Australian researchers are investigating the DTaP? Here’s the catch.

Most of you probably saw the news this weekend when the UK’s Daily Mail trumpeted, “Fears whooping cough vaccine gives children food allergies!” OK, that exclamation point is mine, not theirs, but that was a crazy headline, wasn’t it? When do we ever see that? Inside the story we see that researchers are thinking that food allergies in Australia skyrocketed about the same time the acellular pertussis vaccine was introduced to the country, and, therefore, the DTaP is to blame for food allergies. Mystery solved! Thanks, Australia. 

Hold onto your seats for this 40-minute read because we’re going to go from food allergies to the whole-cell DPT, to a secret aluminum adjuvant, to deaths from the hep B vaccine, and all the way out to the Merck 2017 cyber-attack. I don’t want to be accused of burying the lede, so you’re definitely going to want to read to the end of this article because we’re not ending up where we’re starting.

Does Australia really care?

Oh, heck no. We all know that Australia is the most pro-vaccine country on the planet, so we smell these fishy fumes from a mile away. Their most recent prime minister is married to a pharmaceutical chairman and he publicly advocated for barring unvaccinated children from attending daycare in 2017. Australia does not care about what’s causing food allergies. 

The Australian government is so pro-vaccine that they are taking government benefits and welfare rebates away from families who don’t adhere to the vaccine schedule, thereby punishing the poorest children if their parents attempt to spare them from vaccines. Truly inhumane. They don’t care about health, they don’t care about parents, and the certainly don’t care about children. 

When someone sent me the Daily Mail article on Sunday, the headline was this:




But when I checked up on it two hours later, they had changed it to this:



Which is funny on its own (a sad funny), but also funny because that almost lines up perfectly with the press release from Telethon Kids Institute, the organization performing the study, so you know where the marching orders to change the headline came from. 



Remember this little ditty from our FDA? 

My Golden Rule is that the media is only allowed to report negative vaccine news when there’s an agenda at play. They can report on how crappy the annual flu vaccine is only once research for the universal flu vaccine is underway. They can admit that Gardasil 4 was causing HPV infections of strains not covered by the vaccine to surge only after Gardasil 9 was approved by the FDA.

So think back to our FDA’s 2013 announcement (that they deleted off the FDA site and it’s only in the Wayback machine, so make sure to save it) where they revealed, “the acellular pertussis vaccines licensed by the FDA … may not prevent infection from the bacteria that causes whooping cough in those vaccinated or its spread to other people…”



Now, if you’re like me, you’ve been tapping your fingers since November, 2013, waiting for our government to announce that they’re returning to the whole-cell pertussis vaccine because the DTaP and Tdap aren’t cutting it. There was the 2016 Kaiser study about the useless Tdap booster in 2016, and I really thought we were going to get hit with it then, but so far it’s been quiet.

I think this study is the first whispers of the whole-cell DPT return.

Who is doing the vaccines-cause-food-allergies research?

The study’s lead researcher is Dr. Tom Snelling, a pediatric disease physician who “works to minimize childhood infectious disease through vaccination.” Whoops! Where is allergy or chronic childhood illness specialty in his job description? Does this guy sound like a concerned pediatric allergist or a vaccine-pushing public health doctor? Obviously, he is a vaccine foot soldier through and through, and the Australian government wants to kill two birds with one stone: bring back the whole-cell pertussis vaccine, and at the same time mislead parents into thinking they are proactively protecting their children from food allergies by getting them vaccinated. 

I can see it now: our favorite trolls will be all over mainstream media in 2021, matter-of-factly copying and pasting on anaphylaxis death news stories, “Australian researchers proved that vaccines protect against food allergies, not cause them.”

Dr. Snelling went on to say, “We believe that by harmlessly mimicking infections, some vaccines have the potential to help steer the immune system away from developing allergic reactions.” Look, what we know about the immune system today only fills up a thimble, but this sentence is ridiculous. The human body does not depend on doctors to inject it with vaccines in order to enable us to eat food. I actually heard a doctor say the same thing once, almost a decade ago. I truly thought it was the dumbest thing I’d ever heard in my life and I about fell out of my chair when I read it on this website today. Allergy is a manmade plague and the solution to it is not to add more, different, better, or out-of-circulation manmade injectables to the problem. 

“We are trying to understand if using the whole-cell whooping cough vaccine can help train the immune system not to react to these harmless substances,” said Snelling. Maybe if we stopped injecting neurotoxic substances into newborns, their immune systems would know exactly what to do with the harmless substances? Ever think of that, Snelling?

It looks like the babies in this study will be given one whole-cell (DTwP) injection between 6-12 weeks old, along with the other standard two-month Australian vaccines. Then, at four months and six months, they’ll receive the normal DTaP, not the DTwP, along with all other vaccines. These babies will, I assume, also receive the birth dose of hepatitis B vaccine. In fact, Dr. Snelling should refuse to accept any babies who haven’t received the birth dose of hep B because it will likely skew their study results in a positive way, which he will mistakenly attribute to the whole cell DPT dose.

All babies with any food allergies are excluded from enrolling in the study, of course, as are any babies with eczema— although let’s not talk about eczema being such a serious condition and overall indicator of immune health that it bars children from participating in medical studies. People love to laugh at parents who claim eczema as a vaccine injury, because it’s “just eczema.”

When did Australia change pertussis vaccines?

In the US the DTaP introduction happened gradually, from 1996 through 1999, but in South Australia and in the Northern Territory the DTaP was adopted in 1997, and in the rest of Australia in 1999. Most of Australia’s population is in “the rest of the country,” so the 1997 DTaP adoption involved only a small amount of people, and for all intents and purposes, Australia introduced the DTaP in 1999.

There have been several smaller allergy waves in developed countries over the years, but only one big one: the anaphylactic kindergartners who arrived in 1995. I know that people take the “allergy wave” debate seriously, but my friend Heather Fraser has put a lot of work into researching the ER admissions for allergic anaphylaxis in the US, Canada, UK and Australia, and she’s pinpointed kids born from 1990-1991 as the front of the biggest wave. I’m not saying it’s the only wave, and I’m not saying it’s the first wave. I’m saying these kids were the beginning of the tsunami epidemic. They are the inflection point. 

So if Australia is going to claim that the children of their big wave were born in 1999 and blame it on the DTaP substitution, I’m going to have to disagree with them right out of the gate. I’d like to see the ER admissions backing up this claim. 

But Australia wants to argue 1999, so fine. Let’s talk about 1999. What happened right after the DTaP substitution in 1999? Australia adopted the aluminum-hefty birth dose of the hepatitis B vaccine on May 1, 2000. What, injecting a newborn with a quarter of a milligram of aluminum hydroxide isn’t a significant timeline issue in the allergy epidemic? This major shift away from waiting 6 weeks before administering any aluminum-containing vaccine isn’t considered? Why isn’t Dr. Snelling investigating that? Do we even care what minuscule outcome there is from his whole cell DPT study if we aren’t going to talk about aluminum?

Aluminum is known to skew one half of the immune system, the Th-2 side, in an irreparable way. The more interesting study, to me, is the fact that the Murdoch Children’s Research Institute knows that giving a newborn a Th1 immune boosting BCG vaccine—the “cleanest” vaccine ever in existence— can cancel out the harmful Th-2 effects of the aluminum in the newborn hepatitis B vaccine. Australia had a history of vaccinating school-aged children, never newborns, with the BCG up until the mid-1980s. Now they’re realizing that there is a major balancing benefit in a birth dose of BCG for newborns, and the study has been underway for almost three years.

Was the whole-cell DPT effective at preventing pertussis infections?

No, it didn’t work that well, either. There’s an October, 2000, Israeli daycare whole-cell DPT study that discovered the whole cell vaccine also waned after a few years, but might have given people a couple of extra years of protection over the DTaP. It also revealed that the DTwP made children into “asymptomatic reservoirs of infection,” so unvaccinated newborns aren’t any more protected around DTwP vaccinated kids and adults than they are now.

It was when I was researching the dangers of the old whole cell DPT vaccine that I fell down the aluminum adjuvant rabbit hole. Are you ready to come with me? Let’s go.

Was whole cell pertussis really the DPT problem? 

How many times have we heard that the whole cell pertussis component was the risky ingredient in the DPT? Vaccine manufacturers attempted to appease the masses by offering a diphtheria-tetanus vaccine that lacked the pertussis component, while laying the blame for the devasting reactions on the whole-cell pertussis. But the British Childhood Encephalopathy Study of 1976 discovered that children receiving just DT component vaccine were also reacting very badly. 

So if it wasn’t the whole-cell pertussis component, what was it about the old DPT vaccines that were so dangerous?

The DPT had a secret ingredient: an undisclosed, mislabeled, highly reactive aluminum adjuvant

Aluminum adjuvants aren’t approved separately from vaccines so there hasn’t been any FDA safety testing on any of the adjuvants. The vaccine is approved and the adjuvant is simply “disclosed” to the FDA in the application and reported to the public on the label. For this section I’m going to point you to YouTube to watch Dr. Suzanne Humphries’ “Merck’s Dirty Little Secret.” It came out in 2017 but I didn’t watch it before just now and it’s rocked my world.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qbnqO_vJVOk

By way of crazy example, Dr. Humphries spends a little time talking about the mess that is vaccine manufacturing, and how even the FDA knew decades ago that the stated ingredients in the whole cell pertussis vaccines were meaningless. The endotoxin levels could vary between 7 and 37 units, but the label would always say 12, no matter what. Dr. Humphries explains, “The manufacturing process precludes exact quantification into a vial. Everything’s stirred, suspended in liquified form, which is then nozzle-fed into 0.5 ml portions on a conveyor belt.” 

The vaccine manufacturing process simply (and obviously, if you think about it) doesn’t lend itself to being standardized, so why people expect it to be standardized, and exact, and therefore safe, is bizarre. And now that manufacturers have immunity from negligence and product defects, what does being accurate in vaccine production matter? It doesn’t.

The old packaging for Wyeth’s DPT vaccine listed aluminum phosphate as the adjuvant, and Connaught’s DPT vaccine claimed to contain aluminum potassium sulfate. In December 1990, Suhag Shirodkar, a technical writer with a masters in Industrial Pharmacy, published a study in Pharmaceutical Research where he and his team investigated nine aluminum-containing adjuvants. All nine samples were inaccurately labeled.  The manufacturers were using sulfate buffers in the production process, and it was changing their aluminum adjuvant compounds into new chemical structures.

Wyeth’s alleged “aluminum phosphate” DPT adjuvant turned out to be an entirely different compound called amorphous aluminum hydroxyphosphate (AAH), which Merck now has a patent on. Very interestingly, in Merck’s patent on AAH, they admit that in working with aluminum, particle sizes vary, which presents consistency problems, and manufacturers therefore “need better methods to standardize their aluminum adjuvant.”

Connaught’s alleged “aluminum phosphate” DPT adjuvant turned out to be the super-powered amorphous aluminum hydroxyphosphate sulfate (AAHS), which is a “proprietary formula” adjuvant that Merck uses in Gardasil today

Rest assured that the various kinds of aluminum adjuvants are not interchangeable with one another. Even Merck claims that their AAHS adjuvant is “both physically and functionally distinct” from traditional aluminum adjuvants. Compared to the linear strands of traditional aluminum adjuvant, that the body gathers up into granulomas, AAHS flows through the body like a tangled mess of barbed wire bound to vaccine antigens.

In 2007, a Merck scientist named Michael Caulfield wrote that AAHS caused a huge, prolonged antibody level, way in excess of that produced by natural infection. And we know that the medical system assumes that more is better, with no regard for the side effects on the human body.

For many decades, perhaps more than 60 years, doctors have been administering the same adjuvant in Gardasil to infants all across the world, killing many and brain injuring even more, because of an undetected and undisclosed manufacturing mistake. 

After concerns about DTwP safety and low effectiveness of the vaccine, Japan suspended its DTwP vaccination program after 1970, and Sweden followed in 1979.

It wasn’t just the DPT vaccines

Because Wyeth and Connaught manufactured these AAH and AAHS adjuvants by accident, not design, it’s unlikely that any label of the old DPT vaccines reflected what was in the vial. Do we think that today’s manufacturing processes have cleared up all the issues? That’s unlikely to be possible. The very meaning of “amorphous” in amorphous aluminum means “lacking a clear structure.” Merck is telling you that they work with little blobs of honeycombed aluminum that they can’t control and need to better standardize. 

But it was more than just the DPT vaccines. In 1987 Merck was manufacturing a hep B vaccine which had devastating effects in France and New Zealand. Its insert claimed the vaccine used an aluminum hydroxide adjuvant. But in 2000 Merck asked that the description be changed in New Zealand, and they admitted in their request that their hep B vaccine adjuvant had always been AAHS—which is more powerful, more reactogenic and more difficult to standardize. Merck’s hep B vaccines were mislabeled all over the world for over a decade. In 2001, Merck made the same request to change the label of its hep A vaccine in New Zealand.

If you’re wanting any proof that all of this is true, today Merck’s Recombivax hepatitis B vaccine admits using AAHS, which was “previously referred to as aluminum hydroxide.” 


Dr. Humphries says, “This totally nullifies Cochrane’s review of ‘Adverse events after immunisation with aluminum-containing DTP,’ because Dr. Jefferson was comparing apples to pears when he concluded that, ‘Despite a lack of good-quality evidence, we do not recommend that any further research on this topic is undertaken.’ Vaccine manufacturers knew full well that their labeling was false by 2004.”

Now, I’m not saying that Merck committed fraud when they got FDA approval for Recombivax in 1987, but what’s it called when you misrepresent the chemical structure of your hepatitis B vaccine adjuvant to the government, and then don’t say anything about it for decades? 

AAHS will be in the new American hexavalent vaccine

Europe uses several 6-in-1 hexavalent vaccines, such as Infanrix Hexa, which (allegedly) utilizes traditional aluminum hydroxide and aluminum phosphate as adjuvant, Hexaxim, which uses aluminum hydroxide, and Hexyon, which uses aluminum hydroxide. But when the new Vaxelis hexa vaccine comes to America in 2020, it will be using Merck’s hep B vaccine, and Merck’s aluminum hydroxyphosphate sulfate, or AAHS.

What the hell are we thinking? If I didn’t know better, I’d think there was a conspiracy to keep American SIDS and autism rates right where they are.

AAHS is part of the basis of the lawsuit against Merck for fraud

In the current and ongoing California lawsuit against Merck for committing fraud during its Gardasil clinical trials, the attorneys’ recent “science day” presentations included testimony that “AAHS adjuvant over-stimulated the immune systems of vaccine recipients tipping them into autoimmune conditions in which their redlining immune defenses begin attacking their bodies’ own organs.”

One plaintiff attorney explained that Merck has refused to disclose the contents of AAHS, or to provide samples to independent and university scientists for testing.  AAHS has never been safety tested by the government because no vaccine adjuvants are safety tested by the government.

Merck used an AAHS-spiked placebo in their control group, which allowed them to mask the injuries suffered by girls in the Gardasil group during the clinical trials.  According to Lyn Redwood’s new piece for Children’s Health Defense, “Half the girls in the Gardasil group and half the girls in the spiked placebo group suffered serious injuries, including several deaths, in the first seven months of the clinical trials, yet Merck was able to claim that reactions in the study group ‘were similar to the reactions in the placebo group,’ and that, therefore, the vaccine was safe.”

Hasn’t all aluminum repeatedly been proven safe?

Aluminum has been used for decades, so it must be safe, right? Even the CDC encourages us to “read the research on aluminum exposure and vaccines,” which was surprising to me today because I didn’t think that they, or the FDA, had researched injecting infants with aluminum phosphate, aluminum hydroxide, or AAHS. I was on the edge of my seat when I clicked that link— I couldn’t believe I’d finally stumbled across the missing treasure trove of vaccine aluminum research. 

Alas, the CDC sadly linked to the FDA’s sole aluminum abstract (full access denied, no reading for you without coughing up $35.95) of Robert Mitkus’ pathetic 2011 study

Luckily, the brilliant mind behind Vaccine Papers has addressed this study for us and points out that: 

1) the Mitkus FDA study was based on a mathematical model, not real life, 

2) his study didn’t address AAHS at all, 

3) Mitkus compared injected vaccine aluminum to the minimal risk level set by ingesting aluminum in feeding tubes, aka he compared apples to oranges, 

4) Mitkus didn’t consider aluminum vaccine adjuvant to be part of the body burden at all as long as it was solid, which is a fatal flaw, because solid aluminum can’t be assumed to be harmless, and – this made me laugh— 

5) even the FDA took down their dedicated Mitkus page in 2017.  

So, no. The safety of injecting any kind of aluminum remains unstudied by our CDC and FDA, although Dr. Chris Exley in the UK performs extensive research on the dangers of injecting aluminum, as does Dr. Romain Gherardi of France.

https://www.facebook.com/jbhandleyjr/videos/2101104029929741/

Going back to Australia’s idea to bring in the old whole-cell DPT for a moment

How are the Australian researchers going to bring back the old whole-cell DPT if it used a highly reactive adjuvant that wasn’t disclosed on the label? I looked at GSK’s current whole-cell pertussis vaccine, called Quinvaxem, and it claims it uses aluminum phosphate, not AAHS. So if Australia chooses to use the GSK vaccine, that’s not exactly a return to the 1980s vaccine, is it? It’s not even close. The Serum Institute’s whole-cell Pentavac uses aluminum hydroxide. In fact, I’m not able to find a current whole-cell DTwP vaccine that admits to using AAHS at all. 

There can’t be a “return to the old whole cell” vaccine without returning to an AAHS-adjuvanted DPT, because without AAHS, health departments around the world will simultaneously vindicate the DPT as never having been a dangerous vaccine in the first place, and that’s not a story I can choke down at this point in my life. Remember, this entire Australian charade is not about preventing food allergies. It’s about bringing back the DPT.

The cyber-attack on Merck

On June 27, 2017, Merck experienced a cyber-attack that crippled its entire worldwide operations. I’m not sure that I believe that a behemoth company like Merck didn’t have access to some kind of backup of its system, but let’s roll with this story.

There were announcements about two Merck vaccines whose productions were halted because of the cyber-attack: Gardasil for HPV, and Recombivax, their hepatitis B vaccine given to both infants and adults. The CDC turned to the GlaxoSmithKline stockpile of hepatits B vaccine to cover for this Recombivax shortage. The GSK version, it turns out, does not contain any AAHS adjuvant.

This vaccine shortage has saved lives

My friend Eileen Iorio, who co-authored the new Gardasil book, has kept a close eye on VAERS reports since the AAHS-containing Recombivax left the market. She’s written a new piece for Children’s Health Defense where she explains, “We now have more than a year’s worth of data to examine since the cyber-attack in 2017 when GSK’s Engerix-B was introduced. On average there were 29 deaths reported annually for fifteen years prior to the attack (2003 to 2017). In 2018 there were only 6 reported (to end of November 2018). Two of those deaths followed Recombivax. Assuming the same death rate to the end of the year, at most there will be 7 deaths recorded, resulting in roughly 75% less deaths since Recombivax was discontinued as a pediatric vaccine.”

Are you going, “blink, blink” right now? 75% less deaths since a cyber-attack crippled Merck’s hep B making machines.

“Injuries have also halved since Engerix-B was introduced,” Eileen says, “from on average 1,400 reported annually from 2003 to 2017, to 756 cases in 2018 with one month’s reporting yet to be recorded.”

Here’s a not-so-fun activity you can do

I pulled my own child’s vaccine records yesterday and took a look. The hep B vaccine was manufactured by Merck. I punched in the lot number and held my breath.

There were 10 very serious injuries reported under my child’s hep B lot number. Anaphylactic reactions, seizures, staring spells, infant spasms, respiratory failure, fast heart rates, high pitched screaming. They are injury reports that don’t exist when I cross check the other vaccines given that day, which strengthens the possibility they are from the hep B vaccine. Five of these injuries were in our same state, and one baby girl with three matching lot numbers was clearly at our same pediatrician’s office. She was hurt 11 days before my own child reacted. VAERS says that the baby ended up hospitalized for three days and intubated for two, and there’s no way my pediatrician didn’t know about it. 

Do you feel even close to what I feel reading these words? The fury that I feel? The failure as a parent?

With 10 reports on the lot, and if only 1% of injuries are reported to VAERS, perhaps there were 1,000 serious injuries from that lot number. I don’t know how big this lot was, but lots vary between several hundred thousand doses and several million. If the lot was 1 million, with 1,000 serious injuries, then the serious injury rate for the Recombivax hep B lot my child received was 1 in 1,000. 

Those aren’t odds that any parent would sign up for. 

Does Merck know? 

How could they not? And their behavior is so suspicious. Why would it take two years for them to resume producing their Recombivax vaccines? Here are some facts:

· Merck’s website currently says that both their adult and pediatric hep B vaccines are “temporarily unavailable for order.” 

· The CDC posted in July, 2017, that Merck would not be distributing its adult hep B vaccine (which sounds like they have the vaccine, they’re just not selling it), and that its pediatric vaccine will be “unavailable” until mid-January, 2018. 

· On December 13, 2017, Merck announced that they had “mostly recovered” from the hack and its manufacturing sites were largely operational. 

· In April last year the CDC followed up and said that Recombivax will continue to be “limited through the middle of Q2 2019 due to a manufacturing issue.” 

About this stockpile

The purpose of the national vaccine stockpile is to ensure pediatric vaccines in the event that a particular manufacturer ran into production trouble. Because of this, only vaccines that were produced by just one manufacturer were stockpiled. If a vaccine has several manufacturers, the odds of all manufacturers going down at once were pretty slim, so there was no reason to stockpile that vaccine. The stockpile is dynamic, always shipping out vaccines to be used and replacing them with fresh ones. There is no actual pile of vaccine stockpile, it’s just designated boxes of vaccines stored at a manufacturer’s plant in a different building than all the rest of their vaccines. 

So why is hepatitis B part of the national stockpile at all, when both Merck and GSK produce it? 

It turns out that after 9/11 the CDC decided to stockpile vaccines that were made by multiple manufacturers, just to be safe. Planning for this required careful evaluation of the market share of each brand of vaccine to determine how many doses should be stockpiled by each manufacturer. In 2012, GSK’s hep B vaccine earned it only $15.9M in the US, while Merck’s US hep B sales brought in $187M in 2015. Merck’s US hep B market was eleven-and-a-half times the size of GSK’s, so there should be 11 Merck hep B vaccines in the national stockpile for every GSK hep B vaccine.

Yet, there was none of Merck’s vaccine? Either GSK’s version, which is hardly sold here, was stockpiled instead, or GSK immediately stepped up production to meet the CDC’s need. How suspicious is this?

Why didn’t the CDC use Merck’s stockpile? Why is it going to take two years for Merck to produce Recombivax again? Why haven’t they made any kind of announcement about their hepatits B line? 

I wish I knew. I’m guessing that, for whatever reason, Merck had already quit making their hep B vaccine by June 27, 2017, and thought the cyber-attack was a good event to blame it on.

Has Recombivax just disappeared?

Recombivax was always high in the injuries it caused and low in the money it made for Merck, relative to Merck’s other vaccines. It only dominated the US, but GSK’s version netted $735M globally. Merck hasn’t described Recombivax in its Form 10-Ks or reported its sales for many years. The Recombivax patents have already expired in Europe and Japan, and the one patent it has in the US expires in 2020. 

Merck’s 2017 Form 10-K didn’t mention Recombivax by name when it summarized the 2017 hack. “Due to the cyber-attack, the company was unable to fulfill orders for certain products in certain markets,” it reads. Why on Earth, if there were only two impacted vaccines, would Merck describe them as “certain products in certain markets?” And then Merck went on to specifically detail their $125M Gardasil loss from having to go into the national stockpile for Gardasil instead of manufacturing new doses.

Can we stop for a second and ask why taxpayers are paying for Gardasil to be in our national pediatric vaccine stockpile? For crying out loud, it would take at least 50 years to kill a child with HPV. This spending is out of control.

So that just leaves just one unnamed vaccine covered by the vague “certain products” description: Recombivax. Why not name it specifically and discuss why there’s none to use in the stockpile? What exactly is going on here? 

I’ll tell you my take: I think that “certain products in certain markets” sounds like a team of executives talking who don’t want to go to prison for lying to the Securities and Exchange Commission about which products were and weren’t impacted by the cyber-attack, so they’re keeping the real story of Merck’s hep B vaccine out of their Form 10-K. 

This leaves me wondering: when did Merck stop making Recombivax and why? 

Maybe the reason is as benign as Merck not wanting to invest in manufacturing a vaccine that isn’t consumed around the world. Maybe Merck knew that that, even in America, their hep B is the most exempted vaccine at any preschool, and they were tired of parents opting to skip their product. Maybe, because their patent expires in 2020, they planned to “cannibalize” their own hep B vaccine with the upcoming release of their hexavalent joint venture with Sanofi, and they don’t care about it so much right now. But if any of that is true, why not just say so? Why pretend they’re bringing Recombivax back six months before the patent expires?

But maybe—just maybe— Merck knew that aluminum researchers were on to them and they figured it would be a whole lot easier to lay low for three years and then hide their deadly AAHS in a 6-in-1 vaccine with Sanofi in 2020. But luckily for us, Eileen was watching VAERS, and now we all know. 

By becoming a patron, you'll instantly unlock access to 31 exclusive posts
31
Writings
By becoming a patron, you'll instantly unlock access to 31 exclusive posts
31
Writings