Friday, October 28, 2011

Landmark Case Highlights Pre-Crime Prosecution for Acts of Terrorism

Brandon Turbeville
Activist Post
October 27, 2011

On October 27, 2011, Dina Temple-Raston of NPR’s Morning Edition reported on a case regarding a Boston man brought up on charges of terrorism whose trial is expected to begin today (October 27). According to the report, Tarek Mehanna, the defendant, was arrested in 2009 and charged with seven different crimes, including “conspiracy to provide material support to a terrorist organization and conspiracy to kill in a foreign country.”

Mehanna is
alleged to have travelled to Yemen and Somalia in search of terrorist training camps, conspired to kill soldiers in Iraq, and, upon his return to the United States, planned to orchestrate a terror campaign involving a shopping mall shooting spree.

When announcing the charges two years ago, acting U.S. Attorney Michael Loucks stated:
 
It is alleged that there were multiple conversations about obtaining weapons and randomly shooting people in a shopping mall. This mall assault planning consisted of the logistics of a malls attack, the coordination of an assault from different entrances, weapons needed for such an assault and the possibility of attacking emergency responders.
It should be noted that Mehanna is an American citizen who was born in Pittsburgh and was raised in an affluent suburb of Boston known as Sudbury. He also holds a doctorate degree from the Massachusetts College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences.
Although individuals accused of terrorism by virtue of less-than-substantial evidence are no longer a rare sight to behold in the Orwellian America of 2011, many of the cases brought before the courts, such as this one, have gradually moved further and further in the direction of prosecution not only for direct acts (aided and guided by the intelligence agencies as they almost always are), but also for indirect acts and, now, apparently, for pre-crime. 

That is what makes this specific trial somewhat more special than the others. 


Indeed, the facts surrounding Mehanna’s alleged activities paints a somewhat different picture of the method of prosecution and the implications for free speech that would result from not only a conviction but the very fact that an arrest and prosecution have taken place to begin with. 


First, Mehanna never found his terrorist training camp. So, essentially, he is being prosecuted for the fact that, if he could have found a terrorist training camp, he would have enrolled himself in it. It is hardly a testament to the rule of law and the land of the free when one can be prosecuted for what one would have done possibly done, might have done, etc. 


Second, as Temple-Raston reports, the shooting spree plan never materialized either. In fact, it never got past the planning stages. In fact, in this case, “planning” is a word that is used quite loosely. The alleged plot was apparently only briefly discussed as opposed to a well thought out plan that was only killed at the last minute. Furthermore, there is little evidence to say that Mehanna was even involved in the “planning” of the plot in the first place as NPR notes. 


Unfortunately, as bad as this case is, there is nothing unusual about the conduct of the U.S. government and the judicial system thus far. Fear mongering by government “officials” over terrorism has been in force for some time and so have poorly constructed, weak prosecutions that largely rely on the alarming level to which the public has been propagandized.  


However, the case is different in the sense that Mehanna is being prosecuted for “discussing” (or as the Department of Justice would call it, “planning”) terrorist activities as well as for his blog entries which were, some claim, radical and fundamentalist in nature.


As Temple-Raston writes, 

What makes this case different from the roster of terrorism cases that have gone to trial in recent months is the two issues around which it revolves: First, whether talking about terrorism, but not acting on it amounts to a crime and, second, if posting something on a blog can amount to supporting a terrorist group.
These are not merely questions of mundane legal matters. These are questions that fundamentally affect the First Amendment in a profound way. The fact that one could be arrested and charged with a crime as serious as terrorism, much less convicted, is not only a frightening thought but one that stands in direct opposition to the very notion of Freedom of Speech. 

Likewise, if one can be prosecuted under similar circumstances for simply posting material on a blog, then it would be wise to question whether or not the alternative media will soon be targeted for material that stands in opposition to the agenda of the state.  


If Mehanna can be successfully prosecuted for his blog postings, then the state will no doubt move forward using his case as precedent to silence critics in the alternative media, starting with the smallest blogger and moving right on up to the top. If Mehanna’s intellectual “terrorist support” provided by means of a blog posting can be considered support for terrorism, how long can it be before articles that oppose the war(s) and expose the American military occupations for what they really are will be considered supporting terrorism? 


Let us not forget that there was once a time in the United States where individuals who encouraged others not to join the military during the orchestrated slaughter of WWI were often convicted of sedition in U.S. courts and sentenced to lengthy prison terms. This has happened in the past and will no doubt happen again if we, as Americans, do not stand up and force those in power to, at the very least, respect our God-given inalienable rights.  


Not only that, it is important to understand the fact that Mehanna’s charges are also a form of pre-crime prosecution. That is, he is on trial for an incident that, at the worst, he planned but never went through with. The charges, then, are levied against an act that he could have committed -- not one that he did commit or even one that he attempted to commit.  


Of course, in the recent acceleration of the Totalitarian Tip-Toe strategy, Mehanna is not the only individual being slapped with terrorism charges and claims of supporting terrorists merely by words or the posting of material considered objectionable by the state.  


Recently, Jubair Ahmad, a 24 year-old Woodbridge, Virginia man was arrested and charged with providing support for terrorism. His crime was uploading a video to YouTube.  The video has been described by the mainstream media as a “propaganda video” as it showed leaders and “jihadi martyrs” of terrorist group Lashkar-e-Taiba alongside footage of armored trucks being destroyed by IED’s.


Although Ahmad is accused of attending two “terrorist training camps” located in Pakistan in the past, it is important to note that his alleged terrorist training camp attendance is not the incident that brought about his charges. He was charged due to his alleged posting of a YouTube video.  


Of course, under the First Amendment, his right to post material espousing the fundamentalist theories of radical Islam are guaranteed.  In fact, all speech is guaranteed under the First Amendment, no matter how objectionable. Indeed, it is unpopular speech that the First Amendment was written to protect, as popular speech rarely needs such protection. It is, after all, popular.  


Nevertheless, Ahmad is not just being charged with supporting terrorism, but he is also being classified as an enemy combatant, a label that strips the defendant of all legal and Constitutional rights. As the Alexander Higgins Blog noted: 

The accusation alone instantly classifies the man as an ‘enemy combatant’  and ‘clear and present danger’. Such persons who are a ‘threat to national security’ have absolutely no rights. To make matters worse, businesses and nations aren’t allowed to do business with such so-called ‘terrorists’ or they will be declared a terrorist themselves. That means a lawyer who takes up his case can be charge with providing support for terrorism. That is  if the United States government  even decides to honor habeas corpus and give the man a trial in the first place. Our beloved supreme court has ruled that ‘enemy combatants’ can be abducted, tortured, assassinated, and even detained for ever without a trial  because the constitution does not apply to them. Even worse, the lucky few who are released after being declared innocent have no right to legal recourse because revealing the details of their detention and torture is also a threat to national security.
Combine these two instances with the fact that the U.S. Congress is now considering the passage of a bill known as the “Drug Trafficking Safe Harbor Elimination Act of 2011,” and one has the recipe for the creation of a totalitarian society where free speech will become both null and void.  

This new law would effectively criminalize the planning or even the discussion of any acts that would violate the Controlled Substances Act and it would apply both to “acts” that were being planned or discussed in foreign countries (such as a weed bash in Amsterdam) as well as those inside the United States.  


For an analysis of the Drug Trafficking Safe Harbor Elimination Act of 2011, see my article, “Congress Expansion of Drug War is an Attack on Free Speech." 


Unfortunately, the truth is that the United States has already become a police state. No matter how hard it is to admit to ourselves, our country crossed that line long ago. But the moves being made by the U.S. government at this point in time are increasing the descent into total tyranny at an alarming rate.


We are fast approaching a time when citizens will be afraid to speak to one another about anything that may be even slightly critical of the state, or any conduct or behavior branded unlawful by the state. With the coming creation of snitch forces drawn from the general population, the increasing militarization of society, and the vast uptick in ridiculous and oppressive laws, we are entering a time when open discussion of any matter will be a rarity. 

The time for all good men to come to the aid of their country passed long ago. Now, the window is closing.


If good men remain silent now, they will remain silent forever -- one way or another.

Tuesday, October 25, 2011

Congress Expansion of Drug War is an Attack on Free Speech

Brandon Turbeville
Activist Post

October 25, 2011


Just when you think Congress has gone about as far as it can go in terms of destroying civil liberties and Constitutional rights, eager and earnest Congressmen such as those “serving” on the House Judiciary Committee step up to the plate and show the American people that there is plenty more that can be done.  Case in point: on October 6, 2011, the House Judiciary Committee passed a bill (sponsored by Judiciary Chairman Rep. Lamar Smith) called the Drug Trafficking Safe Harbor Elimination Act of 2011 (H.R. 313), which will serve to continue the administrative beating of the corpse known as Free Speech in America.

H.R. 313 would make it a Federal crime for U.S. citizens/residents to plan or even discuss activities on foreign soil that would violate the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) if they were carried out inside the United States. Under this bill, it is irrelevant if the activity is actually legal in the country where it is going to be conducted. With H.R. 313, the operative law is the CSA in the United States; the unconstitutional and oppressive law that prohibits drug use and marijuana possession as well as regulates the use and possession of prescription medication.


According to H.R. 313, anyone who discusses, plans, or advises anyone else to engage in an activity prohibited by the CSA, regardless of national boundaries, will be subject to prosecution under Federal law as well as charges of conspiracy. Apparently, conspiracies only exist when they are committed by the citizenry – never the government colluding with corporations or drug cartels.

The conspiracy issue aside, however, there are some disturbing implications for American free speech in this bill. As Jay Van Liere writes for Reality Sandwich:


If passed, this bill could target any American attempting to attend an entheogenic shamanic retreat abroad, or say even just a group of people planning a marijuana bar-crawl in Amsterdam. Americans could face the threat of being convicted of a crime predicated merely upon speech alone. [Got free speech?] And it is worth stressing that the Judiciary Committee is vying for a felony charge (federal crime) here: no paltry misdemeanor, as three felonies alone can be used to lock someone up for a life sentence. 
This bill would also likely affect the medical and academic professions. As Radley Balko of the Huffington Post explains in his article U.S. Drug Policy Would Be Imposed Globally By New House Bill, a U.S. doctor working with overseas doctors or governments on needle exchange programs would be subject to criminal prosecution. Doctors, academics, politicians, and average American citizens could be prosecuted simply for contributing their expert advice to overseas programs such as the drug decriminalization project in Portugal.

Furthermore, because the CSA also regulates prescription drugs, an individual who simply emails a sick friend in Mexico as to where that person could purchase prescription medication over the counter (medication that they would be required to identify and sign for in the land of the free), could potentially be prosecuted as well.

Not only that, but the fact that this new bill can result in charges of conspiracy for something as simple and innocuous as uttering accurate information as to the drug laws in another country, the fallout from H.R. 313 is even more far-reaching than the situations such as those listed above.

Conspiracy charges are themselves very broad and often overreaching categorizations. But, as Balko points out, they are often easier trials to win than those of other charges, allowing prosecutors to take end-runs around legal restrictions such as statutes of limitations. Unfortunately, these charges can also be used in order to cast a wide net and nab up extremely minor players in the game, many of whom were simply unwitting participants who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

For instance, in the case of someone “breaking the law” by planning a weed-laden wedding in Amsterdam, not only would the bride and groom who planned the wedding be in danger of prosecution, but so would the other wedding attendees, family members, participants, etc. Such is the ability of H.R. 313 to create a wide swath of “criminals” guilty of victimless crimes. Victimless crimes that, in any of these cases, are only basic expressions of free speech.


Considering the broad and overreaching capacity of this bill, one would also be justified in wondering whether or not activists, bloggers, and journalists will be in danger of prosecution if their statements or writings are not found acceptable to those ensconced within the power structure. This is particularly relevant in light of the fact that the Obama administration, defying all promises made during his campaign, has now launched an intensified version of the drug war within the United States. Of course, this should come as no surprise.

Nevertheless, the Drug Trafficking Safe Harbor Elimination Act of 2011 also presents a challenge to the Common Law American tradition. That is, the tradition that says anything not strictly prohibited is legal. H.R. 313 is yet another move toward the type of law that says nothing is permitted unless strictly expressed in statutes.

As Harvey Silvergate, author and civil liberties attorney, stated:

Just when you think you can’t get any more cynical, a bill like this comes along. I mean, it just sounds like an abomination. First, there’s no intuitive reason for an American to think that planning an activity that’s perfectly legal in another country would have any effect on America. . . . So we’re getting further away from the common law tradition that laws should be intuitive, and should include a mens rea component.
There is little doubt that Silvergate’s analysis is correct, as the United States marches further and further every day into a society where free speech is not only chilled in certain circumstances, but nonexistent as a whole. If H.R. 313 succeeds in the general Congress and is subsequently signed into law by the President (a virtual guarantee), then free speech -- even the attenuated version that we experience today -- will be essentially dead forever, apart from a Second American Revolution.

Once there is a subject matter, a word, or point of view that citizens fear to hold or express because of the possibility of government retaliation, there is no such thing as free speech within that society. Such a society can no longer keep up the pretense that it is free. Once such a law has been passed, the mask has been pulled off and tyranny no longer masquerades as anything else but what it is. There is now no excuse for allowing authoritarianism to run amok in this country. It is no longer cloaked under “freedom” and “security.” It is now openly expressing itself and launching an attempt to prevent even feeble criticism of it and its societal oppression.

The very fact that lawmakers even have the gall to write, sponsor, introduce, or even hint at supporting such a bill, without fear of losing their elected position or becoming victims of whatever other means the public may have to exact retribution for their treasonous behavior should send a message to every citizen who pays even minor attention to current events.

With this in mind, feel free to contact the sponsor of this monstrous piece of treasonous legislation, Rep. Lamar Smith, and let him know how you feel about his latest assault on free speech.  

Considering the tendency of Congress to support any and all legislation that would damage the Bill of Rights in the past, it might be a good idea to contact your own Representatives as well.  Feel free to explain to them that their parasitical tenure in the U.S. House depends upon their voting record on issues like this.  

More important than telling them, however, is meaning it

Wednesday, October 5, 2011

More Anthrax Vaccine Contracts Issued: 44.75 Million Doses of BioThrax Over 5 Years

Brandon Turbeville
October 5, 2011

On September 22, 2011, I wrote an article entitled, Grants Issued For Next-Generation Anthrax Vaccine; False Flag to Come, Or More Wasted Money? in which I discussed the recent announcement that the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) was granting the Biomedical Advanced Research and Developmental Authority (BARDA) millions of dollars for the purpose of creating a “next-generation anthrax vaccine and a new type of antitoxin.” 

In this announcement, it was reported that BARDA would be contracting out the work in regards to these projects to two companies, Vaxin Inc. out of Rockville, Maryland and Elusys Therapeutics out of Pine Brook, New Jersey. 

I also discussed the concerns related to Anthrax vaccine/antitoxin production in relation to the potential signaling of a false flag attack. This perspective is related to the fact that the original and much-touted anthrax attacks of 2001 were not the result of fundamentalist Muslim terrorism but the direct result of US government involvement. 

It is important to understand, as addressed in the aforementioned article, the context in which the new vaccine production is being implemented. An example would be Barack Obama’s now famous Executive Order (EO) 13527 which directly relates to a “bioterrorist” attack and contains language that has led many to speculate as to whether it also relates to forced vaccination programs. Not only that, but it is also important to understand the role government has played in creating and exploiting just these types of situations. 

One should also be seriously concerned about the obvious adverse health effects created by the previously administered anthrax vaccines, particularly in American servicemen, and how they relate to the new vaccines being produced. 

I highly recommend that the reader go back to my previous article and read the information presented there for some brief background related to the concern of a potential false flag attack in regards to the recent announcement of contracts to produce new anthrax vaccines. 

In light of these announcements, it was reported by Government Security News that on October 3, 2011, Emergent BioSolutions Inc. announced that it, too, would be receiving “an award to supply the U.S. Government with 44.75 million doses of BioThrax (Anthrax Vaccine Absorbed) over a period of five years for a total value of up to $1.25 billion.” 

BioThrax is the version of the anthrax vaccine made solely by Emergent and, according to the Emergent website, a vaccine which has already been administered to 2.5 million people. Of course, Emergent does not explain who these 2.5 million people are or what social groups they tend to belong to. However, this vaccine no doubt carries with it all the dangers of the rest of the anthrax vaccines that have caused so much pain and suffering among those who have taken the shot. Patents and the detailed special touches of manufacturing make little difference when the basic chemical-laden principles of vaccination are followed.

Regardless, what is more disturbing than the adverse effects of the vaccine is the history of the bio-pharmaceutical company itself. 

Emergent BioSolutions Inc. is much more than a mere recipient of government contracts to produce anthrax vaccines. Located in Rockville, Maryland, Emergent BioSolutions Inc. bears its name as a result of the massive company restructuring of BioPort Corporation. Initially, Emergent was constructed as a subsidiary of BioPort but, through the corporate restructuring mechanisms, eventually became the parent company to BioPort

Up until around 2006, when BioPort was restructured into a subsidiary of Emergent, the company was the sole provider of the anthrax vaccine known as BioThrax that was used in the wake of the false flag anthrax scare of 2001. At that time, BioPort had only one customer -- the US Department of Defense (DOD), and its one product was anthrax vaccine.  In addition to being the sole customer of BioPort, the DOD poured enormous amounts of money into the corporation, although it only provided a small fraction of the vaccine which it was contracted to produce.  In 1999, the DOD shoveled $18 million dollars of taxpayer money into BioPort. In 2000, it spent another $24 million.
[1] 

At the time of the 2001 anthrax scare, BioPort was also the only US Corporation that was licensed to manufacture anthrax vaccine; a license which was acquired in a privatization effort where BioPort bought the laboratories of the Michigan Biologic Products Institute, the organization that was itself created to further the privatization of anthrax vaccine production that was initially overseen and undertaken by the Michigan Department of Public Health. 

Consequently, because it was the only producer of anthrax vaccine in 2001, BioPort made hefty profits from the spike in demand for the vaccine that followed the mysterious packages that killed five people. 

In addition, the man who was ultimately blamed for the anthrax mailings, Dr. Bruce Ivins, was a co-owner of two patents for the anthrax vaccine that BioPort sold after the initial panic ensued. Much of Dr. Ivins’ career was based on his attempt to fully understand the process of anthrax infection and isolate the specific toxin that was fatal. He apparently found this toxin and then attempted to build upon his knowledge in order to develop a vaccine that would protect humans from infection.  As the unfortunate patsy in the anthrax attacks, Ivins allegedly committed suicide in 2008.

Although the mainstream media tried to spin these connections between Ivins and the anthrax vaccine as evidence of available material and a motive of financial profit, neither of these attempts to lay the blame on Ivins held up. In fact, two former directors of the bacteriology division at Ft. Detrick directly contradicted the official story of Ivins’ involvement in the anthrax mailings. The directors even went so far as to say that it would have been impossible for Ivins to produce the powdered anthrax that was used within the timeframe claimed by the FBI. This sentiment has been echoed by many others close to this case as well. Interestingly enough, even the FBI has contradicted the official story, of which it is the main purveyor. 

Rumormillnews even calls into question the claims made by the mainstream media that Ivins could have gained financially from his connections to the anthrax vaccine. Writing for Rumormillnews, Sharon Gilbert suggests that because Ivins was working for the US government, he was limited to $150,000 a year profit from any of his research, regardless of the increase in sales resulting from the panic.

Yet the association with Dr. Bruce Ivins is almost inconsequential compared to the ties BioPort (now Emergent) has with more sinister individuals and organizations. 

Indeed, it has been reported that the Carlyle Group, an international consulting and investment firm, as well as defense contractor, is a major owner of BioPort. Although these reports were given some years ago, it is unlikely that the ownership of such a perfectly situated company (in terms of profits) has dramatically shifted.

For those who are unaware of the Carlyle Group, please read this article or David Icke’s book Alice in Wonderland and the World Trade Center Disaster for a brief overview on its history of treachery. The members of this group (i.e. George H.W. Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Frank Carlucci, William E. Kennard, and many many others) are too many to list in this article, as are the connections that the Carlyle Group has to defense contractors, defense manufacturers, foreign governments, international banks and corporations, and even terrorist organizations. Needless to say, the Carlyle Group leaves a list of New World Order connections a mile long. This includes the bin Laden family who have been investors and clients of the organization in the past. 

Members of the Carlyle Group, the US government, and even BioPort itself no doubt wish to keep these connections secret. In regards to the Carlyle Group connections specific to Bioport, however, investigative journalist Sherman Skolnick  wrote:
Under the disguise of invoking national emergency provisions, George W. Bush has ordered National Guard sentries to guard the BioPort facility in Lansing, Michigan. Bush has ordered, under pretext of 'national security', that employees and officials of BioPort are forbidden to discuss with reporters, commentators, and researchers, the nature of the ownership of BioPort Corporation. This was done to preclude details of this private corporation from being publicly disclosed. This presidential edict was quietly put through just prior to the beginning of bombing by the U.S. of Afghanistan. Despite this clamp-down on disclosure, some very patriotic employees of BioPort have informed independent-minded commentators of the reputed ownership and operations details of BioPort Corporation.
Indeed, the drastic measures taken to hide the true ownership and background of BioPort are necessary if one wishes to use this front company in order to prepare and facilitate another false flag attack. It would not be in the best interests of those such as the Carlyle Group, who would stand to make astronomical profits out of not just the increased sale of vaccines but also out of the increased police state machinery and war making materials that would ensue as a result of such a perceived “bio-attack.”

However, the revelation of Carlyle Group connections to BioPort are not as alarming as the connections between the bio-pharmaceutical front company and the bin Laden family. Yet these connections exist nonetheless, and not just through the tangled web of the Carlyle Group and international banks and corporations. Skolnick again writes that, “Another stockholder of BioPort Corp., is the Bin Laden Group, some 24 family members of which were whisked out of the U.S., on 'safety' reasons by the secret political police, the FBI, following the September 11, 2001 events.”

Indeed, Fuad el-Hibri, a Saudi businessman who has served as a representative for Saudi Arabian and other Middle Eastern interests, serves as Emergent’s Chairman of the Board of Directors. El-Hibri has been reported to be a supporter of Osama bin Laden the individual and the bin Laden family as a whole. It should also be mentioned that El-Hibri is himself a major shareholder in the company.

To further demonstrate the virtually endless number of unfortunate connections maintained by BioPort/Emergent, it is important to note that Admiral William Crowe was (shortly after the attacks) a 13% owner in BioPort. Crowe had served as the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff when American-produced weapons-grade anthrax was being shipped to Saddam Hussein for use in the war against Iran. He also served under former Secretary of Defense Frank Carlucci, a chairman of the Carlyle Group. Crowe is also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). 

While, at first glance, these connections may seem trivial, the fact is that in the world of false flag terror, a web of interconnected and interrelated organizations, front companies, and government agencies etc. is both a necessary and available prerequisite. In 2011, these resources are clearly available and they are clearly effective. Indeed, they have been accessed many times before. 

These recent announcements of vaccine contracts may be just another complete waste of taxpayer money. However, as I said in my conclusion to the last article I wrote on this issue, we cannot afford to simply dismiss the potential buildup to false flag terror as mere government stupidity. 

At the very least, the connections between these various groups and individuals are concerning. Yet the fallout from a staged “bio-attack” would be disastrous. The US government has clearly expressed a disdain for civil liberties and has openly (relatively speaking) sought out ways in which to curtail these freedoms. An anthrax attack, real or staged, would provide them the perfect opportunity to do just that.

 Notes: 
[1]  Icke, David. Alice In Wonderland and the World Trade Center Disaster. David Icke Books. 2002. Pp. 89-90.

The Myth of Vaccine Safety and Effectivenes

Brandon Turbeville
Activist Post
October 2, 2011

In an article published on September 28, 2011 by Activist Post, Eileen Dannemann of Vaccine Liberation Army
rips a hole in the long-standing claim by the vaccine and medical establishment that the mercury in vaccines is safe due to the specific compound being used.

At the forefront of the debate is the use of Thimerosal , a mercury-based preservative used in many different vaccines, particularly in flu shots. Thimerosal is made up of 49.6% mercury which is a known neurotoxin. In fact, the EPA has declared the toxicity limit of mercury to be as small an amount as .1 mcg. However, the annual flu shot contains as much as 25 mcg by virtue of the Thimerosal preservative. This is 250 times higher than the limit of toxicity set by the EPA. 


There is no logical ability to deny the fact that mercury is harmful to brain function and development, particularly on those who are developing. However, for some time, vaccine developers have argued that the specific compound of mercury (ethylmercury) being used in vaccines is much safer than the more well-known form of mercury (methylmercury) whose dangers are both documented and admitted by everyone.


Claims that ethylmercury and methylmercury are different, of course, are true.  Ethylmercury is an inorganic compound of mercury, while methylmercury is the organic compound. Contrary to what is usually the case, it is true that the organic form of mercury is initially the most dangerous at first contact. However, to imply that these compounds are so different so as negate the dangers of ethylmercury used in vaccines is both inaccurate and misleading.

In fact, the compounds are quite similar. For years during the 1970s both forms of the mercury compound were used as a fungicide until they were banned due to adverse health effects. So, obviously, these compounds are not so very different. 


However, vaccinators continue to harp on the claim that the ethylmercury compound is much safer than that of the methylmercury compound, even when injected directly into the human body. Yet, although this claim has been repeated ad nauseam, the science says something different. 


Indeed, the science actually demonstrates the opposite of the pro-vaccine claims, as ethylmercury actually metabolizes as methylmercury within the human body, leaving the individual with the toxic form of mercury that even vaccinators admit to be dangerous.


As Eileen Danneman writes in her article, “Establishment Safety Debate: Thimerosal in Vaccines vs. Admittedly Dangerous Methylmercury,” upon reviewing two key published studies on mercury metabolism (one  in rats and one in human infants), Dr. Paul King has come to the conclusion that, “during the metabolic process in the human and animal bodies the supposedly 'harmless' ethylmercury compound, Thimerosal, is metabolized (converted) into the toxic and 'harmful' methylmercury. And then in turn, the harmful methylmercury is metabolized (converted) into the most harmful, long-term-toxic, 'inorganic' mercury that is retained in bodily tissue.” 


In the rat study to which this article refers,
[1] there were three different groups of test subjects. First, a test control group treated with a water placebo. Second, a group treated with Thimerosal and, third, a group treated with methylmercury.

As expected in the placebo group, when the test rats were killed, there were no reported levels of mercury in their blood and organs. Also as expected, the rats treated with methylmercury contained levels of methylmercury and “inorganic” mercury in their blood and organs. However, unexpectedly (to the reseachers at least), was the fact that the rats treated with the much-touted “harmless” ethylmercury, had not only ethylmercury in their blood and organs, but also methylmercury and “inorganic” mercury. Indeed, these rats actually had higher levels of “inorganic” mercury in their brains than did the rats treated with the methylmercury outright. (It should be noted that the residual levels of “inorganic” mercury being referred to here are those that are the final, long-term, residual forms of “inorganic” mercury after the metabolic process.)


As Danneman writes: 


This observation begs an answer to the question: Where did the 'methylmercury' come from since this group was only originally and solely treated with Thimerosal (an 'ethylmercury' compound)?
Based on the published findings in the three groups of rats, the metabolic pathway for organic mercury involves the conversion of Ethylmercury (Thimerosal) into 'methylmercury' and then the further reduction of 'methylmercury' into inorganic mercury.
However, it should be noted that the two studies addressed by Dr. King and Eileen Danneman are not the only studies that demonstrate the metabolization of ethylmercury into methylmercury within the human body. As I wrote in my article “Mercury in Vaccines: No More Dangerous Than A Tuna Sandwich,” in March 2010, a published study entitled “Comparison of Blood and Brain Mercury Levels In Infant Monkeys Exposed to Methylmercury or Vaccines Containing Thimerosal,”[2] demonstrated this very process.

This study involved the treating of monkeys with the injected forms of ethylmercury and methylmercury. At the end of the experiment, it was found that the monkeys injected with the ethylmercury also contained methylmercury in their brains. Indeed, it was found that the ethylmercury treated monkeys had significantly higher levels (from 10% to 71%) of methylmercury in their brains than even those monkeys who were treated with the pure methylmercury.

The conclusion of the study was that ethylmercury, while seemingly less dangerous than methylmercury, actually metabolizes as methylmercury. Also, it is possible that injection of ethylmercury actually increases the amount of methylmercury that lodges itself in the brain.

This evidence refutes the claim that ethylmercury is harmless as it is expelled by the body before it can do any damage and why the levels of ethylmercury are not easily detected. In reality, the ethylmercury is not being expelled at all. It is merely changing forms. Thus, levels of ethylmercury cannot be accurately detected after it has metabolized as methylmercury.


The study even went further by mentioning a connection between the reaction of the brains in the study and those of autistic patients. It stated,  


Stereologic and autometallographic studies on the brains of these adult monkeys indicated that the persistence of inorganic Hg in the brain was associated with a significant increase in the number of microglia in the brain, whereas the number of astrocytes declined……It is important to note that ‘an active neuroinflammatory process’ has been demonstrated in brains of autistic patients, including a marked activation of microglia.
Although the authors of the study are not suggesting that vaccines cause autism, the study itself presents clear correlative evidence that they do. There is obviously a relationship between inorganic mercury in the brain and autism and this has been demonstrated time and time again. Taken with the fact that ethylmercury metabolizes as methylmercury, one can easily deduce the connection between vaccines and autism. Indeed, this connection is not as difficult to make as vaccine pushers would make it out to be.

As awareness to the dangers of vaccines increases amongst the general public, more and more scientific evidence of this sort will gradually come to light. As usual, those who were ridiculed as irresponsible “conspiracy theorists” in the beginning will eventually proven justified in their decisions to refuse vaccination, much as they are in others areas of life. 


Vaccine makers, pharmaceutical companies, and even government regulatory and safety agencies will attempt to avoid any real scientific studies as to the safety of vaccines and their ingredients in the meantime. This is because, once true science is applied to the sacred cow of the medical establishment known as vaccines, the entire industry will come crumbling down. Vaccines simply cannot stand up to true scientific standards.


If and when the myth of vaccine safety and effectiveness is finally destroyed, there will no doubt be some very angry individuals asking serious questions. Particularly, there will be many parents of autistic children, whose only crime was in trusting the medical establishment and the mainstream media, who will be demanding answers. 


In the meantime, we must continue to spread the truth about vaccines and their inherent dangers to every corner of the globe. Too many have been harmed already. Let’s not let those numbers grow any larger.


Please take part in Vaccine Information Week by sharing this article, as well as the many other KEY ARTICLES demonstrating the dangers of vaccines.
 

Notes:

[1] Rodriques JL, Serpeloni JM, Batista BL, Souza S, Barbosa Jr F. Identification and distribution of mercury species in rat tissues following administration of Thimerosal or methyl mercury. Arch Toxicol 2010; 84: 891-896.

[2] Burbacher, Thomas M.; Shen, Danny D.; Liberato, Noelle.; Grant, Kimberly S.; Cernichairi, Elsa.; “Comparison of Blood and Brain Mercury Levels in Infant Monkeys Expose to Methylmercury or Vaccines Containing Thimerosal.” Environmental Health Perspectives, Vol. 113, Number 8, August 2005.