Mercury in Vaccines Stays Despite Opposition

Mercury Treaty Finalized: Mercury Stays in Vaccines

JANUARY 19, 2013
For the full article please visit:
Also read:

by Heidi Stevenson
Some time back during a flurry of hopeful claims saying that Africa would resist mercury in vaccines, Gaia Health resisted the urge to jump on the bandwagon. Rather than tell people what they wanted to hear, the reality was explained. And now, that reality has come real. The United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) has finalized a mercury treaty that leaves those most at risk fully exposed. Vaccinated children will receive no protections whatsoever.
Mercury in the form of thimerosal (also called thiomersal) will continue to be used in vaccines.
You can read the original article here.
This treaty, though, could spell even worse. Trade laws require so-called harmonization, which means that any country that signs this treaty must acquiesce to it. Therefore, the countries, like the US, that have largely phased mercury out of vaccines can expect to be sued by corporations insisting that it puts an unfair burden on them in producing vaccines.
Gaia Health explained that, in spite of an impassioned and informed argument put forth by CoMeD, Inc to a UNEP meeting, and despite that agency’s press releases indicating a presence at UNEP’s meetings, the reality is that a report issued shortly after their presentation effectively dismissed CoMeD’s representatives, Geier and Geier. Here’s what was stated:
GACVS [Global Advisory Committee on Vacine Safety] also reviewed a series of studies by Geier and Geier alleging reduction of neurodevelopmental disorders in the United States of America following discontinuation of thiomersal-containing vaccines in the national immunization programme. The Committee found a number of limitations, including:  … The Committee therefore found the conclusions made by these authors unconvincing.[1]
The topic of banning mercury in vaccines was effectively dead. No amount of argument about the Geiers being right mattered. The vaccine industry won. And today, that fact is clear as the mercury treaty agreement is announced.

Mercury Apologists Don't Have the Facts, But That Doesn't Matter

While it's true that the mercury-in-vaccines lobby does not have the real facts, it's never been true that it mattered. The usual methods of faking the science and simply yelling louder and louder that they have the truth has worked up to this point. There is no reason to believe that an agency in thrall to the same powers that the vaccine lobby bows to will behave in a manner that's any different.
As the UNEP's "Addressing health in the mercury instrument" clearly shows, the facts don't matter. The powers that be want mercury in vaccines. Therefore, they will have mercury in vaccines—and they will have a UN treaty guaranteeing it.

More from:
Clearly, the dangers of mercury exposure are legion, particularly when applied to young children. The adverse health effects related to mercury exposure are established fact. That mercury isdetrimental to brain function is not up for debate. 

Even studies published in medical journals such as Pediatrics demonstrate the clear danger of mercury exposure and the harmful effects on the brain. For instance, in the report entitled, “Technical Report: Mercury in the Environment: Implications for Pediatricians,” the authors wrote,
The developing fetus and young children are thought to be disproportionately affected by mercury exposure, because many aspects of development, particularly brain maturation, can be disturbed by the presence of mercury. Minimizing mercury exposure is, therefore, essential to optimal child health.
Incredibly, even after publishing material clearly establishing the risks of mercury exposure, the American Academy of Pediatrics is endorsing the return of mercury into vaccines, particularly those that will be used in young children. 

If there is any doubt that the medical establishment, Big Pharma, and the vaccine cartels are one in the same in terms of ideology, that doubt is easily erased simply by examining the contradictory opinions presented by organizations like the AAP.