Coping with credit crisis

October 8, 2008

Dear Sir,

Widely respected in the global market economy, Bermuda could be greatly affected by the downturn in the US economy.

At first glance, Bermuda, a British colony for over 300 years, looks like any other leading economic first world jurisdiction of the 21st Century, with financial headquarter centres being built on every corner of the city. The financial, tourism and construction industries all seem to be doing exceptionally well.

But focus on the local people, and you start to realise this is an economic first world jurisdiction with a difference – one where many locals feel it is easier to live here as a guest worker than as a local. Is this a theory or is this a reality for many Bermudians?

The revelation that Bermuda could be greatly affected by the recent downturn in the US economy has raised a few eyebrows in the country's Government and private sector.

But in Bermuda, where a portrait of the Queen appears on the front of every note, the theory of life in our country as a first world economic jurisdiction evolving from primitive to complex structures by means of natural selection appears to be an unchallenged mentality.

Not so, say those on both sides of the economic divide – a point amply proved by the existence of the North Hamilton Empowerment Zone initiative, to date Bermuda's only tangible initiative for lower class working citizen entrepreneurs. This is the work of Bermuda's oldest political party, the Progressive Labour Party.

Property developer Michael Bradshaw is hoping that Prosperity Heights — his new residential development – will breathe new life into the area of North Hamilton where he was raised.

The four-storey, nine-unit condominium complex on the corner of Ewing Street and Court Street is aimed at attracting young professionals and seniors looking to downsize.

As the site falls in the North Hamilton Economic Development Zone, the developers were able to benefit from financing from the Bank of Bermuda with below-market interest rates, and some duty exemptions on materials.

However is this the only glimpse of hope many hard working Bermudian families will see or are there many more affordable developments and plans in the near future? Affordability. To be or not to be? That is the question many Bermudians are asking themselves.

COLE C. SIMMONS

Age 19

Hamilton Parish

Defending vaccine film

October 6, 2008

Dear Sir,

During the recent Motherbaby International Festival, I was handed a copy of a "Letter to the Editor" published under the heading "Doctors Hit Out at Film" in the September 13, 2008 edition of The Royal Gazette. The letter, written by pediatrician Dr. Bente Lundh and her colleagues, criticises my documentary Vaccine Nation, which was featured at the festival. Now, I have been an avid fan of the big screen all my life, but I can never recall a film critic reviewing a film he or she has not watched in its entirety. But I have dealt with these kinds of attacks numerous times during my long career, and Dr. Lundh's motivations should be quite apparent to all: they were intended to instill a bias against the film before its presentation. I am sure the documented information I provide below will unveil the falsehood of these pediatricians' claims and strengthen the evidence for vaccine's health risks conveyed in Vaccine Nation and in many other excellent scientific sources.

Dr. Lundh and her co-workers attempt to convince readers of vaccines' safety by dispelling any doubt that the preservative ethylmercury, commonly known as thimerosal, is a major cause for the dramatic increase in autism and other neurological disorders among children. They charge Vaccine Nation with misleading viewers and promoting "unfounded hypotheses, unconfirmed and anecdotal data… and numerous mistruths". Throughout my 30 years as a national broadcaster on natural health and a researcher and health consultant who has reversed countless diseases in patients, I have relied on good independent science; that is, science not solely influenced by invested corporate and government interests and backdoor policies. All of my award-winning documentaries have relied on good science, albeit it is a science that might not support Dr. Lundh's medical beliefs.

Although the inclusion of thimerosal in vaccine preparation has been dramatically reduced, it is still used in trace amounts in most vaccines, except for the influenza vaccine which uses it as a major ingredient. When the FDA ruled to discontinue manufacturing vaccines with thimerosal, they did not rule against ceasing distribution of thimerosal-laced vaccines that were stockpiled by vaccine manufacturers. Until recently, these vaccines have continued to be distributed to low-budget clinics serving poorer communities and developing nations.

What I am about to share are the exact words of the very same high level pro-vaccine officials in the government health agencies, their academic medical advisors and pharmaceutical leaders. These are the people who shape the propaganda supporting the vaccine safety that Dr. Lundh and her colleagues faithfully adopt. I would direct readers to a transcript of the now infamous secret meeting held by high level officials and scientists from the CDC, FDA, World Health Organisation and representatives of every major vaccine manufacturer, including GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Wyeth and Aventis. This private meeting was held at a Christian retreat centre in Simpsonwood, Georgia, during June of 2000. The 262-page official transcript of the gathering has since emerged from obscurity and can be read on the Internet at www.autismhelpforyou.com.

Some of the more important statements made during this meeting have been highlighted by Robert Kennedy, Jr. in a 2005 Salon.com article, "Deadly Immunity."

The closed Simpsonwood meeting was urgently called to address the results of an alarming Centers for Disease Control study. CDC epidemiologist, Dr. Tom Verstraeten, after analysing medical records of 100,000 children, noted thimerosal was the likely culprit for the large increase in neurological disorders, including speech problems, ADD and autism in vaccinated children. He stated, "I was actually stunned at what I saw." A top consultant for the American Academy of Pediatrics, Dr. Bill Weil, told the assembly, "you can play with this all you want… [the results] are statistically significant." Dr. Richard Johnston, a pro-vaccine immunologist and pediatrician from the University Colorado excused himself early from the gathering after stating, "Forgive my personal comment—I do not want my grandson to get a thimerosal-containing vaccine until we know better what is going on."

But much of the meeting's discussion dealt with how the parties might cover up the CDC study's findings in order to avoid what Dr. Robert Brent, a leading pediatrician at Alfred DuPont Hospital for Children in Delaware, called a "bad position from the standpoint of defending lawsuits." Dr. John Clements, vaccine advisor for the World Health Organisation stated the research "should not have been done at all….. [the study] will be taken by others and will be used in ways beyond the control of this group." Let me remind you, these are the voices of the expert scientists and the leading pro-vaccine spokespersons who for years denied publicly any relationship between immunisation and childhood neurological disorders. These are also the guiding voices behind the very websites Dr. Lundh directs readers to support her pro-vaccination stance.

The rest of the story is well documented and deals with how the CDC made attempts to hide the study by depositing the evidence of the meeting with a private firm and then whitewashing thimerosal's health dangers with subjectively designed studies published in subsequent years and released for dissemination through national health agencies and professional medical associations for paediatricians to follow obediently.

Contrary to Dr. Lundh's assumptions that Vaccine Nation is one-sided, I can put her unease to rest and assure her that during the years of producing the documentary we invited most of the sitting members on the Centers for Disease Control's Advisory Committee for Vaccine Practice to be interviewed and filmed. Among this panel are officials from the American Medical Association, Centers for Disease Control, the FDA, the NIH, the NIAID, Merck, Sanofi, Wyeth and several universities who create national immunisation policies. Yes, as the pediatricians rightfully charge, the film does not provide "the whole truth." But let us be very clear, neither the vaccine industry nor the immunisation and healthcare policy makers want parents and citizens to know the whole truth. In no instance did any of the Advisory Committee members return our requests or agree to be interviewed—which only proves the old adage "silence is golden."

The paediatricians who criticised Vaccine Nation would have noted the list of individuals from this Committee if they had bothered to watch the film in its entirety. For a multi-billion dollar vaccine industry in constant fear of keeping its back covered it is essential to cherry pick their "good science." Of course, this is no fault of practising paediatricians working with children in their communities. They are simply the messengers, the foot soldiers as it were, faithfully following the dictates of their masters.

I often hear the argument, "But Gary, haven't vaccines been responsible for eradicating some diseases and preventing their spread throughout the population?" The pro-vaccine community certainly wants you to believe so. But this old argument has a mythological dimension. Statistical studies have been conducted in different countries to identify trends in the incidence of infections and death rates before and after certain vaccines were introduced for mass immunisation.

In every case for certain infectious diseases—whooping cough (pertussis), diphtheria, measles, scarlet fever, typhoid, polio and influenza—there was a steady downward trend of incidence and death starting from the beginning of the twentieth century until the respective vaccine was launched. This data has been well documented in the International Mortality Statistics compiled by Michael Alderson and by Greg Beattie in his Vaccination: A Parent's Dilemma.

Even Metropolitan Life Insurance Company reported that the combined mortality rate of diphtheria, measles and whooping cough declined 95 percent among children ages 1 to 14 from 1911 to 1945 before any immunisation programs. Dr. Lundh uses polio as her example to prove her point. US deaths due to polio were almost 49,000 in 1901 and had already steadily declined to under 4,000 per year by the time a polio vaccine was introduced in 1954. The decline is even more significant when the concurrent rate of rising population growth is factored in, as well. No paediatrician can prove with absolute certainty the effectiveness of their precious vaccines. It is equally possible that the decline in these infectious diseases was the result of healthier lifestyles, cleaner water and improved sanitation, more effective medical treatment for other diseases, and better living conditions in our communities.

Those who fully endorse widespread vaccination of children will find little agreement with my position regarding vaccine health safety and immunisations' long-term risks threatening children. Dr. Lundh, her colleagues and I can send letters to The Royal Gazette editor endlessly without finding much common ground. Nevertheless, I would encourage parents and future parents to take it upon themselves to become educated about vaccines. Remember, your children's brains and neurological systems are growing at an extremely rapid rate during their early years. Any toxic substance injected directly into a child's bloodstream — regardless of what officials on the hill might rule as a safe level — is a potential danger to normal cell growth. Ask your pediatrician which vaccines he or she would inoculate your child with, what are their brand names and who are the manufacturers. The product information for all vaccines is provided by manufacturers on their websites. Read the fine print and review the list of ingredients, contra-indications and minor and major adverse effects associated with each.

I debated in this letter against thimerosal's safety. But what about other vaccine ingredients, such as aluminum compounds that have been shown to strengthen mercury's toxicity, even if in trace amounts? Or how about the presence of a foreign virus' or bacteria's DNA and RNA that might interfere with the genetic disposition of a child? During two meetings of the Vaccine and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee, in 1998 and 1999, government and world health officials and scientists were alarmed at the high level of foreign virus contaminants in the animal cell substrates used to prepare and manufacture vaccines. Some of these viral DNA fragments are cancerous according to some Committee members and one researcher stated "There are still countless thousands of undiscovered viruses, proteins and similar particles. We have only identified a very small part of the microbial world – and we can only test for those we have identified. Thus the vaccine cultures could contain many unknown particles." Since it is well-known in the science community that vaccine manufacturing is quite primitive and vaccines are full of known and unknown contaminants, the response has only been to relax the quality control standards in order to allow for this contamination.

Then besides foreign genetic material, vaccines have other ingredients such as formaldehyde, formalin, different antibiotics, cells from a variety of animal organs, pork-derived trypsin, yeast. Would you use these ingredients to spice up your children's breakfast, let alone inject it into their blood systems? Vaccine manufacturers are required to provide this information to pediatricians and yourself. This is the same information your pediatrician should have memorised by now so he or she can intelligently address your questions and fears.

When you better educate yourself about vaccination risks, I have very little doubt that you may discover you can better educate your paediatrician so he or she can make more intelligent decisions in providing better care to your child and the children in your schools and communities.

GARY NULL, PhD

New York City