute anything; it’s not robust empirical data, and it’s not based on rigorous empirical data for what it is.

(1) The study they cited would never lead to Clark’s rule, could never lead to Clark’s rule, and is unrelated to and thus does not falsify Clark’s rule whatsoever. Why? For one, it’s focused on plasma concentration first, which I already spelled out for AAAB is irrelevant to the known, i.e., published, mechanisms of action of aluminum toxicity.

(2) The study that AAAB thinks Weissman’s study validates (Flarend et al.) reported that 95% of aluminum hydroxide was still in the body of the rabbits after 28 days. That’s a big problem. Our concern (see point #1) is whole-body clearance, not plasma. The drop on plasma from high levels to low levels without evidence of body exit is a cause for grave concern, not a cause for reassurance. Perhaps an analog toxin would help. There are other toxins that have rapid plasma clearance, such as arsenic. Is arsenic safe due to rapid plasma clearance?

(3) [Added on 12/31, day 2 of this article] – The Weissner study deferred to the future for infant-to-2-year-old knowledge of the safety of aluminum adjuvants:

“With respect to children simple allometric dose scaling
is not adequate, in particular for infants below 2 years of
age due to complex age-related developmental changes (Lu
and Rosenbaum 2014). For that purpose, physiology-based
modeling is required as it is increasingly used in pediatric
drug development and toxicologic evaluations (Sharma and
McNeill 2009; Barrett et al. 2012).”

So AAAB’s appeal to Weissner is redundant, and his (and Orca’s) mispresentation that “all is well with aluminum dosing in infants” is disproven by his own source material. Weissner’s own model did not lead to a PDL, and she did not cite our PDL, published in 2018. [End section added on 12/31/2019].

AAAB teaches students how to use PK, using a trapezoidal model for estimating the area under the curve. Measurement alone does not ensure objectivity, even if it is quantitative. Thus, I’m not impressed: it really does not matter what tool you are measuring if you are measuring the wrong thing, or not able to interpret the significance of a 28-day retention of 95% of a toxin that is continuously, slowly being released over a long period. Thus, chronic toxicity.

The lack of fine-scale data is a bit bothersome for AAAB, and they surmise (guess) what would have been seen. They celebrate the horrific finding that plasma clearance is so fast it leads to measurements about the same as saline. So would arsenic. It’s problematic for aluminum safe dosing, evidently, because otherwise it would also clear from the body, which it does not, for quite some time. Time enough to interfere with brain development and balanced cellular development in the immune system. Aluminum kills cells via ER stress, and is released from those cells with oddly mishapen proteins: a recipe for autoimmunity if I ever heard one.

AAAB claims that I consider “my model” (i.e., the Clark’s rule-based PDL “valid”. Not quite. I don’t even consider the starting value of 850 mcg of aluminum for an adult “valid”. And I, and my co-authors, say so. I, and co-authors, also lament that the only safe level for aluminum that is body-weight based is the 4-5 mcg/kg/day limit for individuals with renal impairment. We propose that Clark’s rule might be useful for a liberal safe level, because, after all, infants have 20% glomular filtration rate at birth, and do not reach full adult capacity for two years. Aluminum is also a cause of renal impairment, so no, I don’t stand by Clark’s rule as “valid”. It would help if AAAB read our studies in detail to grasp our stance. Peer reviewers did. AAAB should not misrepresent our study nor position, for they risk setting up straw men, which we are not obligated to defend.

Nevertheless, nothing in our studies conflates IV administration with IM injection; we state clearly all of our concerns of the available studies that use IV administration. Our studies represent, and should be read as critique of the studies that came before ours, and include lamentations over the use of citrated forms, IV administration, adult instead of infant mice, oral forms instead of injected, etc, etc. AAAB would have their readers imagine that those criticisms apply to our study; they don’t, or rather, if they do, it’s because we, like Mitkus, used Priest’s flawed model. So our deconstuction is aided by these barbs aimed curiously only at our study, but those criticism are clearly already stated as limitations in our study, but they are not in Mitkus’ et al., nor sufficiently so in the Priest et al. study.

Our message is that Clark’s rule is evidently the best we can do toward an empirical regulation-based PDL that recognizes the limitations that AAAB acknowledges, which is why I am grateful for AAAB putting such a bright light on the flawed logic behind claims of safety of aluminum adjvants in doses as high as those found in the CDC’s pediatric vaccination schedule.

In the very, very complex model, I count ten compartments and twenty-seven transition parameters. Maybe twenty eight, but the missing parameter for which data are most relevant are data on the rate at which aluminum is exiting from the body. So let’s say there are thirty seven parameters, all estimated with error. I agree with AAAB that any study designed to grapple with estimation of so many parameters would have to be duly powered, and I agree with AAAB that the study AAAB cites is, likely, insufficiently powered. However, the model itself is irrelevant to the question posed by our research study unless it leads to an alternative, per-body weight, per day pedatric dose limit of aluminum hydroxide in humans – which it does not.

AAAB likes to falsely accuse me of not understanding different forms of chemicals, a canard that is irrelevant to whether studies have or have not been conducted to study the whole-body clearance of the forms of aluminum administered in the manner in which they are used in humans (that includes, once more, in infants, not adults). AAAB is clearly missing the larger picture, completely.

Neither I, nor my colleagues, ever claimed that aluminum release from the site of injection was rapid. The lengthy exposure from a granuloma may be reassuring to those who would see it as such – reassuring because it keeps plasma concentrations low. But that, too, is flawed thinking. In his own attack on our article, the primary focus by AAAB thus far has been on plasma clearance; whatever amount is there in the first few hours, and days, is reassuring to AAAB; it’s the net product of the inputs and the outputs; odd then that the clearance is a cause for concern for those who cite and acknowledge the published Science on specific, known mechanisms of pathophysiology (e.g., me) but it remains reassuring for those who do not (e.g., AAAB), even after it has been cited to them.

Long-release appears to not be a concern for AAAB, even though during that long release a patient may be exposed to other viruses and bacteria via infection, leading to increased likelihood of an adaptive immune response to such pathogens, which in a perfect world would be reassuring – a freebie vaccine, if you will. I have written extensively about the role of the oddly shaped proteins that are released due to the cellular death option of the adaptive unfolded protein response following genetic and environmental ER Stress. There is ample reason already to avoid a permanent state of being an overly adjuvanted person in a world of complex proteins. In world in which genetic variation exists among humans bringing some patient’s any-proteins one or two steps more similar in amino acid sequence or three-dimensional structure to a pathogen’s protein, the clinically unnecessary long-term duration of aluminum “in the body” (which includes, I remind AAAB, the bolus at the site of injection) logically then leads to the expectation of increased risk of autoimmunity through molecular mimicry. A second infection from a virus or bacteria could then cause cause a flare-up of an the autoimmune disorder.

For unknown reasons, AAAB cites (albeit obliquely) other’s representation of macrophage transportation of aluminum to the brain as well as descriptions of vaccine aluminum as nanoparticles. For the record, it is not questioned in mainstream aluminum toxicity whether aluminum can enter the brain, or not. An early published description (1985) of amyloid plaque cores (APCs) reports the non-proteinaceous part to be aluminum, part silica:

This reality should have been a source of dire concern for all since it was reported. There are many, many citations of findings of aluminum in the brain. The entire discussion on mechanisms of how aluminum enters the brain is obviated by its presence in the brain, and its known high brain persistance, all recorded in the scientific literature.

The issue of AAAB’s unfamiliarity of studies on the nature of aluminum brain toxicity can be rectified by further reading, such as the quote by Gherardi et al. (2015):

“…poorly biodegradable aluminum-coated particles injected into muscle are promptly phagocytosed in muscle and the draining lymph nodes, and can disseminate within phagocytic cells throughout the body and slowly accumulate in the brain” (Gherardi et al., 2015).

This citation and diverse many other references on aluminum neurotoxicity can be found here, especially Bondy (2015).

I also refer AAAB to this study that found intussesception and death due to aluminum-containing vaccines in guinea pigs:

It provides more data that shows that tissue-based toxicology is appropriate for aluminum, and that aluminum-containing vaccines are problematic. The study, “Incidental induction of secondary bowel disorders in guinea pigs during a batch safety test of veterinary vaccines”, reports:

“Histopathologically, the white nodules on the serous surface were granulomatous inflammatory foci that consisted of centrally located eosinophilic amorphous deposit, which were surrounded by macrophages, lymphocytes, and fibrin deposits. These granulomatous foci did not invade the muscular layer of intestine. The similar granulomatous inflammatory foci were detected within the sites of intussusception (Fig. 1b) and the focus of intestinal adhesion (Fig. 1c) in the symptomatic 7 guinea pigs. The eosinophilic amorphous deposits, which were found within the granulomatous foci, yielded partly positive response to aluminum staining…

The relevant aluminum toxicity levels are in tissue, not plasma.

Tissue, not plasma. Thus, whole-body toxicity is relevant, and plasma levels are irrelevant.

AAAB gallantly excused me from offering an apology (for heavens knows what imagined slight I may have conducted for daring to defend my position). However, not that I’m even slightly interested in AAAB’s identity, but I would never apologize to an anonymous, random person on the web.

AAAB also said that they did not care to have a response from me, that they didn’t require one, which, as ostentatious as that sounds, I respond, I’m sorry. We now live in a world in which independent objective not-for-profit Science, funded by the people, conducted for the people, is a reality. So you will be hearing from me and my colleagues again, and again, and again as we reduce human pain and suffering through knowledge.

To best support our research, pitch in with a small monthly donation to IPAK, the Institute for Pure and Applied Knowledge.

Orca Beaches Himself on Aluminum Toxicology, Killing Mitkus in the Process

Orca Beaches Himself on Aluminum Toxicology, Killing Mitkus in the Process

EVER SINCE I first published a reveal that pharmaceutical companies have successfully orchestrated a take-over of regulatory agencies at the expense of objectivity in the science of public health, I’ve been attacked for daring to hold the view that Science is for asking questions, and that, above all, objectivity should play a role in all of Science, including vaccine safety science. Among those assailing such an evidently revolutionary concept is an MD who has evidently assigned himself the role of gatekeeper over the safety of vaccines as a liability-free commercial product. While not trolling papers in journals requesting their retraction if they shine a bad light on vaccines, this MD’s latest assault occured a few days after independent investigative journalist and author James Grundvig revealed the irksome Orca’s identity as David Gorski, questioning whether a person employed in vocation as austere and revered as a medical doctor should conduct themselves in public like a five-year-old spewing filth and personal attacks on stewards of Objectivity in Science, allegedly in the name of Science, skewing his five followers’ perception of how one should think about vaccine safety science.

Among the most important of Orca’s (David’s) complaints about our latest objective Scientific research on the toxicity of aluminum in CDC’s pediatric schedule is his claim that our model has a flaw the he “immediately spotted”:

“I immediately spotted the sloppy, false assumption behind Lyons-Weiler’s (sic) ‘model,’ namely its use of data from intravenous, one dose administration of aluminum to base its model for IM doses of aluminum on and its failure to take into account the much lower bioavailability of aluminum from IM administration compared to IV…”

Well, good for you, David. We immediately spotted that flaw in the aluminum modeling area as well.

Here, David is referencing the Priest study. It’s too bad that Orca did not also “immediately spot” that the Priest study was used by the FDA and is the very keystone of FDA’s allowance of aluminum in vaccines is safe in their Mitkus et al . study.

Thank you, David. You have in one fell swoop made our entire points all the more clear and validated our conclusions. You’ve slayed Mitkus.

We at IPAK have bent over backwards to lament the lack of actual empirical data underlying the claims that aluminum dosing in vaccines is safe. Anyone who actually read and understood our first, or our second study will find that we have made extra effort to lay out the limitations of our study, including the weakness of the available data upon which our assumptions are based.

All of these concerns are to be foisted equally upon the FDA’s Apology-for-Not-Conducting-Science, the Mitkus study.

Every. Last. One.

Like McFarland et al. 2020, The Mitkus Aluminum Apology study uses models based on Priest’s extremely limited empirical data. That is one of the reasons why I started our research in this area in the first place: Thus, our study. Since FDA has not published nor enforced any aluminum adjuvant dose limits for pediatric vaccines or vaccine schedules, we reverse-engineered a pediatric dose limit based on an adult limit FDA has published – 850 mcg per adults – and, using a very commonly used rule to estimate pediatric doses limits when none exists, we published our FDA-based PDL. As I have published in my last response to an equally baseless attack by AAAB, the Mitkus study is dead, and these two have made what is perhaps their most significant intellectual contribution in Science by killing it.

David claims, incorrectly, that the FDA’s limit is based on Bishop et al., and therefore a new limit is not needed. Here is part of the abstract from Bishop et al.(1997) that tells us that David is not even reading his own source material and knows nothing whatsoever of the provenance of information leading to 850 mcg per dose in the limit set by the FDA:

We randomly assigned 227 premature infants with gestational ages of less than 34 weeks and birth weights of less than 1850 g who required intravenous feeding before they could begin enteral feeding to receive either standard or specially constituted, aluminum-depleted intravenous-feeding solutions. The neurologic development of the 182 surviving infants who could be tested was assessed by using the Bayley Scales of Infant Development at 18 months of age.

The 90 infants who received the standard feeding solutions had a mean (±SD) Bayley Mental Development Index of 95±22, as compared with 98±20 for the 92 infants who received the aluminum-depleted solutions (P = 0.39). In a planned subgroup analysis of infants in whom the duration of intravenous feeding exceeded the median and who did not have neuromotor impairment, the mean values for the Bayley Mental Development Index for the 39 infants who received the standard solutions and the 41 infants who received the aluminum-depleted solutions were 92±20 and 102±17, respectively (P = 0.02). The former were significantly more likely (39 percent, vs. 17 percent of the latter group; P = 0.03) to have a Mental Development Index of less than 85, increasing their risk of subsequent educational problems. For all 157 infants without neuromotor impairment, increasing aluminum exposure was associated with a reduction in the Mental Development Index (P = 0.03), with an adjusted loss of one point per day of intravenous feeding for infants receiving the standard solutions.

In preterm infants, prolonged intravenous feeding with solutions containing aluminum is associated with impaired neurologic development.

If David were correct (which he certainly is not), he would also criticize the FDA for setting a limit based on IV-sourced aluminum, just as he criticized McFarland et al. (2020) for using IV-sourced aluminum. David, however, is known his penchant for selective criticism, inconsistently applying standards of evidence to science he does, or does not agree with. David Gorski, MD is a master subjectivist when it comes to matters of science.

IPAK Did Its Homework PRIOR to Starting Any Study of Its Own

IPAK’s first foray into aluminum safety science was to map the provenance of the claim by FDA that 850 mcg of aluminum is safe regardless of body weight. One can find a reference to an 850 mcg limit as far back as 1984

Gupta (1995) (before Bishop) wrote:

“We, therefore, recommend that for immunogenicity studies of aluminum compound-adsorbed antigens in animals, the formulation intended for human use should be injected with a minimum dilution, preferably undiluted. The usual dose of aluminum used for human vaccines is around 0.5 mg. The upper allowable limit of aluminum adjuvants for injection in humans is 1.25 mg aluminum as per World Health Organization regulations (1990) and 0.85 to 1.25 mg aluminum as per United States Food and Drug Administration guidelines (May et al., 1984).”

May et al. (1984) cites the FDA’s 850 mcg to CFR 610.15 to the year 1982:

So much for Orca’s absolutely false knowledge claim.

During the 1990-2011 expanse of the vaccine schedule following the abandonment of Ethyl mercury (for all but influenza vaccine, preferentially prescribed, btw, by ACIP/CDC for pregnant women), the WHO, The CNANIC, the ATSDR, and the FDA all relied very heavily on animal studies fed a different type of aluminum than is injected into newborns in a flurry of considerations to the question of ‘how much is too much’. Worse, the animals were adults. Still worse, FDA cherry-picked one study, ultimately leaning on Golub et al., an oral exposure study, and they misrepresented the findings of that study to make injected doses of aluminum hydroxide doses appear safe.

A rough outline is provided over this timeframe:

1981 CFR amended to include 1250 mg/dose
1996-2007 PTWI estimated at 1 mg/kg/week; 0.5 mg/kg-day US child > 2 years of age (WHO Evaluation and Certain Food Additives and Contaminants. Section 4.1 Aluminum, 1996-2007)
1996 Committee on Nutrition Aluminum Neurotoxicity in Infants and Children (J Pediatrics),
1 mg/kg-day (in error as to PTWI- “provisional tolerable intake”)
2001 0.85 mg “selected empirically from data because it enhance the antigenicity and effectiveness of the vaccine” (Baylor et al 2001)
2001-2008 ATSDR set MRL/NOAEL to 1 mg/kg-day from all sources based on Golub 26 mg/kg-day NOAEL (ATSDR references Baylor et al (2001),
2001 MRL/NOAEL 2 mg/kg-day in adult humans from dietary sources (Golub et al 2001 (62 mg/kg-day, Keith et al)
2011 MRL=1 mg/kg bw/day (ATSDR, 2008), Mitkus (2011)

During this period of time, a discord between two committees’ recommendations was discovered.


What we did not find were dose-escalation studies in mice matching per-bodyweight injections of aluminum forms in vaccines in infant mice. We found the Flarend et al. rabbit study, which reported that only 6% of the injected aluminum hydroxide had left the body after 28 days. In that study, btw, the authors lost one of the rabbit brains. Where is Orca’s outrage?

It goes without saying that David Gorski knows nothing about aluminum safe levels in vaccines, and would prefer that the public know nothing, as well.

2019: CFR is still 850 mcg/DOSE, no published or enforced restrictions on pediatric dosing of aluminum, no information available on body weight considerations for aluminum dosing limits, and no additional information on CDC Catch-Up schedule aluminum dosing limits.

The second fatal error that Orca makes, which is the same error made by his hero Pharmacist hiding away in a major medical school (who, Orca gushes, uses “equations and everything!“) is to claim that plasma clearance rates have any relevance whatsoever on aluminum salt toxicology. The false narrative that “low bioavailability” for metals such as Ethyl mercury and aluminum oxihydroxide equal safety has now fallen completely apart and lies in shambles at the feet of these two individuals. As explained in many places now in the peer-reviewed literature which Orca conveniently ignores, most of which is cited by our two studies, or cites our first study, the issue of aluminum toxicity is tissue-based, cellular, right down to the organelles that make our cells work. In other words, not plasma.

I don’t defend our research with a childish glee that David appears to enjoy in his ineffectual hit pieces, but I relish the opportunity to educate the public precisely why IPAK deserves monthly donations to keep asking questions, doing analyses, and posing solutions to the problem of the abject poverty of objectivity in public health science, and wherever it is missing in biomedical research as well.

Sadly, there is no credible empirical Science that shows that the amount of aluminum in the CDC’s pediatric vaccination schedule is safe in the short or long-term. There is no credible empirical Science that shows that the use of a thimerosal-containing influenza vaccine and aluminum-containing vaccines in the same office visit, or in successive office visits, does not induce serious synergistic toxicity, especially for low-birthweight babies, or infants of mothers with low income, or African American males. Sadly, none of the Science that one would expect to have been done has been conducted.

Instead, we are left with a bloated, beached whale wondering how it became stranded, high and dry, and a Pharmacist who likely by now wishes he never engaged with a bona-fide, publicly funded working Scientist.

Aluminum Pediatric Dosing in Vaccines: Anonymous Aluminum Apologist Bloggers’ Fatal Error Totally Supports Our Conclusions

Aluminum Pediatric Dosing in Vaccines: Anonymous Aluminum Apologist Bloggers’ Fatal Error Totally Supports Our Conclusions

AS A WORKING SCIENTIST, highly trained and skilled in both the art and in the importance of bona fide scientific discourse, it bothers me when I see sorry excuses for scientific engagement such as the articles published, sans peer review, at the obscure Vaccine Risk and Injury Denialist website “Skeptical Raptor”. These articles use an immature style of attacking objective Science under the pretext of defending Science, composed of a mixture of ad-hominem attacks combined with a Gish-Gallop of throwing anything and everything they think might stick at bona fide Scientific inquiry, with a swirl of argument from authority while hiding behind the pretext of fear of being attacked by anti-vaccine, I mean, vaccine risk aware advocates. Science? I don’t think so.

The over-the-top high-horsed tone of the articles published at Skeptical Raptor may be amusing to those who enjoy a good street fight. However, Scientific discourse requires that we take a different tack than Romper Room tantrums in our response. I will indulge a bit in this about the website, however, by stating that in my experience, the anonymous Ghost authors of the (non peer-reviewed) articles at Skeptical Raptor have never met a vaccine-induced injury or death they did not like.

I am only responding to this blog because my colleagues thought I should. I hate to amplify SR; it’s a hate-filled place. I would have expected more from people who call themselves Scientists. Surely the vaccine risk and injury denialista could have found someone willing to take our peer-reviewed study on old-school style, in the pages of the Journal of Trace Elements in Medicine and Biology, where our study was published following blinded peer review (3 reviewers). Frankly, I’m disappointed by the lost opportunity for bona fide rational discourse. In contrast, their online attack is not peer reviewed; the author, or author(s), hid behind the above-mentioned pretext of fear of attack. Perhaps there is a conflict of interest or two they would prefer to not reveal. In contrast, my resume and biography are on the web and I make no income from the sale, manufacture and distribution of vaccines.

Ironically, in their online attack on Science, the ghost author, or authors, whom I will refer to as the anonymous aluminum apologist bloggers (AAAB), unwittingly attacked and destroyed FDA’s “Apology Study” research on aluminum in their attempt to attack our study. I’m referring to the Mitkus study, which was FDA’s attempt to dispense with empirical research such as age-appropriate dose escalation studies of aluminum hydroxide in mice to determine the actual per body weight dose limits for humans. The AAAB’s unwitting attack on the FDA’s Apology Aluminum study (Mitkus et al.) starts with four entire paragraphs of futile and pointless ad-hominem attacks. They cite measles, however, the live virus measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine does not contain aluminum, and thus their “anti-vaxxers are going to destroy us all” trope proves equally futile.

Because such attacks are irrelevant in Objective Science, we’ll move right along to see how they slayed the FDA’s Mitkus study.

The first error in reasoning that I point out might actually save the Mitkus study, for now. The aluminum apologist blogger claim that because none of the authors of McFarland et al. are toxicologists, we did not know that we should be focused on plasma clearance rates.

Right there, we are done.

Whoever wrote this critique clearly knows or cares nothing about aluminum toxicodynamics. It’s all spelled out in the peer-reviewed literature: aluminum injected into the human body, either by intramuscular injection (IM injection) or IV, has a strong affinity for solid human tissue, explaning thus precisely why its “bioavailability” as measured by plasma clearance is very low. It is not low because it is cleared from the body in urine, feces, sweat, etc. This is why we changed, in our first study, the language from “absorption” to “metabolic availability”: all of the aluminum injected in each vaccine (100%), and all aluminum that is absorbed by the intestine (0.3%) must be dealt with by the body, and in those systems, the toxic effects also manifest. The mechanisms of aluminum toxicity described in the literature ignored by AAAB are intracellular, and include mitotoxicty, disruption of the cytoskeleton, and endoplasmic reticulum stress. A full collection of references on the cellular mechanisms of aluminum toxicity is available here. AAAB cites none of this literature.

Measuring aluminum in the the plasma (or serum, or blood) clearance does not reflect whole-body content and actual aluminum toxicdynamics: aluminum exerts its toxic effects while adhered to tissues, and inside cells. The body clearance, therefore is the concern. Whilst in cellular tissues, aluminum can be expected to act as an adjuvant on proteins from other viruses and bacteria, and oddly shaped human proteins expelled during cellular death following aluminum induced endoplasmic reticulum stress. The longer the whole-body retention, the more likely the aluminum is to induce harm during “detox-retox”, which we refer to in our study.

The long-term duration of aluminum in the human body is a cause for concern over chronic re-exposure via aluminum cellular release and recirculation. Take, for example, a recent study that focused on plasma concentrations and relative amounts to brain, bone and other tissues (Weissner et al., 2019). The authors report:

“Crude linear extrapolation from 100% on day 0 through the mean dose fraction of V1 remaining at the injection site on day 80 (77.7%) predicts that complete absorption of Al from AH-adjuvanted vaccines will take at least 350 days (1 year).

In contrast, linear extrapolation through the remaining dose fraction for V3 (14.5%) suggests that Al from AP-adjuvanted vaccines might be completed much earlier after ca. 120 days.”

Source: Weissner et al., 2019.

That’s a long time for the body to learn and reinforce autoimmunity – and that’s just absorption. That’s not whole body clearance.

Similarly, Flarend et al.’s rabbit study found that only 6% of aluminum hydroxide injected into rabbits had passed from the body after 28 days.

Flarend et al. Al elimination (whole body clearance)

That means that the aluminum resides in human tissue, including bone, brain, and other organs, actively impairing cellular function, inducing cell death. Aluminum in all of these tissues is not static. The aluminum apologist bloggers ignore that while the amount of aluminum that makes it into the brain is relatively small compared to bone, its retention is much longer in the brain, and aluminum salt molecules remain toxic, killing cell after cell. This would explain why 90% of aluminum measured in the brain is found in the extracellular matrix, as reported by Priest. If it was not cytotoxic, it would be found in the cells.

In attacking our lack of focus on plasma clearance, AAAB showed the soft underbelly of why the Mitkus et al. study is all but flotsum in the scientific literature on aluminum because it focused on plasma clearance. Plenty of peer-reviewed critiques are available[1] and see citations in McFarland et al. 2020.

Mitkus is, in my professional opinion, dead. That is part of the reason WHY we used Clark’s rule.

As for AAAB’s criticism of cherry picking, AAAB is/are guilty of this very offense, otherwise they would never claim (incorrectly) that we should all be concerned only about plasma concentration. Vaccine risk and injury apologists used the same tactic to try to convince the medical community and the public that Ethyl mercury was not a problem because it cleared from the serum more quickly than Methyl mercury. But hundreds of thousand of Americans are not complaining about symptoms of their plasma. “Doctor, my plasma hurts”. No. They are complaining about symptoms of whole-body toxicity. Our study made it perfectly clear that we are addressing whole-body toxicokinetics. It’s a pretty straightforward analysis, and the difference between plasma and cellular organs is readily apparent.

Unlike the AAAB, we are concerned about the effects of aluminum on the circulatory system, the digestive and excretory sytem, the endocrine system, the integumentary system, the immune sytem, the muscular system, the nervous system, the renal and urinary system, the reproductive system, the respiratory sytem and the skeletal system. Why? Because these are the systems about which the public is reporting symptoms. The previous literature seems to consider the relative amount destined for bone to be “reassuring”, and refers to it as a storage depot, ignoring the constant exposure of cells circulating through bone as source of constant flux, recirculation, and exposure. The long-term whole-body burden is relevant when such diverse conditions as neurodevelopmental and immunological disorders are attributable to aluminum.

Plasma clearance rates are irrelevant to our study, other than the transient period of time that aluminum moves from tissue to tissue as it induces apoptotic and necrotic cell death. Priest largely focused on rates determined with co-administered citrates, which enhance the absorption, or adsorption, to tissue, and would expedite the plasma-based “bioavailability”. Importantly, Mitkus assumed that 90% of aluminum in whole blood was found in plasma (not 90% of whole body), with the rest adhered to erthrocytes, where it causes eryptosis (red blood cell death), and therefore likely causes anemia, so says Science. [ ] Note that animal studies of Lupus use aluminum hydroxide to induce SLE-like symptoms.

The diseases of the blood to which aluminum may also contribute are significant sources of morbidity and mortality in the US population, and in the population around the world. Having read all of the studies that use aluminum hydroxide to induce autoimmune conditions in mice, I’ve determined that the per-body-weight doses approach those in humans if the study use an animal that is a genetic mouse or rat model that predisposes the animal to the autoimmune condition. Conditions like asthma, allergic rhinitis, lupus, Sjogren’s syndrome, and so on are routinely and reliably induced by injections of aluminum hydroxide. But that’s just Science.

Similarly, animal studies reliably and reproducibly induce asthma and other autoimmune symptoms in mice using aluminum hydroxide. These are serious diseases with serious mortality burden; about 45 people in the US die from asthma every day. Readers can search Pubmed for studies that induce autoimmunity in mice and rats here:

The doses in these studies were systematically analyzed to compare them per body weight to a single dose in a single vaccine that a two-year old human receives on the CDC schedule, resulting in the following table:

This table and the paper in which it can be found, along with all of citations, is available here. (That paper survived peer review, but the publisher found a link to it on the IPAK website and claimed that we already published it. So much for the ‘open science’ and ‘open review’ experiment!)

Mitkus, based on Priest, used data from single or a handful of clearance rates of isotope-labeled aluminum. Our study took a different approach to a pediatric dose limit that introduces the question: since plasma-based bioavailability does not inform on whole-body toxicity corrected for body, weight, if 850 mcgs are “safe” for an adult, how does that scale to infants, newborns and toddlers? We also explored the effects of successive doses on accumulation and clearance, and introduce the problem that not everyone might be able to clear aluminum at the same rate as others, including those with genetic impairment of any number of biological pathways involved in detoxification, and newborns, which only have 20% glomular filtration rate of adults. None of the available studies on aluminum toxicology have considered aluminum toxicogenetics. Yet there is a patch for testing for aluminum allergy – clearly some people could be screened for aluminum allergy, yet pediatric practice ignores this reality.

The aluminum apologist bloggers also incorrectly interpret our results: They claim that we conclude that all of the aluminum injected simply accumulates:

“As it reads, the authors are trying to claim that under no circumstances aluminum is eliminated from the body and that the aluminum injected will accumulate in the body during the first 18 months of life.” – AAAB

None of our assumptions or conclusions even remotely resembles this straw man, and, as a straw man, it deserves no further attention than to say they must not have read, or understood, the full study.

We estimated a pediatric dose limit (PDL) based on a presumed per-dose safe level used clinically by FDA regulations, and compare the Priest equation results. By considering both body weight and cumulative retention, scaling their enforced per dose limit, we come to a very different conclusion than Mitkus. Notably, the McFarland et al. study did not derive the PDL estimate, it was already published in 2018, and we merely cited that previous estimated PDL. Why the FDA has not published and certainly does not enforce a per-body weight pediatric dose limit per day for aluminum hydroxide from vaccines is a mystery. On catch-up days, children can receive 5-9 vaccines in a single day.

Given their interest, I am surprised the aluminum apologist bloggers did not critique Mitkus and Priest for basing so much of their modeling on citrate-bound aluminum, which has a much higher absorption rate, thus clearing the plasma more quickly, making even our results (McFarland et al.) overly optimistic.

A salient question is why do AAAB not present their own whole-body PDL based on their own proposed methodology and submit it for peer review? The answer, I believe, is that they are afraid of (a) finding that their estimates would be similar to ours, and (b) they would be labeled “anti-vaccine” and lose their jobs, and perhaps (c) they may suffer from a cognitive blindness due to financial conflicts of interest (see (b)). (NB: Being in a School of Pharmacy as reported induces a COI).

Instead, they prefer childish Romper-Room Taliban-wanna be tactics.

If they do accept the challenge to actually engage in Scientific Discourse, I would expect them to start with the questions that began my research into aluminum pediatric dosing:

(1) How did the FDA come to determine that 850 mcg of aluminum is ‘safe’ for a single dose? (Answer: oral doses of oral forms of aluminum in adult mice levied via assumption after assumption into a per-injected dose amount of injected forms in humans. Then they abandoned all that, cherry-picked and misrepresented the Golub et al. study, and based it on the dose needed for a significant immune reaction).

(2) Why is aluminum dosing in vaccines expressed as “per dose” and why do the limits ignore both body weight, time and multiple doses?

(3) Why is there only one only published aluminum dose limit (4-5 mcg/kg/day) from parenteral sources (btw, anonymous aluminum apologist blogger, ‘parenteral’ means ‘non-dietary’, look it up, it arguably could include vaccines and not only IV sources.

(4) What IS the pediatric dose limit of aluminum hydroxide for humans, is it enforced, do pediatricians use it, does CDC consider it for catch-up days, or are we just arbitrarily injecting infants, newborns, and toddlers with toxic doses of aluminum and not realize it?

(5) AAAB represent themselves as stewards of Science. Why not join the increasing number of Scientists who are joining me in calling upon the FDA to do the dose increment studies in infant mice for all forms of aluminum used in humans so we know precisely which ill effects are likely to be expected by citizens who provide informed consent for vaccination with aluminum-containing vaccines?

Who’s afraid of a little Science?

PS If AAAB prefers anonymous bloggers, try Vaccine Paper’s execution of Mitkus and other “aluminum in vaccines is safe” apologist Science-Like Activities.

Memo to HHS et al:Personal Exemptions are an Essential Safety Valve on Whole-Population Vaccination Programs


Date: 10/24/2019

TO: Office of Infectious Disease and HIV/AIDS Policy (OIDP), Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, Office of the Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

FROM: Dr. James Lyons-Weiler, PhD

RE: Request for Information (RFI) From Non-Federal Stakeholders: Developing the 2020 National Vaccine Plan

Non-experts in vaccine science such as policy makers and lawmakers have no frame of reference for skepticism of the claims of wholesale and universal safety of vaccines.  To non-expert who have not read vaccine safety studies, and who do not have knowledge of important principles and proper practices of clinical trial study, claims of universal vaccine safety and the robustness and reliability of vaccine safety science appear reassuring.  The thinking is that universal vaccination will lead to “herd immunity”, and thus individuals “should” vaccinate for the “greater good”.

However, a few cogent facts, such as the existence of a National Injury Compensation Program, the existence of a limited Table of Vaccine Injuries (published by HHS), the fact that the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program has paid out over US $4Billion in settlements and awards to families who have members who have experienced on-table and off-table vaccine injury. 

A moment’s reflection on these facts, however, should cause such individuals to pause and realize the following:

  •  Any paradigm of 100% forced vaccination will reveal, by injury, maiming or death everyone in the population who is susceptible.
  • Science has not defined any way (yet) to identify, contra the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, the individuals in the population who are most susceptible.
  • Susceptibility to vaccine injury and death almost certainly has a genetic risk that is not universally shared across the population.
  • By placing some potentially identifiable individuals at risk, universal forced vaccination is discriminatory and therefore places some families at increased risk of carrying all of the burden of morbidity and mortality
  • Under the 14th Amendment, this potentially identifiable, albeit heterogeneous population, is entitled to Equal Protection from harm from vaccines.
  • Families learn, via direct, personal empirical observation and experience, ahead of the ability of science, that they are at increased risk compared to the general population
  • Non-medical exemptions, put in place by past generations, provide citizens who have already tried to participate in the whole-population vaccination program to opt out without carrying an undue burden of vaccine injury and harm.
  • Vaccination programs without non-medical exemptions are cruel and inhumane to an identifiable subset of individuals and families who should not vaccinate..
  • Vaccine injury and death denialism based on the absence of studies that have yet to be conducted is cruel.

The above points alone are sufficient to warrant the continuance of universal personal exemptions to vaccine mandates (aka “philosophical exemptions”).

The counterarguments to this position are falsifiable, and include

  • CLAIM: Vaccine studies have been conducted that should have detected the adverse events claimed by citizens who no longer want to vaccinate.

REALITY: Most vaccine safety studies that could have detected serious adverse events now being claimed by tens of thousands or in some cases hundreds of thousands have been too brief, too small, correct for outcome variables related to likely vaccine adverse events, or exclude individual likely at high risk of serious vaccine adverse events.  Unlike trials for drugs, clinical trials of vaccines have short outcome follow-up periods.  We rely on post-market “surveillance” studies that employ passively collected vaccine adverse events, which capture less than 1% of vaccine injuries[1].  This means that although they are required by law to do so, most doctors fail to report ill health following vaccination to the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS).  The requirement to report any ill health following vaccination exists whether the physician thinks the ill health is due to the vaccination or note, but there is no penalty to physicians who refuse to submit reports to VAERS. Post-market surveillance studies of VAERS data therefore cannot find new, real vaccine adverse events that doctors think are attributable to vaccines. Further, by most short-term randomized clinical trials on vaccine safety have been conducted without a proper inert placebo. Remarkable, nearly all have been conducted comparing the safety to other vaccines or to active vaccine ingredients such as various forms of aluminum, an adjuvant designed to activate the immune system Fig 1; [2].

Figure 1. Comprehensive literature analysis and review of vaccine safety studies by ICAN (Informed Consent Action Network) published in 2018[2] reveals the absence of studies that use inert placebo in a control group to study vaccine safety.

The absence of appropriate control for potential harm to health from aluminum adjuvants puts the US vaccination program in a state at risk of being rejected by the public as poor science.  The reliance of observational studies for long-term health outcomes and the lack of studies focused on the effects of receipt of multiple vaccines at once also places the vaccination program at risk of rejection by an increasingly vaccine-risk aware public.

CLAIM: Vaccines are such a boon to public health that individuals are not entitled to a choice or to informed consent.

REALITY: Current vaccines – and post-market surveillance studies – are not exempt from Federal rules and laws protecting the individual’s right to informed consent.  Nothing in the Code of Federal Regulations, for example, distinguishing individuals’ rights to decline to participate in vaccine safety studies, including whole-population human subject post-market surveillance studies.  Vaccination programs without personal exemption violate provisions of the National Research Act [Title II, Public Law 93-348], Regulations for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research [45 CFR 46] and revisions of various regulations, rules, and laws ([21 CFR 50, [21 CFR 56], [45 CFR 46 Subpart D], [10 CFR 745]. Pregnant women and fetuses are afforded special protections by [45 CFR 46 Subpart B], and children are afforded additional protections by [45 CFR 46 Subpart D]. Currently, rights of pregnant women and fetuses are violated with each and every vaccine administered to them because not only is there a paucity of pre-licensing clinical trials, no vaccine has been licensed for use to protect fetuses, and pregnant women are not told any of this as they are pressured to get vaccinated. Of note, in the Common Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects (“Common Rule”) [10 CFR 745] Sec 745.103(b)(3), none of these rights were revoked by any subsequent legislation, including [21 CFR 50.24], which allows the relaxation of requirements for informed consent during emergencies. In fact, the Common Rule re-asserted safeguards both for informed consent, and for special protections against coercion:

I cite here section §46.116, “General requirements for informed consent”:

Except as provided elsewhere in this policy, no investigator may involve a human being as a subject in research covered by this policy unless the investigator has obtained the legally effective informed consent of the subject or the subject’s legally authorized representative. An investigator shall seek such consent only under circumstances that provide the prospective subject or the representative sufficient opportunity to consider whether or not to participate and that minimize the possibility of coercion or undue influence. The information that is given to the subject or the representative shall be in language understandable to the subject or the representative. No informed consent, whether oral or written, may include any exculpatory language through which the subject or the representative is made to waive or appear to waive any of the subject’s legal rights, or releases or appears to release the investigator, the sponsor, the institution or its agents from liability for negligence.

“When some or all of the subjects are likely to be vulnerable to coercion or undue influence, such as children, prisoners, pregnant women, mentally disabled persons, or economically or educationally disadvantaged persons, additional safeguards have been included in the study to protect the rights and welfare of these subjects.”

Any whole-population vaccination program that does not include personal exemptions subjects the entire population to coercion, thus violating the US Code of Federal Regulations.  Personal exemptions allow individuals to react to adverse events they experience while participating in post-market surveillance studies, and such decisions should be respected.  The rights of any individual to opt-out of human subjects experimentation should be preserved.

The question of the value of entire vaccination on public health has two problems at this time (10/2019) based on two points.  First, some studies show significant population health reduction from vaccination (e.g., 3-6). Current vaccines are aging, and many appear to be no longer effective at preventing transmission of the wild-type pathogens they were designed to protect against.  These include influenza vaccines (annually announced in the press as inexact), pertussis vaccines [7,8], and the MMR for mumps[9], rubella[10] and possibly measles [11].  Outbreaks of pertussis and mumps in completely vaccinated populations are now commonplace, and individuals up to date on measles vaccination now develop measles after exposure to other vaccinated or unvaccinated who are infected. For influenza and measles, vaccinated individuals tend to have milder symptoms, but can carry the pathogens into schools and other public places. For mumps, rubella and chickenpox, break-through infections in vaccinated persons can be more serious, Instead of acknowledging the role of asymptomatic transmission, now routinely reported in numerous studies and discussed openly in the vaccine science literature [7], public health policy and the whole-population vaccination agenda blames the 1-2% who are not vaccinated.  This is different from individuals “shedding” vaccine-type live organisms, it is now also known that a large percentage of individuals who were diagnosed with measles in the 2014 Disneyland outbreak had breakthrough viremia and symptoms of measles from the vaccine type. It is now impossible to blame unvaccinated individuals on outbreaks, which will continue even if the US achieves 100% vaccination coverage in all children for all vaccines on the CDC schedule.  No form of herd immunity can exist when the vaccine in question masks the infection. The vaccinated asymptomatic carriers of infectious agents can carry infections into schools and into other public places just as well, but for longer periods of time, because, unlike the unvaccinated, they have no symptoms.  It is even reasonable to assert that the unvaccinated serve an important public health service by alerting schools of the presence of an active transmission chain of viruses and bacteria that can threaten the lives of the immunocompromised.

Given these realities, the claim that vaccines are such a boon to public health that individuals are not entitled to a choice or to informed consent is clearly falsified.

Clearly, those pushing for universal vaccination with current vaccines are hoping to continue their contracts by masking symptoms of illness from circulating wild-type pathogens that their vaccines no longer effectively target.  A case in point in the case in a PA court in which two whistleblowers report that their supervisors at Merck told them to spike human samples with rabbit-derived anti-mumps virus antibodies to defraud the FDA and the US public to continue Merck’s contract for the MMR vaccine. The systematic fraud is not sustainable, and removal of personal exemptions will not prevent the obvious failure of many of the current vaccines.

In the meantime, US citizens are asserting their rights under the US CFR and will continue to do so; no parent who has witnessed serious adverse events in their child or children will continue to vaccinate no matter what laws are passed to coerce them.  Personal exemptions are a safety valve not only the vaccination program – they are the way our society enacts the ethos embodied by our own national, and international laws protecting human beings from harm from human experimentation.  Loss of personal exemption options may appear to be a trivial change to the majority of Americans, but for some, it means certain death and destruction of their lives.

For these reasons and realities, it would be both immoral and unethical to remove or deny personal exemptions to vaccination.


Dr. James Lyons-Weiler, PhD

2912 Kilcairn Lane

Allison Park, PA 15101


[2]ICAN. 2018. Letter to US Department of Health & Human Services re:HHS Vaccine Safety Responsibilities and Notice Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-31.

[3]  Aaby, Peter.  2019. “This Vaccine (DPT) is Killing Children”  Symposium on Scientific Freedom, Copenhagen 9 Mar 2019.

[4] Mogensen SW, Andersen A, Rodrigues A, Benn CS, Aaby P.

The Introduction of Diphtheria-Tetanus-Pertussis and Oral Polio Vaccine Among

Young Infants in an Urban African Community: A Natural Experiment.

EBioMedicine. 2017 Mar;17:192-198. doi: 10.1016/j.ebiom.2017.01.041.

[5]Bodewes et al., 2011. Annual Vaccination against Influenza Virus Hampers Development of Virus-Specific CD8+ T Cell Immunity in Children J Virol 85:11995-12000.

[6] Cowling, BJ et al., 2012. Increased risk of noninfluenza respiratory virus infections associated with receipt of inactivated influenza vaccine. Clin Infect Dis. 54(12):1778-83. doi: 10.1093/cid/cis307.

[7] Cherry, JD. 2015. Epidemic Pertussis and Acellular Pertussis Vaccine Failure in the 21st Century Pediatrics 135(6):1130-1132.

[8] Althouse, BM, SV Scapino. 2015. Asymptomatic transmission and the resurgence of Bordetella pertussis. BMC Med 13:146.

[9] Atrasheuskaya AV, Neverov AA, Rubin S, Ignatyev GM 2006.Horizontal transmission of the Leningrad-3 live attenuated mumps vaccine virus. Vaccine. 24(10):1530-6.


[11] Muller, CP. 2001. Measles elimination: old and new challenges? Vaccine 19:17-19.

Congressman Bill Posey Takes on Mark Zuckerberg on Facebook Censorship of Discussion of Vaccine Risk

Congressman Posey: Thank you madam chair and ranking member McHenry for holding this very  informative hearing For many of us Facebook is the reality in our business and our personal lives. I communicate with my constituents as well as my friends through the platform daily many benefits accrue from the service yet in the midst these great benefits great challenges have emerged and I want to welcome you to this hearing Mr. Zuckerberg.

I believe Facebook is a great innovation that as much potential for good that we welcomed an innovation together with the controversies that have spawned unfortunately some in politics and the media see their role as cajoling Facebook to censor its users speech. In April I wrote to you that I was disappointed at Facebook would consider restricting free speech rights to communicate the risk associated with vaccinations – and I support vaccinations of children and adults.

But I also support open and frank communication of the risk of vaccination every person should make vaccination decisions with full information in recognition of the uncertainties the risk of vaccinations. The federal government has created a vaccination trust fund that has paid out over four billion dollars to compensate those who have been injured by vaccinations. There’s no more clear or persuasive statement about the risk associated with vaccinations then the existence and the payment record at that fund. From time to time medical research has established case and context of specific risks associated with vaccinations. I wrote you when another member of the House made claims that the risk of vaccination should not exist and that Facebook should police communications related to vaccination risk. Today you testified you believed in giving people a voice.

Mr. Zuckerberg, is Facebook able to assure us that it will support users fair and open discussions and communications related to the risk as well as the benefits of vaccinations?

Mark Zuckerberg: Congressman thanks for the question we do care deeply about giving people of voice and freedom of expression. Those are some of the founding values of the company. At the same time we also hear consistently from our community that people want us to stop the spread of misinformation. So what we do is we try to focus on on misinformation that has the potential to lead to physical harm or imminent harm and that can include especially misleading health advice. There was a hoax that was going viral a number of months back that those are saying…

Congressman Posey: Look for this subject because our time is very limited. Are you 100% confident that vaccines pose no risk of injury to any person is planet?

Mark Zuckerberg: Congressman, I don’t think it would be possible for anyone to be a hundred percent confident, but my understanding of the scientific consensus is that it is important that people get their vaccines.

Congressman Posey: But you said your platform you want to you believe in giving people a voice. Shouldn’t somebody have the opportunity to express an opinion different from yours? I mean over four billion dollars has been paid out by the fund to thousands of people. Don’t you think people should be able to have information to make an informed choice?

Mark Zuckerberg: Congressman I do, and that’s why we don’t stop people from posting on their page something that’s wrong but if someone wants to post vaccine anti-vaccination content, or if they want to join a group where people are discussing that content we don’t prevent them from doing that but what we do is we don’t go out of our way to make sure that our group recommendation systems try to show people or encouraged people to join those groups. We discourage that.

Congressman Posey: Okay, well how do you discourage that?

Mark Zuckerberg: Well, there are a number of different tactics, for example if someone is typing into the search results into the search box something that that might lead to anti-vax content we don’t recommend anti-vax searches to them. If you type in the name of a group exactly you can you can get the group, we’re not gonna hide it, we’re not going to prevent you from joining it. But we’re not going to recommend or go out of our way to show people content that would encourage people to join those groups but people can share that content.

Congressman Posey: Many people harmed by this policy are in fact parents with disabled children, and I don’t think we or you should be so quick to turn our backs on them. If you look at the statistics, I think you’re making a bad mistake.

My time is expired I yield back thank you.

The Present and Future of The Society of Corporatist Control in the United States and Western Countries

This is first essay in a series that may become a book, “How to End Corporatism”. NB, the title is NOT “How to End Corporations”

Regulatory capture of agencies by corporate interests in the US is nearly 100%. The will and the interests of the people are diminishingly present in agency policies that exist and how they are implemented. How did we get where we are today? For that we need a timeline of contemporary history. Most timelines of cultural periods in the Western world seem to be unable to put a label on the post 1960’s era in terms that captures the essence of the character of the cultural. Compare the period 1973-2019 – a very long period – to the “Gay 20’s”, the WWII era, the Postwar Era boom, ‘beat-nik’ or ‘counter-culture’ periods. All had a dominant mode of existance – represented by large shifts in cultural attitudes and mores that seemed to slow down to a sludgy 1970s pop era followed by a brief maturation into the current tech era. Cultural evolution, or its mythos at least, it seems, died in the 1980s. Large changes involving radical shifts in the popular mindset that can be compared from decade to decade ceased occurring, by my estimate, somewhere between 1983-6. The largest differences from decade to decade are technological, not cultural. The emergence of cable television, especially 24-hour news, the multi-purpose cell phone, and the public’s use of the internet for social media make of the majority of the differences between 1975 and the present. Each of these also increase in the access that agents of control had over cultural identity via direct constant, direct access to the minds of consumers of information. In the Post-Modern Age, large events in life have seemed to be dominated by scripted international imperial agendas designed to bring cheap oil to the US and its coalition partners. Other imporant major (relatively more recent) major shifts in cultural attitudes include a normalization of encouragement of career-mindedness of women, election of women into public office, a rebuke of intolerance toward minorities, the use of identity politics to (at least on the surface) enforce the ideals of equality among people,

Do We Just Continue Adding “Post” to “Post-Post-Post Modern”? Or Has Something Fundamental Shifted of Which Many Are Vaguely Aware?

Surely, in the political realm, the processes of new left transitioning into neoliberalism and the new right into neoconservativism have dominated as the priority polarizing themes. The issues that divide us culturally – abortion, environment, religion – are identified by pollsters using multivariate analyses to identify a winning campaign platform. The left/right dichotomy, however, is a falsehood, a tactical distraction, a layer of control: in the post-post modern era, the left has discovered corporatism, and top-down party politics are in now full force on both side of the aisle.

I contend that the major shift away from a society of discipline (Foucault) toward overt culture of control (Deleuze) began in the 1980’s, and its evidence became crystallized by 9/11, but that the post-post-modern epoch only truly became apparent somewhere between 2010 to 2018 when members of society began to realize that, by definition, the corporate aspects of the US government means mass surveillance by an oligarchy made of careerist government appointees bent on saving their valuable pensions. Even the mass economic causalities of the 2008 Black Monday due to toxic debt salad trading merely served to open the eyes to multiple layers of control by an oligarchy disinterested in the particulars of any individual life, as long as the system is perpetuated. The evidence? No one was prosecuted; only homeowners suffered, and the safeguards that were put in place have once again been ignored.

On the grandscale economic level, the shift from a war and a post-war booming production-based manufacturing economy has been dwindled down to a service and tech economy, with service and tech industries dominating. Clearly this is not sustainable. How can this persist? Clearly it cannot without government policies and laws that favor the interests and agendas of corporations over the rights and safety of individuals. That means war for oil, cancer-causing pesticides in food, aborted fetal cells in vaccines, and suppression of opposing views in favor of safer products and a cleaner planet. Opposing cultural emergences are, of course, undesired, and America in particular is fast losing the hard-won appreciation of the wisdom of the minority viewpoint, never more susceptible to groupthink that characterized pre-war Germany and Japan.

Any undesired cultural emergence is now fully subject to dampening by control of the flow of information, now overtly with willful censorship of posts against “community standards” on Facebook. We certainly now do have a culture of control, in which that which we are allowed to speak and share is subject to oligarchic corporatist regulatory policies: they literally write the bills that representatives “of the people” bring forward.

Society of Control Defines What We Are – Not Where We Are

The shift that no one can put their finger on is a change from a society of discipline to a society of control. This essential realization was captured by minority view sociologists in the 1990’s as a transformation that was clearly new to them. It is now the norm and hardly anyone sees the connection of its coming into full bloom to these earlier works. Comparing the idealized view of the 1950’s in which a working father came home, hung up his hat, and adopted a new in-home role and identity, sociologists realized that corporate control was creeping back into our post-work lives.

For example, the sociologist “Kunda’s study of a high-tech corporation in the United States revealed that the expectation for long working hours was built into the organizational culture and was very difficult to resist once it had been internalized. The organization he called ‘Tech’ attempted to appropriate as much time as possible from organizational members, and this could be done only if workers came to actively desire it themselves. The ‘Tech culture’ was designed to constitute this desire through various mechanisms of role embracement, so that workers would think of themselves as ‘Tech employees’ all the time. As a result of this management approach many employees found their family and home lives suffered, because they gave more and more of themselves to the firm and experienced burnout, role contradiction and other kinds of pathologies (alcoholism, heart attacks, divorce, etc.). Indeed, even though workers endeavoured to maintain some kind of spatial distance, many found that ‘work and nonwork aspects of social ties are experienced as hard to separate, requiring constant definition and redefinition and are never fully resolved’ (Kunda, 1992: 169). “– Contesting the Corporation (Peter Fleming and Andre Spicer, Cambridge, 2007).

In the disciplinary society that we have left behind in which institutions were spatially defined – work, school, barracks, prison, highway. Individuals clocked in, and clocked out and understood their roles in contents. In the society of corporatist control, both time and identities of individuals are “colonized” by companies. According Casey, many of the employees in companies in a society of control are classified as “neurotic and obsessive/compulsives because they have allowed the company to erode the identity boundaries that once separated them from the organization and subsequent burnout as psychic anxiety contradiction become too intense“. Contesting the Corporation (Peter Fleming and Andre Spicer, Cambridge, 2007)

Importantly, control no longer requires any aspect of spatial enforcement and corporate/government reach redefines “individuals”, who were once members of an indivisible group, into “dividuals“. Consider, for example, what the pain of divorce and splitting households experienced by families means for corporations: twice the applicances, twice the energy bills, twice the furniture. In a capitalist society of corporatist control, dividuals are the target of consumer pressure. But that is just the beginning.

From Gilles Deleuze (1992):
“For the school system: continuous forms of control, and the effect on the school of perpetual training, the corresponding abandonment of all university research, the introduction of the ‘corporation’ at all levels of schooling. For the hospital system: the new medicine ‘without doctor or patient’ that singles out potential sick people and subjects at risk, which in no way attests to individuation–as they say–but substitutes for the individual or numerical body the code of a ‘dividual’ material to be controlled. In the corporate system: new ways of handling money, profits, and humans that no longer pass through the old factory form.”

The current society of control was developed under corporations largely controlled by baby boomers, the “me, first” generation who has also seen fit to establish cultural norms and mores that have led to wars for oil, deranged and detached attitudes towards environmental, mass pollution of the air, water, and soil of our planet, and the adoption of medical machinery that injects potent neurotoxins into pregant women, newborns and toddlers in a manner inconsistent with the stated goals of disease prevention and public health. The amoral infrastructure straddles political boundaries and as it loses its grip via the normal decay of power and influence divisions to younger generations, the maintenance of the culture of control increasingly involves the normalization of coercion and the use of fraud by those who think they know better in the place of respect for individual choice. The beast does not like to go unfed when it is hungry – and it is always hungry.

History provides a lesson. When European powers, notably England and Germany, decided that mass slaughter of African people during the Boer Wars was an acceptable moral cost of imperialism, the concentration camp was invented. The atrocities of WWI and WWII represent a second and third generations’ views informed by their callous predecessors, and such practices were internalized and brought into Europe. The culture of control in the US and in Western Countries represents internalized hegemony. There is, however, no manner by which that an imperial power can, in the end, grow via cannabilization, and thus we have an opening.

The most pressing question facing the US and Western societies today is what comes next, now that the culture of corporatist control has shown its oligarchic, imperial and fascist face? Will the relatively impotent Generation X, whom have toiled under the shadow of those imbued with the mental illness of post-war entitlement march the younger generations like robotic sheep into a world increasingly optimized for corporate benefit, feeding the 1%, or will we work with the younger generations to deconstruct and cast off the culture of control, preserve our individual rights, return the earth to natural green power, and develop a future culture of healthy, cooperative self-determinism? I think the latter, largely due to the power of social media. With the emergence of social media, people have begun to master the art of “finding their tribe”, a type of inversion of the culture of control – identifying far more with otherwise strangers online than with their physical neighbors. Some will celebrate real health from within first, and then discover the joys of a thriving environment. Others have strived first to put the planet’s health first, and then recall we all can be better at that task if we are physcially and mentally well. So, the inversion of control is bringing people from different walks of life together, who, if they can look past the superficial difference long enough, will recognize their other selves in people who they might barely say hello to in their own physical neigborhoods.

A hopeful view is that corporatist control cannot reach into the hearts and minds of individuals (Hunsinger, 2018). However, since corporatist control includes as its currency the flow of information, it is clear that populations cannot be assumed to be immune to slight nudges and even to more overt messages, particularly emotional but irrational appeals.

This is a non-conspiracy based reflection and acknowledgement of the power relations among classes; the uber-wealthy need not agree to move society toward one pattern of behavior or another to have the same effect. Rampant reinforcement of materialistic attitudes leads to increased consumption, and the identity of self-value attached to the having of the latest gadget replaces intrinsic self-value with externalized value, increasing the power that corporatist institutions have over the individual. Rampant consumerism comes a great cost, unseen to many, and forgotten by many more.

The erosion of basic human rights is occuring through a rainstorm of dollars. For-profit prison systems, a medical behemoth with unsustainable growth in a vicious cycle of making individual sick with mysterious disease of unknown original, followed by endless diagnostic testing and perpetual treatments to manage disease; addiction of state-run agencies such as child protective services to performance-based (quota-based) revenues are all symptoms of corporatism.

These are not American values – and those of us who recognize this and see beyond the smokescreen of the Red/Blue distraction are finding each other. The valuable heterarchy inherent to cross-cultural note comparison is heresy in a culture of corporatist control. Distrust of your allies is inherent to an emerging counter-corporatist agenda developing in our society of control; it is stressful, but it is worth riding out. The powers that be, so to speak, only know one tune: it goes “top-down”, includes control from a distance, and depend on large, consistent revenue streams, ill-gotten or not. They will not sustain themselves. They are abjectly humorless bunk for the history books to one day wonder why they so easily confused their careers with their identities to the tune of the cost of the mental health, peace and general prosperity of their fellow citizens and within families within our nations, and at great cost to the biodiversity on a perfectly viable planet.

I recommended this very clear exploration of similar material in this YouTube video.

Nineteen minutes that will open your eyes and make you want to read the references.

References and Further Reading.

Crain, C. Living in a Society of Control.

Deleuze, G 1992. Postscript on the societies of control

Direct .pdf

Fleming, P and Andre Spicer. 2004. ‘You Can Checkout Anytime, but You Can Never Leave’: Spatial Boundaries in a High Commitment Organization. Human Relations.

Hunsinger, 2018. Knowledge and Cultural Production in the Context of Contemporary Capitalism: a Response to Wittkower.

Today on Unbreaking Science – Is There Anything Parents and Doctors Can Do To Buffer a Child from The Ill Effect of Vaccines?

If you follow my blog, you may be interested to learn about my new audio and video podcast, “Unbreaking Science”.  The first three bootcamp episodes, all audio, are available free at and you can follow the video podcast on Facebook and YouTube at the WWDNYK Studios channel

In today’s (10/11/2019) live episode (around 1PM EST), I will be asking two medical professionals – pediatric RN, Maureen McDonnell, and pediatrician, Dr. Paul Thomas

Is anything parents or doctors can do to buffer a child from any ill effects of vaccination?

You can read Maureen’s article at and of course you can get Dr. Paul Thomas’ “Vaccine Friendly Plan” book at any bookseller.

If you can’t watch live, be sure to set a reminder to tune in at a later time! 

We have a ton of great guests lined up to discuss the tough questions

You can follow me on twitter @lifebiomedguru and Facebook on my Author Page

And of course: You can support Unbreaking Science via Patreon
See you soon!

james lyons-weiler, phd

Author, CEO, President, Scientist

Editor-in-Chief, Science, Public Health Policy, and the Law

Guest Contributor, Children’s Health Defense 
The Environmental and Genetic Causes of Autism (Skyhorse Publishing)

Cures vs. Profits: Successes in Translational Research (World Scientific, 2016)

Ebola: An Evolving Story (World Scientific, 2015)

Michael Gaeta Cancer Support and Prevention Course 2019

I am delighted to be a Guest Faculty in the Gaeta Institute for Dr Michael Gaeta’s seven-week Cancer Support and Prevention online course. My presentation for this course is on cervical cancer and HPV vaccines, and looks honestly and critically at the science around important subjects that matter to your health. Dr. Gaeta is one of the most positive people I know, a compassionate and caring physician whose courses provide a 360-degree view of the topic area suitable for clinicians and the public. You will truly enjoy him as an instructor.

Michael and I have taught togther many times, and I always enjoy doing presentations for his courses and workshops. I highly recommend you take this course, with this leading educator in natural functional medicine, to enrich your knowledge, and improve your health and well-being.

Includes latest updates on how conventional medicine is managing cancer and ways to increase cancer resistance. Seven weekly live calls for questions and discussion. Classes start 10/24/2019! Click here or on the image below for more details!

You can check out the Michael Gaeta’s institute’s full listing of courses as well!

Terms and Conditions

Transactions via this site are non-tax deduction contributions and represent “gifts” to Dr. Lyons-Weiler. They are unrelated to IPAK, The Institute for Pure and Applied Knowledge and go directly to help Dr. Lyons-Weiler in initiatives that are independent of objective scientific research. Funds are not to be provided if they are intended to enable lobbying to any legislator for or against any specific legislation and are not to be given if they are intended to support any political campaign or specific political candidate.

Study Shows Massive IQ Decrease in Males with Fluoride: JAMA Pediatrics Journal Editors Stunned

In reference to a study, entitled “Association Between Maternal Fluoride Exposure During Pregnancy and IQ Scores in Offsprings in Canada”[1], published in JAMA Pediatrics, the journal editors were stunned by a finding that fluoridated water exposure in mothers during pregnancy reduces the IQ of their sons.

The study found that in boys, a 1 mg/L increase in the maternal urine fluoride concentration led to a 5-point decrease in boys’ IQs.

Dimitri Christakis and Frederick Rivara of JAMA Pediatrics, in a podcast, compare the findings as overturning decades-old presumptions of safety of fluoridated water.

Christakis: “Before they were anti vaxxers, there were sort of anti fluoriders. Right. And like the traditional teaching, when I was going through residency and early in my early professional career was that there was fluoride is completely safe. All these people that are trying to take it out of the water are nuts. It’s the best thing that’s ever happened for children’s dental health. And we just need to push back and get it into every water system.”

Christakis: “In fact, before there were anti-vaxxers, there were, sort-of, anti-fluoriders, and the traditional teaching when I was going through residency was that fluoride was completely safe, all these people that are trying to take it out of the water are nuts, it’s the best thing that ever happened…”

Christakis: “So when I first saw this title, my initial reaction was ‘What the hell?'”

Rivara had referenced the title of the study as “shocking” and later said

When discussing biological plausibility, citing animal models,

Christakis: “Even in the animal models, weirdly enough… the effect is seen in male than female rats, I don’t know to think about that… There have been other observational studies that have shown this, and there have been animal models as well, showed that fluoride was a neurotoxin, which, again, was totally news to me, I thought it was ‘junk science’…

Rivara: “That’d be like antivaxxers saying ‘Fluoride is bad for your brains, so let’s not do it.’ You know, that same kind of thing.”

The editors discussed how surprised they were to learn that only 3% of cities in Europe fluoridate their water.

The philosopher Karl Popper called this shock-reaction “Surprise”, and held that the more unlikely a robust result from a critical test appears to be, the higher the degree of corroboration that should be afforded the unlikely.

The comparison in this discussion to anti-vaxxers is ironic, given that fluoride and aluminum have known synergistic neurotoxicity[2], just like mercury and aluminum have known synergistic neurotoxicity[3].

The obvious question is: when will a major pediatrics journal have this level of healthy cognitive disequilibrium about vaccines and neurodevelopmental disorders, and vaccines and autoimmunity?

These editors’ reactions to this news about fluoride was the precise reaction I had upon reading all of the studies for my book on autism – the studies I had no idea about, the ones that were “totally news to me”.  The animal model studies showing plausbility of vaccination and autism (e.g., chronic microglial activation), the observational studies that DID find association (e.g., Gallagher and Goodman), and, of course the studies I could not read because they were never conducted, diswarranting the generalization that “Vaccines Do Not Cause Autism”.  I agree 100% with Christakis when he said that “Science is an iterative process”.

It is very good to see an opening of the eyes and minds explicitly represented by this podcast.  It is also good to see that that “those crazy Xr’s” model of science is dying. Christakis is going to recommend bottled or filtered water.  His colleague correctly points out that bottled water is not affordable for all families.

Perhaps we really should rethink the wisdom of fluoridation given the apparent effects on autism rates [4] and lifelong effects on dementia as well[5].  Science is, after all, for asking questions.

Here’s the podcast file:

JAMA Editors Shocked.mp3

I thank Bruce Lanphear for sending the studies and the podcast file along.  He’s working on a new book, which I think is on the effect of low-dose toxicity and synergism among toxins that we think, or thought, were safe.

References and Full “Shocking” Pubmed Searches









Educating a Canadian Legislative Body on Vaccines

This is the transcript of my testimony to the Standing Committee on Law Amendments – I was “Neither For Nor Against” legislation in New Brunswick, CA, Aug 27, 2019, but I shared the realities of the sad state of knowledge of vaccine safety available in the US.  Health Canada, I’m told, follows the US CDC/ACIP recommendations fairly closely, although Ted Kuntz said they claim to conduct their own vaccine safety studies.  If that is true, I’ve not seen them.  There is an interesting dialog with Mr. Savoie.  I later met w/Mr. Savoie and shared with him that I did not check the nationality of the authors on all of the thousands of studies I’ve read since 2014.

To listen to the actual comments, enjoy this YouTube video.

Dr. James Lyons-Weiler

Madam Chairperson: We also have present with us today Dr. James Lyons-Weiler. If you have documents to be circulated, we can make sure of that. Again, I would ask you to provide an introduction for the record, and I remind you that we have 30 minutes. How you choose to use the 30 minutes is entirely up to you. What has been recommended is a 20-minute presentation to allow for 10 minutes of questions, but if you would prefer to avoid questions, then that is up to you.
Dr. Lyons-Weiler: Thank you very much. I would actually prefer to have more of a dialogue. I would like to state up front that I am very grateful to have the opportunity to step forward and share some things with you. I cannot say whether I am for or against the bill. I run a not-for-profit out of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and I am here at my own expense. I am not going to seek, nor have I accepted or been offered, any compensation for my presence here.

I grew up across the river, in Ogdensburg, New York, looking at Canada every day of my childhood, and I come from a northern enough country where your sensibilities were part of my upbringing. I watched your television, and I wear socks when I wear sandals. People do not get that.

I have traveled all around the country educating legislators about why a 100% mandated vaccine does not make any biological or scientific sense. I am a lifelong biomedical researcher. I think you will get to know me a little bit through my comment, which I really want to go through quickly. Please do let me know when it is 15 minutes so that we can talk a little. Thank you.

There are people across the globe who, for no fault of their own, have a genetic predisposition to diseases such as Alzheimer’s, schizophrenia, heart disease, diabetes, and cancer. There is clear science and evidence that some people, due to genetics, cannot tolerate some medicines. Nowhere in the practice of medicine nor in public health policies are these individuals singled out and castigated for making decisions to opt out of particular treatments based on their personal experience of past adverse events, adverse reactions to these medicines, witnessed by themselves and witnessed by their doctors, except when it comes to vaccines. There, the science and evidence in support of risk is not listened to.

When a mother witnesses her child develop a fever and then, for the first time, develop seizures or a harrowing encephalitic cry, for the first time start banging their head against the ground repeatedly all night long, and the only change in that child’s life that day was a trip to the pediatrician’s office for a well-child visit to receive a vaccine, a caring and compassionate medicine would have some way to calm down the microglia activation that is occurring due to toxins in the environment. When a child experiences a blow to the head, the severity of the brain injury due to concussion can be reduced by a treatment that depletes glutamate in the blood so that the excess glutamate in the brain can spill into the blood. If the microgliosis instead occurs after vaccination, parents are not met with the compassion of medicine. They are met with the denialist agenda, and they are told that it was not the vaccine. They are told that it is normal and to let the infant or the baby cry it out. They are abandoned by medicine.

In an era in which information was controlled by the media, heavily influenced by governments, the population of nations around the world would accept the denialist party line. Then came social media, and parents around the world who did not accept the denialist party line found each other. People from all walks of life, from stay-at-home moms to teachers, from bakers to scientists, all found that their stories matched event for event, and over 90% of the stories involved either the DTaP vaccine or the MMR vaccine. Correlation does not equal causation, they were told. No credible study has ever found an association between vaccines and autism, they were told.

I am a lifelong biomedical research scientist, and I pride myself on objectivity. I was the founding editor in chief of the journal Cancer Informatics, full faculty at the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, a research scientist, and scientific director of the University of Pittsburgh Bioinformatics Analysis Core. I recently founded and launched a new, open access, peer-reviewed journal called Science, Public Health Policy and the Law.

I am an expert in translational research from basic research to bench to bedside and back, expert in multivariate data analysis and prediction modeling in biological pathways, underlying the
causes of disease. I made a name for myself in the area of cancer biomarker research in the early detection of cancer and developing ways to predict when patients will experience adverse events from chemotherapy. I have written three books based on science and evidence. The second book brought me here today.

I became interested in the social dynamics of science, asking questions about how. After all the pressures of science to produce revenue and profit, could actual knowledge come forward and be translated into best practices of medicine after medicine became a for-profit industry? When I decided to write a chapter on vaccines in this book, I expected to find all the science that we are told exists. I used to lecture my sister with her 10 kids who were all unvaccinated that she was going to destroy the world. That was me. I was that guy, okay? But when I went to the scientific literature, what I found there really stunned me. What I expected were these randomized prospective clinical trials, and I expected every vaccine to be tested. I expected that when a vaccine was added to the schedule, it would be tested against a placebo, that the schedule would be tested against a placebo, because the clinical question is: Should I vaccinate my child? Should I use some vaccines? All these clinical questions.
What I found instead stunned me, because what I found were very weak science correlation studies, studies that were conducted that initially found associations between vaccines and autism, vaccines and seizures, vaccines and autoimmunity. Then what the researchers did would have cost me my job at the University of Pittsburgh. I designed research studies—over 100 research studies—under the direction of Dr. Ronald Herberman at the cancer centre and Dr. XXX XXXXXX [NAME REDACTED AT THE REQUEST OF THE NAMED IN EDIT] in the school of medicine. If I found an association, say, between a chemotherapy agent and an adverse reaction and then I decided to reanalyze the data until I could make that association go away, if there was a corrupt scientist or a medical person who wanted to profit from that chemotherapy agent, they might like me, but I would have and should have lost my job.

This is what I found not just in one study but also in study after study after study. They would find an association, and they would analyze it. In one case, they found an association between the total number of vaccines that a child had received and the incidence of any neurodevelopmental disorder including autism. They then spent four years reanalyzing those data until they found a way, finally, to make an association go away. There is a letter from the data analyst saying it will just not go away, talking about the association. He pleaded in his letter, in the name of objectivity and in the name of science: We really need to be able to publish this, please. It was to the U.S. CDC.

Imagine my dismay.

What did I do with this? I decided to remain objective. I decided to remain a scientist. I put that story in my book, Cures Vs. Profits. I am not trying to sell the book here. The sales are miserable, but that is not the point. The scientists involved in this were Dr. Coleen Boyle, Dr. Frank DeStefano, and others at the USCDC. Dr. Boyle and Dr. DeStefano, I found out later, are the same scientists responsible for finding that Agent Orange posed no risk to U.S. soldiers serving in Vietnam—the same people, the same exact two people. Prior to reporting the results of one of the studies to the Institute of Medicine and the National Academy of Science—he was scheduled to make that report—Dr. William Thompson attempted to bring these issues to the
attention of Dr. Julie Gerberding who was the director of the vaccine science division at the CDC at the time. Dr. Gerberding now holds a key position at Merck, Dr. Thompson was told he had mental issues and was put on administrative leave, while Dr. DeStefano took the altered results of the study and excluded the results showing the association between on-time MMR vaccination and autism.

My response on these matters, which were brought forward by Dr. Brian Hooker in the form of audio recordings of the confessions by Dr. Thompson, was not to accept that vaccines cause autism. Just because the CDC found a mild association or a possible association does not mean that vaccines cause autism. I want to know this, given my expertise in biomedical research and the pathophysiology of disease: Could there possibly be some way that vaccines cause autism? I read over 2 000 studies, not on vaccines but on autism, to determine whether or not the basic science could support a pathophysiological mechanism by which vaccines could possibly cause autism, the plausibility question, right?

I have since formally evaluated all of the, I think, 48 studies that were sent to the President of the United States by the American Academy of Pediatrics with an objective evaluation scoring system to determine how far away they are from the gold standard that you were told about earlier, the randomized clinical trial, the prospect of a randomized clinical trial. The highest score that these studies can get is a positive 12. The average study used by the CDC and by the AAP now to tell the public that vaccines do not cause autism was a negative 6.

How much time, please?


Dr. Lyons-Weiler: Okay. So, you will hear information about studies such as fMRI scans that show that vaccines cannot cause autism because kids early on show changes in their brain structures, but that is in a population of moms who are getting two vaccines during pregnancy and all the children are receiving the Hepatitis B vaccine on day one. How can we say that the early changes in the fMRI studies are not due to vaccines when, in fact, those individuals who were born with differences in their brains are vaccinated? To me, that could be a useful biomarker to predict who might not be able to tolerate vaccines as well as others.

I said that a lot longer than it took to write it. You know, I dove into the vaccines too. You saw the list of ingredients. The ones that concern me the most, of course, are mercury, contrary to Dr. Richard Pan who recently stated in public that there is no mercury in vaccines. Yes, there is. The flu vaccine contains thimersol. Thimersol inhibits a protein called ERAP1. The ERAP1 protein actually folds proteins that our immune system needs to create the antigens to things that we are already immune to. The predicted effect of that is to forget what we are immune to and get an upper respirator virus infection other than the flu, and that is exactly what Dr. Ben Cowling out of Hong Kong found. There is problem with the use of thimersol.

Aluminum is a neurotoxin. There are studies that . . . I have a published peer-reviewed publication on aluminum and its pediatric dosing. It turns out that the science that the FDA used to say that aluminum is safe in children is actually not injected forms of aluminum into infant mice, as would be expected from the standards of basic research, but orally ingested forms of aluminum, which is a completely different type of aluminum. The mice and humans only absorb 0.03% of that dose and those adults were mice. They did not have to go through any development. How can we say? We have no science whatsoever. No credible science shows that vaccination, using aluminum-containing vaccines, is safe for a developing human, mouse, monkey, or any kind of mammalian brain.

I am sure that it has been pointed out to you that the CDC is incapable of tracking vaccine injury. The doctors do not tell the patients that the vaccines caused the problem. They are supposed to report every single adverse health event that happens shortly after the vaccine through a system called VAERS. There was a system called auto VAERS that was developed by Harvard Pilgrim Health. They found 100-fold possible vaccine-related adverse events. They reported to the CDC. They reported two or three times, and the CDC hung up and said stop calling after spending $1 million to have them develop software to automate this system.

It is my professional opinion, that regulatory capture in the United States is complete. It is 100%. The numbers, so far, of risks from vaccines, I can tell you . . . This is CDC data prior to the introduction of the MMR. The death rate from measles in the United States was 450 to 500 per year in a population of 180 million people. That is a tiny, tiny mortality risk. You saw the data earlier. I think that it is very important that, in 1985, with around a 45% or 50% vaccine uptake, we did not have people dying in the streets of measles. Measles is not Ebola. One of my books is Ebola: An Evolving Story.

The problem is systematic denial of counter indications due to what I call the hot potato of liability. There is a great Boston University Law Review . . . I do not have the reference here, but I will send it to somebody who can get it to you. It is by Efthimios Parasidis. He is a faculty member in the school of law at Ohio State University. The history was: bring on widespread vaccination in 1976. We have seen an increase in chronic illness in the United States since then. There has been a linear increase in that and it is out of hand. However, most importantly in terms of liability, why is it important to get 100% right now? To me, I think it is that states do not want to have to pay. They know that the parents will pull the kids from school if you hold school. So, the states do not have to pay for the problem. They now hold the hot potato.

I very, very much feel for your position. It is a very difficult decision that you have ahead of you. I would be happy to answer any questions. Thank you.

Ms. Rogers: Thank you for your presentation here. I will try to be quick, but I do have a few questions. I want to understand, first, what your professional qualifications are. I know that you are a doctor. Is it a PhD or a medical doctor?

Dr. Lyons-Weiler: I am a PhD in evolution, conservation biology, and ecology, but I helped to create the field of bioinformatics. When new technology came about where we could measure 40 000 genes in a tumour at one time, I was on an Alfred P. Sloan Foundation fellowship, and I shifted my focus over to helping clinicians sort out those data and relate them to clinical features. I have over 17 years of biomedical research experience under my belt.

Ms. Rogers: Okay. You mentioned a couple of journals, one for which you were the founding editor. Were those peer-reviewed journals?

Dr. Lyons-Weiler: Absolutely. In fact, I led the editorial board on a near-revolt after somebody tried to corrupt the peer review process by having the authors submit the paper and the review at the same time. I threatened to the publisher that we were going to resign, and it folded, so it adopted the gold standard of peer review. That is very important to me.

Ms. Rogers: I am going to ask a question that I did not plan to, but because of a few presentations, you are going to be the lucky one who gets the question. A few people are saying—and I have read this as well—that there is insufficient research or inconclusive research on either the link to harm or the link to safety. We will talk about causation or link—whatever. There is insufficient research. I am curious. Why is somebody not doing that research?

Dr. Lyons-Weiler: It is a great question for me because I just received the data from (Dr.) Paul Thomas’s study in Oregon. We are doing the vaccinated-unvaccinated study at the Institute for Pure and Applied Knowledge.

Ms. Rogers: Is it long-term research?

Dr. Lyons-Weiler: It is. He has it over 1 500 patients. He has tens of thousands of patients, but we have 1 500 patients that were born into his practice over the last 10 years. It is a retrospective study. It is not a randomized prospective study. Do you know what I am doing? Instead of just measuring mere associations, I am doing what you were told about earlier. I am trying to find out if we can find the variables that will allow us to predict who would have developed autoimmunity and who would have developed autism or neurodevelopmental disorders.
I heard somebody ask this question earlier. I think it was you, actually, and I am sorry that I do not know your name. Is there something more that we can do about it? The prediction modeling that I am expert in can answer this question, which is: If the mom has a family history or if the child had eczema, doctors never used to vaccinate. There used to be a standard medical practice. If you vaccinate a child and he develops eczema, do not do it again because something terrible is going to happen. They do not do that anymore. They say: Oh, there is no association. But guess what? There has never been a single study that asks the question of whether there is an association of autism in kids who developed eczema. They cannot do every possible study.

Ms. Rogers: This seems like a big missing link, though. Anyway. I will ask one more question, because I know there are a lot of others who have questions too. I am curious about the different
treatment with respect to vaccines versus drugs when it comes to proving the safety before use. What is your perspective on why that might be? Why is a vaccine not treated similarly to a drug?

Dr. Lyons-Weiler: The difference between biologics in vaccines and the way that drugs are treated in translational research is due to the history of adverse events from vaccines. There were so many adverse events that the population was, in fact, suing the vaccine developers. They went to the US government and said: We are going under. You have to help us. Then, the government said: Go to your insurance companies. The insurance companies said: We do not want this. This is too much. It will break us.

Then, they went back to the government and they created the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, in which I am a compensated expert witness on behalf of patients who are vaccine-injured, so I can bring in the mechanisms of pathophysiology. It is a system that definitely needs reform. They had an omnibus proceeding. The history is complex, but they said: Let’s look at 5 000 cases of autism to see whether there is any way that there could be autism. In the very first case that they found, they ruled in favor of autism and vaccines, and then they kicked that case out of the omnibus proceeding. There were five cases. And then they replaced it with another one. This is the denialist agenda. Their fear is that people will stop vaccinating their children. But, instead, without liability protection, the vaccine manufacturers have zero incentive to make their product better.

If there were a car seat that caused encephalopathy, it would take one or two cases. Two years ago, Sears, Roebuck and Co. made a table saw that was on a wheelbarrow. Three people cut their fingers on it, and the company pulled the product. We need to close the loop. It is the quality control feedback that is broken in this system. We absolutely desperately need that.

Ms. Rogers: Thank you.

Mr. Savoie: Thank you, Madam Chair. Please forgive me. This question may have been already asked. I may be asking it of you twice, but I just want to be clear. So, you have written three books based on science and evidence. Were these books available in a bookstore, or were these scientific papers?

Dr. Lyons-Weiler: Well, I have over 50 peer-reviewed publications myself, but the books that I wrote are compilations of peer-reviewed scientific publications.

Mr. Savoie: Okay.

Dr. Lyons-Weiler: One is on Ebola. One is called Cures vs. Profits. It goes into 18 different topics in biomedical research, with interviews of primary researchers. The other one is The Environmental and Genetic Causes of Autism, in which I cite over 1 000 peer-reviewed publications.

Mr. Savoie: Okay, so these publications have been peer-reviewed by organizations like The Lancet and so on and so forth, those kinds of . . .
Dr. Lyons-Weiler: Books are not typically peer-reviewed.

Mr. Savoie: Okay. All right, good. So, again, you are an American citizen. Everything that you have referenced so far has been about the CDC, American actions, the actions of doctors, and the actions of the American system. We are a sovereign nation. We have our own Health Canada.

Dr. Lyons-Weiler: Yes, you do.

Mr. Savoie: When a drug comes out, our own doctors make their assertions on the efficacy and safety of that drug, that vaccine, or whatever we want to talk about. Everything that you have talked about here does not help me in the province of New Brunswick. Are you aware of any Canadian studies that would deal similarly with what you have dealt with here? Are you aware of any Canadian studies that deal similarly with the things that you allege with the CDC, doctors, and everything in America?

Dr. Lyons-Weiler: Yes, I would refer you to Dr. Christopher Shaw and his peer-reviewed publication research on encephalopathy and other problems caused by vaccination ingredients in mice.

Mr. Savoie: Is he a Canadian doctor who practices in Canada?

Dr. Lyons-Weiler: He is a Canadian researcher, a PhD researcher.
Mr. Savoie: A researcher, okay. Why are you not referencing that material instead of something out of the CDC in America?

Dr. Lyons-Weiler: I mean no offense whatsoever. However, most of the science that is published on the question that I am concerned with, what I am experienced with and familiar with, comes out of the CDC, which contracted to . . . Most of that science went over to Denmark. So most of what I am . . . It is not coming from the United States. It is coming from work contracted from the CDC to scientists in Denmark. Thanks for the opportunity for clarification.

Mr. Savoie: Again, I am looking for more information that is going to help us make a decision on a law here in New Brunswick, so I would be looking for relevant Canadian content. That is what I would like to hear more of, rather than the American experience.

Dr. Lyons-Weiler: I know exactly where you are coming from, and I appreciate that. If you would like me to get back to you in a day or so, I would be happy to do so.

Madam Chairperson: Thank you.
Standing Committee on Law Amendments

Ms. Mitton: Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for being here today. I have two quick questions. Forgive me if you have already addressed this. I was wondering who invited you to come or how you heard about this committee.

Dr. Lyons-Weiler: The name of the person who invited me was Cheryl Yakem, along with a couple of others. I believe she is involved with Canadians for vaccine choice or an organization like that.

Ms. Mitton: Okay, thank you for clarifying. The other question I had is related to something on the last page of your presentation, which talks about how no randomized prospective clinical trials have been done with the vaccines versus placebos. I was wondering whether you could speak to why these are not done. Is it to do with the ethical considerations of not vaccinating? Do you know?

Dr. Lyons-Weiler: The explanation that is given as to why it is so-called unethical, why it is considered unethical to do a randomized trial, is that you are denying vaccines to the arms of children who would not get vaccines. However, the randomized prospective clinical trials that Merck did on the HPV vaccine did include unvaccinated people. They were given the aluminum adjuvant instead of a saline placebo, but they were denied the vaccine. They were vaccinated at the end of the study. So, the answer to the ethical question about why randomized clinical trials cannot be done is that you can vaccinate them at the end of the study. That is the answer, if it is that important.

Ms. Mitton: Okay. Thank you. That is all.

Mr. DeSaulniers: The only question that I had was asked by Mr. Savoie, so I yield.

Madam Chairperson: We do have a few more minutes. If there are more questions, we will circle around.

Ms. Rogers: I will ask just one question. You mentioned that in your experience, in your study, you would find a linear increase in chronic illness after the widespread adoption of immunization in 1976. How was it that you would link those two and not other causal factors?

Dr. Lyons-Weiler: Oh, it is kind of impossible to do that. There are so many moving factors, and that is the problem with observational studies. However, one of the tenets of causal analysis is temporal association, and the specific analysis that I did involved looking at the number of studies that mentioned diseases of unknown origin, mysterious diseases that nobody knows the cause of and then correcting for the total number of publications per year. What happens is that from 1900 until 1976 when they brought on the swine flu vaccination, it is exactly flat. From that point in time on, it increases. The United States—and I am sorry to appear parochial in my comments, but I am speaking from where I know—has the highest first-day death rate of mothers, and we do not know why. It is has increasing, massive . . . Some 54% of kids have achronic illness, and we do not know why. Yet, we say that we have the best biomedical system, but we do not know what is causing all this chronic illness. Where is all the autoimmune diabetes coming from?

Some of the analysis that I have done myself—and I can speak to myself—is that we cause autoimmunity and chronic illness in animals to study drugs to treat those illnesses using aluminium hydroxide. It is the same compound that we are injecting in our children. Detractors will say that it takes 10 000 to 20 000 times the dose to get lupus or other autoimmunity conditions, but if you actually look at the math as I did and correct for body weight and look at the doses, if the mice have a genetic predisposition to autoimmunity, you need only 5 times the amount that kids would get in a single vaccine while they are aged 2. And that is a makeup day. Kids get five, six, seven, eight, nine vaccines on a makeup day. In Neil Miller’s book that was referenced, he also has a study that the use of combined vaccines in a single day is not safe. That is because most of the morbidity and mortality that is reported in VAERS is associated with a vaccination event that involved more than one vaccine.

We are dealing with a lot of observations, I understand that, but the lack of the science is not the fault of the people who firsthand experienced vaccine injury and death. I just came from Columbus where we are fighting censorship in the United States on this very issue. I ran a conference on censorship. It is the second conference on censorship in Columbus, Ohio. We are soon not going to be allowed to talk about vaccine risk if Dr. Richard Pan from California, for instance, has his way. It would be illegal to hold proceedings like this, which I congratulate you on holding. It is possible to induce autoimmunity and chronic illness with vaccine adjuvants if there is a genetic risk. We know that all human beings are not cookie cutters of each other, and the way that they find out vaccine risk is by perverse hand. It is just through social media that, now, they found each other and say: Hey, that happened to you too? There is corroboration that way, but the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, right?

Madam Chairperson: Are there any other questions from the other parties?

Ms. Rogers: I have one final question that brings it back to the bill. Based on your last comment, actually, would you be anti-vaccine or anti-mandatory or anti-scheduling?

Dr. Lyons-Weiler: Okay. That is a great question, and thanks for bringing it up. I do not want to say what I am for or against, because . . . I do not want to say what I am against. I am going to say what I am for. It is a philosophy of mine, if that is okay?

Vaccine exemptions are a safety valve on the vaccine program. They are absolutely necessary, because the population will rise up when the 2% or 3% that you vaccinate experience a 90% or 100% vaccine injury rate. It will become absolutely undeniable. Is the benefit of the incremental 1%, 2%, 3%, by taking away the religious and philosophical exemptions, worth the human pain and suffering that is going to happen, in scientific terms, in the population that is enriched for risk? They vaccinate, and then they get hurt. They say: I do not want to vaccinate. Then they are penalized.

It is a safety valve, so it is good to have these exemptions around so that people can make up their own minds, based on experience.

Ms. Rogers: Thank you.

Dr. Lyons-Weiler: Thank you.

Madam Chairperson: Thank you very much for joining us this afternoon. Your presentation is certainly appreciated.

Autoimmune Psychosis: Fingerprints of Aluminum-Induced Autoimmunity?

Autoimmune Psychosis: Fingerprints of Aluminum-Induced Autoimmunity?

Autoimmune encephalitis is a condition in which the immune system attacks brain proteins.  It was first described by Dalmau in a patients with teratoma who exhibited high levels of autoantibodies that were reactive to neuronal tissue.  These patients also experienced severe psychotic and neurological manifestations, including anxiety, delusions, mania, short-term memory loss and seizures [1]. Immunomodulation and tumor resection reversed the symptoms.

It is well established that aluminum hydroxide can induce autoimmunity of many forms in animal models.  We recently had a paper on the issue of dose relevance to humans accepted and then not published by the journal Autoimmunological Reviews (first because it was too controversial, and then because we dared to have published a draft copy of the manuscript in the name of Open Science).  Our analysis showed that the per body weight aluminum hydroxide dosing in animal models overlapped the exposure experienced by humans when the animal model incorporated a genetic predisposition; a child at the age of two receiving 5 aluminum-containing vaccines would be receiving doses that overlap those with animals that reliably and consistently develop autoimmunity at those doses due to the combined genetic and environmental effects.

We also know that there is a genetic risk to many forms of psychosis.  Genetic variation at genes the encode for ion channel protein may increase individual risk for psychotic disorders. Specific variants at the L-type calcium channel locus are known to confer individual (specific) risk of psychosis within at least five neuropsychiatric disorders, including but not limited to schizophrenia and bipolar disorder [1].

A growing scientific and popular literature is pointing to autoimmune psychosis a real phenomenon, and to many people, it seems as if the whole world is going mad.  Social tensions on the rise in the US fomented by divisive political rhetoric has some pointing to a “Political Cold War” [2].

Earlier [3,4] and later [1] reviews list specific genes for which autoimmunological evidence is high.  However, these reviews call the condition “autoimmune encephalitis” or “synaptic autoimmune encephalitides”.  It is no longer useful to euphemize the condition, which should be re-labeled “autoimmune psychosis”.    Psychologists have also noted increase risk of psychosis in non-neuronal autoimmune conditions (such as Type 1 diabetes) [5], and some genetic variation at HLA-region genes are known to also be associated with psychiatric disorders.

It’s one thing to say that vaccines are for “the greater good” and point to belief in protection from herd immunity and not count the cost of vaccine injuries that society can recognize.  But it’s another to pump hundreds of millions of children with aluminum hydroxide against a backdrop of scientific knowledge that tells us that there may in fact be population-wide attendant consequences to the mental wellness of people in general, with some portion of the population doomed to psychosis – with no plan to work towards helping those individuals reverse the immunological dysfunction or remove the accumulated aluminum from their brains and bodies.

The lack of long-term whole health outcome studies on adverse events that may be associated with vaccination is reckless endangerment.  There is no impetus on the established allopathic model for practice and research to conduct studies of the combined role of genes and vaccines on chronic health – including mental health.  To me, that’s criminal negligence, and those who misinform the entire population that vaccines are safe for everyone – when in fact we know that they are not safe for some – do so at unknown risk to public safety.  We all live in the same society, share the same schools, shop at the same malls, eat the same restaurants.  Perhaps there are other risks that we should be more concerned about than having our kids miss a few days of school with historically mild illnesses.





“The discovery of disorders that are associated with antibodies to neuronal cell-surface proteins has led to a paradigm shift in our understanding of CNS autoimmunity. These disorders can occur in patients with or without cancer—often children or young adults who develop psychosis, catatonic or autistic features, memory problems, abnormal movements, or seizures that were previously considered idiopathic”


Additional Reading

Neuroscience News – Brain on Fire: Puzzling brain disease could now be better diagnosed and treated

Psychology Today – Autoimmune Disorders Linked to Psychosis

PsychScence – Autoimmune Diseases Masquerading as Psychiatric Disorders- A Paradigm Shift in Psychiatry


Anti-brain antibodies are associated with more severe cognitive and behavioral profiles in Italian children with Autism Spectrum Disorder 

Weibel et al., 1998. Acute Encephalopathy Followed by Permanent Brain Injury or Death Associated With Further Attenuated Measles Vaccines: A Review of Claims Submitted to the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. Pediatrics 101

NB: Maternal antibrain antibodies are more often present in mothers of autistic children than in mothers of typically developing children (Rossi et al., 2013; see Braunschweig et al., 2012, for a review).