Bombs Away Part 1: Weaponized Analogies and the War on Medical Rights
Statement from Rep Norm Johnson Apologizing for Off The Cuff Remark RE Vaccine Injury

Dachel Media Update: Vax Vax Vax Vax Ad Infinitem

Online newsBy Anne Dachel OurKids ad 2013

Read Anne's commentary and view the links after the jump.   The Dachel Media Update is sponsored by Lee Silsby Compounding Pharmacy and OurKidsASD, an online supplement retailer for patients with special needs.

Feb 22, 2015, Infowars interview with Dr. Tenpenny: "We are heading towards Medical Tyranny"

Feb 22, 2015, 200 Evidence-Based Reasons NOT To Vaccinate

Feb 22, 2015, CBS News: Anti-vaccine moms speak out amid fierce backlash

Feb 21, 2015, PBS Southern CA: Vaccines: Whose Rights?

Feb 17, 2015, Bangor (ME) Daily News: Maine agrees to pay former CDC manager $142,000 to settle whistleblower suit

Feb 13, 2015, ABC 7 Chicago: I-Team: Pets over vaccinated?

"The right to refuse is not about the measles shot, it's not about whether you're a bad parent, whether or not you get your kids a couple of these vaccines.  It is about what is barreling down the track at us in a very near future.  I would maintain that many of the very leftist or very liberal, . .  rabid pro-vaccine people . .  don't even understand that what is coming down on them.  They may not want to have a shot that requires them to get something for obesity or depression . . .  They may not have a right to refuse that."

"Not only will it become about vaccines.  When they first started mandating shots for health care workers about three years ago, . . . I said, where is this going to stop?  They require someone to be injected with a substance against their will. . .  It's something that can cause them serious harm, in some cases even cause them to die.  And the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program in the last two years, has paid out more compensation for people injured by the flu shot than for any other vaccine, and I think it's because they're requiring so many people to have it.

"So where are we going to stop with that?  Is it going to be all the vaccines? .

I wrote about Dr. Tenpenny in January when the country of Australia was threatening to deny her a visa because she was going to be speaking on vaccine safety in that country.

 With this aim in mind, has painstakingly collected over 300 pages of study abstracts culled directly from the National Library of Medicine's bibliographic database on the wide-ranging adverse health effects linked to vaccines in the today's schedule (over 200 distinct adverse effects, including death), as well as numerous studies related to vaccine contamination, and vaccine failure in highly vaccine compliant populations.

We know there is plenty of science that challenges the safety claims of CDC officials/mainstream medicine.  GreenMedInfo cites the science that's being ignored.The award-winning documentary, The Greater Good, has done the same.

This research is out there-in plain sight, yet no one is talking about it.  The fraudulent claim that all the science says vaccines are safe, vaccines save lives needs to be exposed for the lie that it is.

CBS News

The backlash, much of it from people who fear unvaccinated children could infect their own kids, has been so severe that dozens of anti-vaccine parents contacted by The Associated Press were afraid to speak out. But a handful of mothers agreed to discuss their thinking. . . .The CDC says years of testing are required before a vaccine is approved, and the shots are continually monitored for safety and effectiveness. . . .

The CDC has phased out a mercury-containing preservative in vaccines as a precautionary measure, and the agency says vaccines containing aluminum pose extremely low risk to infants. Federal officials also say GMOs in foods are safe, as are pesticides if used according to labels.

Here is CBS pretending to be fair and balanced.  This story was also published by a number of leading newspapers in the U.S.  CBS is giving time to exempting parents who are actually well-educated and well-informed on vaccines. 

CBS however gives the last word to the CDC as if their claims are unassailable.  No one is supposed to question pronouncements from the agency that approves, recommends and vigorously promotes vaccines-and has hundreds of employees with conflict-of-interest waivers because of their direct financial ties to the industry they're overseeing. 

CBS says there's no mercury in vaccines anymore and we all know that's not true.  The CDC assures us that injecting aluminum into humans can't hurt them either.  (And BTW, CBS adds an endorsement for the safety of GMOs and pesticides.)

I tried to post comments but no matter what network or email address I used, I was unable to.  I can see why Sharyl Attkisson left this network.

PBS Southern CA

Becky: "Within hours of him receiving his vaccines he had pretty significant reactions which ended up really causing a lot of immune system dysfunction for a couple of years actually.  During that time he lost skills and basically stopped developing, and at two years, nine months, he was diagnosed with autism.   At that time I had already given birth to another son and after going through what we went through with our first one, we were very careful and we actually stopped vaccinating him because of what happened to our first son.  Because for us, it's not the choice between measles and not getting measles; it's a choice between brain inflammation that caused permanent damage-and that risk is so great and that injury is so dire that we decided not to do it for our younger son.  And basically I've spent the last fifteen years working on vaccine safety, parental choice and asking the government, please try to identify risk factors for children that might . . . be susceptible to injury so we can know for everyone, who is safe and who isn't."

When she was asked which vaccines affected her son son, Becky said they were the Hepatitis B at nine months and the MMR at twelve months. 

Becky: "And I just spent the last eight years working on a documentary called Trace Amounts, and people can go to and find out more."

Newsman David Nazar talked about what autism is in the next segment.  "Autism is a far-reaching neuro-developmental disorder that affects millions of children in the U.S.

Becky, like always, was poised, reasonable, knowledgeable and thought provoking.  Why hasn't anyone looked at the individuals who've been compensated for vaccine injury to see what risk factors they share?   Why is there no way to identify children who might be susceptible to vaccine injury? 

As usual autism was brought up and marginalized.  An expert was quoted denying any link to vaccines. 

It is clear that this kind of discussion will continue until we really get worried about what autism is doing to our children and what it's going to cost this country.  The clip of Nazar's sister, Dr. Biesman was all about autism.  I would seriously like to ask her why the focus is always on meeting the needs of children with autism.  Why are experts doing nothing to address the needs of middle-aged and elderly people with autism?  Since so many officials and experts still believe that there's been no real increase in autism, then where are the adults?  And if there's been a real increase, why aren't we moving mountains to find out the cause?

And I'd like to ask CA State Senator Ben Allen to look into the California State Senate Select Committee on Autism.  What they have to say is really, really scary.   

2009, President pro Tem of the California State Senate Darrell Steinberg announced the establishment of the Senate Select Committee on Autism (ASD). Steinberg said that their intention is to make autism a "public health priority." Rick Rollens of the MIND INSTITUTE spoke: "Autism is epidemic in this state as it is throughout the country." "Autism population is skewed dramatically toward young children." "Eight-four percent of the autism population is under the age of 21." "More six and seven year olds in the system than all the adults with autism combined." We were given the mindboggling numbers: There were "14,000 students with autism a decade ago" in California, and "46,000 students today, and growing."

Bangor (ME) Daily News

The Maine Department of Health and Human Services will pay a former employee $142,500 as settlement of a federal whistleblower lawsuit.

Sharon Leahy-Lind, once a division director for the Maine Center for Disease Control, sued DHHS and her bosses at the after she said she was harassed and retaliated against for refusing to shred public documents.

What does this tell us about ethics at the CDC?  There must be lots of examples of corruption and cover-up.

ABC 7 Chicago

Monday 10pm: Eyewitness News investigates concerns over harmful reactions to vaccines in some pets.


“ABC I-Team investigates claims of adverse reactions, dangerous side effects from pet vaccines, heartbroken dog owners left with thousands in vet bills.  . . .

“Are those shots making your pet sick?”

“Because there’s so much fear involved and there’s so much money involved.”

“What you need to know to keep your pet safe.”


It should be pointed out that ABC 7 did cover the Alex Spourdalakis’ story in December 2014.

While they talk about regression, the vaccine controversy wasn't discussed.

Lee Silsby logo 09 The Dachel Media Update is sponsored by Lee Silsby Compounding Pharmacy and OurKidsASD.  Lee Silsby is one of the most respected compounding pharmacies in the country and is committed to serving the needs of the Autism community. OurkidsASD is an online retailer for nutritional supplements for patients with special needs. OurkidsASD carries thousands of products from more than 60 brands and offers free ground shipping on all orders.

Anne Dachel Book CoverAnne Dachel is Media Editor for Age of Autism and author of  The Big Autism Cover-Up: How and Why the Media Is Lying to the American Public, which is on sale now from Skyhorse Publishing.



It looks like the CDC blood lead study was concocted to cut two poisoned children and a class action suit off at the knees.

I cannot fathom why the CDC is still considered credible.

Jenny Allan

John - You might be interested in today's Scottish sequel to the Camelford incident. In this case, a faulty valve allowed gallons of Aluminium Sulphate to leak into a river. It killed thousands of fish. Unlike the human carnage at Camelford, this incident, which took place only a year ago, was quickly dealt with, by a court fine, although the amount was derisory, and probably paid with public money. At least there was an acknowledgement of the harm caused by this poisonous chemical, but it seems harming wildlife is considered more worthy of official sanctions than harming humans.

Quote from above:-
"Scottish Water has admitted causing a catastrophic pollution incident which killed nearly 5000 fish.
The company admitted polluting several kilometres of a river with aluminium sulphate after an employee left a water valve open. The government quango was fined £8000 after the court heard it was responsible for killing "huge numbers of fish".

Perth Sheriff Court was told the pollution turned six kilometres of the River Farg in Perthshire "white and milky" and wiped out virtually all of the trout and salmon. The court was also told the sight of the dead and dying fish also caused distress to passers-by who witnessed it.

Dunfermline-based Scottish Water admitted a charge of killing approximately 4900 fish and other organisms in the River Earn tributary on May 13 and 14 last year. The company admitted carrying out a controlled activity liable to cause pollution of the water environment, namely by discharging aluminium sulphate into the River Farg.

Aluminium sulphate is harmful if swallowed or inhaled."


Lead in the water of Washington D.C.

Well that explains a lot!

John Stone

Hi Carol,

Yes, this was also written about by David Lewis. There is an interesting parallel in the case of the UK's contaminated water disaster, Camelford. It occured just as the CDC's colleagues at our Department of Health were clearing the decks for the introduction MMR vaccine in July 1988, and arranging indemnities for GSK, the men from the ministry were immediately on the job. Finally, 25 years later a report was published into the incident. On that occasion, aluminium toxicity expert, Chris Exley wrote to the BMJ:

"Re: Campaigners criticise report into Camelford water poisoning

"It is if nothing else reassuring to read at least one news item on the publication of this report, now more than one month ago.

"It does not come as any surprise to learn that this latest enquiry, 13 years in the making, has achieved absolutely nothing. This is not altogether the fault of those who sat on the enquiry. It was not they who chose not to appoint anyone with the relevant experience to the panel. It may have been them who chose not to invite anyone with the relevant experience to make submissions to the panel. I was certainly not asked to do so and I volunteered my services.

"The brief point to be made here is that by simply reading between the lines of the very brief section of the report which outlines possible further research it becomes abundantly clear that neither those questions which were asked at the outset nor those questions which should have been asked at the outset have been answered or in some cases even addressed in this report.

"This has proven to be a terrible waste of both time, for the panel and for the people of Camelford, and a complete waste of taxpayer's money.

"If ever there was a panel set up with the absolute intention of achieving nothing then this is such a model for the future.

"The story of Britain's most catastrophic mass poisoning of the public remains to be told. It is not too late to begin to do this and I urge the government to at least act upon the recommendations of this report, actions which could have been instigated 13 years ago if not 25 years ago immediately after this terrible event.

"The very limited (and wholly independent) science which has investigated Camelford to date has demonstrated that there is a story to be told. This is perhaps why this report has gone out of its way to prevent this from happening."

In a previous correspondence (2005) one of the local people, Elizabeth Sigmund recalled the early days of the cover up:

"Handling of the Camelford incident by the Department of Health

"I am writing to support the letter published in the BMJ written by Dr Chris Exley and signed by 58 international aluminium specialists.

"Professor Woods is the chairman of the Lowermoor Sub-group, a subgroup of COT, which is itself an Advisory Body of the Department of Health (DoH). I would like to draw attention to some of the actions of the DoH in relation to the Lowermoor incident.

"In late July 1988 I made contact with a senior toxicologist at the DoH, Dr G K Matthew. We spoke many times: he told me that he had attended committee meetings about the Lowermoor acid water incident and had urged the department to send an expert team to North Cornwall to gather samples of the water and other relevant data, and to make clinical assessments of the health of the people. His words to me were: “I am constantly being overruled”. He asked me to write a critique of the actions of the DoH in relation to this incident. His words were: “State what we did that we should not have done, what we have not done that we should have done, and name names.”

"I was also at that time in contact with Dr Virginia Murray of the Poisons Unit at Guys Hospital London. She told me that they had a team ready to go down to North Cornwall but that the DoH told her that there was no need as the DoH was carrying out an investigation itself. As we now know, neither the DoH nor the Poisons unit carried out any investigation of the event.

"On the 24 August 1988 Dr C R Grainger, Specialist in Community Medicine for the Cornwall and Isles of Scilly Health Authority, received a letter from Michael Waring, Senior Medical Officer at the DoH. In this letter Mr Waring said: “I have not of course undertaken clinical or
laboratory examination of any of those who may have suffered ill effects, and have not been in a position to verify any of the clinical reports or water quality data independently. You will wish to show this letter and
the attached document to interested parties locally.” Under the heading ‘Long-term effects’ he said: “There is no reason to expect long-term or delayed harm following on the evident effect of these substances on the gastrointestinal tract. Long-term effects on other organs would not be
expected for several reasons as follows: a) the amount of the substances absorbed and retained at the time of the incident would have been very small; b) the period of exposure was relatively short; c) no long-term effects are reported in the scientific literature for most of these

"We know that Dr Grainger circulated this letter and attachment to medical practitioners at all levels in the West Country, so it therefore had a profound effect on the understanding of the possible effects of this incident and therefore the treatment of patients.

"In the autumn of 1988 I spoke to Christopher Beazley, then MEP for Plymouth and Cornwall. He told me that he had discovered that the then Department of the Environment (DoE) had never informed the European Commission (EC) of this major contamination of drinking water, which, under EC directive 80/778 Article 10, they are obliged to do. When I spoke to Paul Douglas at the DoE he said: “We didn’t notify the EC because Mr Waring at the DoH told us that aluminium is non-toxic.”

"We now note with concern that Professor Woods and his committee appear to be repeating these findings. In para 1.22 (page 16) of the draft report the executive summary states: “On the basis of the available data, it is not anticipated that the combination of metals which occurred as a result of the pollution incident would have caused or would be expected to cause delayed or persistent additive or synergistic effects.”

"On inquiring of the secretariat of the Woods committee whether or not they had seen the medical records of people claiming to be suffering long-term effects from consuming the water, or whether or not they were going to undertake clinical or medical testing or assessments of the health of
these people, I was told that they were not taking either of those courses. This appears to me to be a most extraordinary decision, as it is merely reiterating the statements made by Mr Waring and Barbara Clayton.

"Many patients lost fingernails and toenails in the months following the event: one patient presented Professor Woods with a sample bottle of nails, which Professor Woods acknowledged with a nod but with no suggestion of conducting a metabolic investigation (para 1.27: “…further
metabolic investigation of the patients’ nails was not required.”)

"Professor Woods and his team are highly qualified people, albeit without the presence on the committee of an expert in aluminium toxicity, it is therefore even more surprising that thoroughgoing and convincing clinical investigations have not been undertaken."

This is terrifying testament to the power of government agencies in so-called liberal democracies to cover up almost anything. The media reported on Camelford from time to time but by the time the "inquiry" reported 25 years on they were completely silent. There was in objective terms not the remotest shred of credibility to the inquiry but they had brought the matter to an official close. Something rather similar happened about the contaminated blood that the DH imported from the US to give haemophiliacs with disasterous and inhuman consequences - and inquiry was held 25 years after which failed to aportion any blame for anything.

I think history ought to have something to say about this now global culture.


I apologize for the length of the following post. Personally, I hate long posts and almost never read them, but don't be like me. Edwards' testimony is edited (there's lots lots more) and I added line feeds at will for readability.

Testimony of Marc Edwards, PhD before the US House of Representatives Committee on Science and Technology, 111th
Congress, May 17, 2010

“I am the Charles Lunsford Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Virginia Tech, where I conduct research at the interface of basic science, public health, corrosion control and environmental engineering. I have published over 100 peer-reviewed journal articles, made
hundreds of technical presentations, and have been recognized with numerous awards including a Presidential Faculty Fellowship from the White House/National Science Foundation (1996)and a MacArthur Fellowship (2008). Time magazine named me amongst the 4 most important 'Innovators' in water from around the world (2004) and just this year Villanova University awarded me the Praxis Award in Professional Ethics.

The lead levels in DC drinking water from 2001-2004 were unprecedented in modern history. Some samples exceeded 'hazardous waste' criteria (>5,000 ppb) and the contaminated water was present in tens of thousands of DC buildings including homes, apartments, offices, schools, daycare facilities and even the US Congress. From 2001-2004 the extent of the problem was hidden from the public by illegal actions, unethical behavior and bungling of numerous government agencies as detailed in investigations led by current US Attorney General Eric H. Holder, the US Government Accountability Office (GAO), hearings before five Congressional Committees, and hundreds of articles in the Washington Post and elsewhere.

On March 8, 2004, the international law firm Paul Hastings filed a class action lawsuit against DC WASA [Water and Sewage Authority] and DC City Government, and gave formal notice to the US EPA, and the Army Corps of Engineers of a potential lawsuit. The press release stated that the lawsuit was brought on behalf of two young children with lead-in-water levels of 435 and 310 ppb, and that potentially tens of thousands of '...DC residents have been unwittingly exposed to lead, a serious toxin.'

A few weeks later the CDC released the CDC MMWR (Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report), purportedly investigating the impacts of the high lead in water on the blood lead of DC
residents. Contrary to reasonable expectations based on prior research, the CDC paper concluded that no children had experienced elevations to blood lead levels that exceeded CDC’s level of concern as a result of the DC Lead crisis….This 'no harm' message was delivered brazenly to the US Congress in May 2004, when an invited witness used the CDC MMWR to assert that while DC did not do the best job of informing the public about the 2001-2004 contamination, the agencies involved had been proven correct in trying to prevent citywide panic by downplaying the dangers of the unprecedented lead in water elevations and by hiding information from the public.

The CDC MMWR was also prominently cited in, and clearly tempered, all subsequent investigations into the DC Lead Crisis in Congressional Hearings, the GAO investigation, and newspapers. After all, if the CDC had proven that under the worst case in Washington DC no one experienced blood lead elevations above their level of concern, then the potential health implications of the DC Lead Crisis were also 'below concern' by definition....On July 16, 2004, when lead in DC water was still astronomically high but the CDC MMWR had been solidly embraced and had gone unchallenged for over three months, Dr. Brown e-mailed CDC MMWR co-author Dr. Stokes to affirm that the DC Lead Crisis was effectively over.

Whenever a significant problem with elevated lead in potable drinking water of homes, schools or other buildings was discovered, local public health officials and reputable scientists referenced the conclusions of the CDC MMWR as the most authoritative and – in the understanding of many – 'only' reliable information on the subject. Again and again, consumers that had just learned about risks of lead contaminated water in their community, were assured that consumption of over 300 ppb lead in Washington DC had not caused an increase in blood lead of concern....Clearly, the main message and unambiguous conclusions of CDC's Chief of Lead Poisoning Prevention, Dr. Brown, had been transmitted down through the chain of command of the public health community. The fact that individuals with expertise in science and public health accepted the preposterous absurdity that consumption of lead in water over 300 ppb did not elevate the blood lead of even a single child over the CDC’s level of concern, despite the scientific understanding that existed prior to 2004, is testament to the enormous persuasive power that the CDC wields over the public and the public health community.

Dr. Brown’s actions, and those of the CDC, to allow such an egregious and historic violation of basic scientific principles, and to jeopardize the public’s health and trust, are mystifying....For a while I flirted with theories that the accepted laws of chemistry, biology and physics did not apply to Washington DC children, and that the lead in DC’s water was somehow not harmful....[M]ore than 4.5 years after first requesting the 300 ppb data, nothing that could possibly be the blood lead data behind this historic analysis in the CDC MMWR has been produced to me. In fact, I am highly doubtful that the blood lead data portrayed in the CDC MMWR ever existed, and have come to suspect that at least some of that data is a complete fabrication.

After exhausting all hopes that anyone at the CDC would demonstrate a shred of scientific integrity or backbone in acknowledging problems with Dr. Brown’s behavior, or even express the slightest concern about children who were still being left unprotected from elevated lead in water due to the CDC MMWR’s flawed message, I gave up trying to resolve my concerns through CDC’s broken system.

In early 2008, I collaborated with Dana Best, MD, MPH at Children’s National Medical Center (CNMC) in Washington DC, which is a hospital with a reliable and robust database on blood lead levels of DC children....Based on our analysis, hundreds, and in all likelihood thousands, of DC children had their blood lead elevated above the CDC level of concern as a result of elevated lead in water from 2001-2004....Since publication of our paper, the CDC has doggedly defended the CDC MMWR against all criticism. The paper stands on the agency’s website to this day, unscathed, a monumental public health fiasco, where it continues to mislead and place children all over the world in harm’s way.

Contradicting 2000 years of human knowledge and experiences related to adverse health effects from lead in drinking water, for a contaminant that is perhaps the best-known environmental neurotoxin -- how can anyone trust CDC’s integrity on more controversial subjects?“


We know the CDC is corrupt. How? Not because AoA says so, but because the mainstream media told us a few years ago. The Washington Post told us; Salon told us. The U.S. Congress told us.

"Federal and local political leaders, D.C. parents and health advocates reacted Thursday with a mixture of anger and fear to news that a federal agency misled them about the harm that lead in the District's water had caused -- and might still be causing. The furor came as a House investigative subcommittee released a report showing that the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention knowingly used flawed data when telling D.C. residents that their health hadn't been harmed by spikes in lead in the drinking water in 2004....The furor came as a House investigative subcommittee released a report showing that the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention knowingly used flawed data when telling D.C. residents that their health hadn't been harmed by spikes in lead in the drinking water in 2004.... The congressional investigation placed most of the blame for the 2004 report on Mary Jean Brown, the CDC's director of lead poisoning prevention. It found that she ignored missing data and contrary conclusions. She gave her fellow authors three hours to review her analysis before publication.

The year-long House investigation vindicated Virginia Tech water expert Marc Edwards, who has repeatedly questioned the CDC finding and spent thousands of hours and dollars requesting public records, reanalyzing blood test data and investigating how the agency reached its counterintuitive conclusion...."

In his foreword to David Lewis's book, _Science for Sale_, Dr. Edwards says this: "It took more than six years of personal effort and a U.S. Congressional investigation to finally discover that the agencies' 'data,' which they reportedly relied on for their landmark conclusions and publications, had strangely disappeared if it ever existed in the first place."

Dr. Edwards' testimony before Congress:


Also in the news today:

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)