Posted on

Excerpts from the Transcript of the CDC’s Private Simpsonwood Meeting

First things first: What was the Simpsonwood Meeting and why should you care about reading excerpts from it?

July 7, 1999, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Public Health Service issued a joint statement which provides the background for the private CDC meeting that would occur the next year. Keep these statements in mind when reading the excerpts from Simpsonwood. Once you have read them, ask yourself if you are inclined to agree with the last two statements in particular.

“The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Modernization Act of 1997 called for FDA to review and assess the risk of all mercury-containing food and drugs. In line with this review, U.S. vaccine manufacturers responded to a December 1998 and April 1999 FDA request to provide more detailed information about the thimerosal content of their preparations that include this compound as a preservative. Thimerosal has been used as an additive to biologics and vaccines since the 1930s…”

“…there are no data or evidence of any harm caused by the level of exposure that some children may have encountered in following the existing immunization schedule.” (emphasis mine)

“The recognition that some children could be exposed to a cumulative level of mercury over the first 6 months of life that exceeds one of the federal guidelines on methyl mercury now requires a weighing of two different types of risks when vaccinating infants. On the one hand, there is the known serious risk of diseases and deaths caused by failure to immunize our infants against vaccine-preventable infectious diseases; on the other, there is the unknown and probably much smaller risk, if any, of neurodevelopmental effects posed by exposure to thimerosal. The large risks of not vaccinating children far outweigh the unknown and probably much smaller risk, if any, of cumulative exposure to thimerosal-containing vaccines over the first 6 months of life.” (emphasis mine)

(As an aside #1- how exactly does one make a definitive public statement that the “large risks of not vaccinating children far outweigh” (fill in the blank comparative risk) when in the very next breath one describes said comparative risk as “unknown” and “probably much smaller”?)

Just shy of one year later, June 7th and 8th of 2000, the CDC convened a group of experts to discuss the issues. This meeting is briefly mentioned, although not by name, in the CDC’s Timeline: Thimerosal in Vaccines (1999-2010):

“Fifty-one vaccine and vaccine safety researchers and experts meet in Atlanta, GA to review data regarding thimerosal in vaccines and nervous system disorders. A report summarizing the meeting was presented to ACIP.”

The primary focus of the private discussion was this study led by Thomas Verstraeten: increased risk of neurologic impairment after high-exposure to thimerosal containing vaccine in first month of life. Age of Autism summarizes of Verstraeten’s study in a Special Report linked below:

“This study, conducted by investigators at the CDC using the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) of computerized HMO databases was a two-part ‘retrospective cohort study.’ The first phase looked at potential associations between neurodevelopmental disorders (NDDs) – including autism, ADD, speech and language delay and tics – and thimerosal among 124,170 US children born from 1992 to 1999 at one of two HMOs (A and B)…”

It is very important that you view this unpublished abstract of the first version of the study because these are the data the researchers are responding to. By the time the study was finally published in 2003 it had undergone multiple additional analyses, with each analysis getting closer to conclusions deemed acceptable. The following are the relative rates of increased risk to children exposed to greater than 25 mcg of thimerosal according to the original study:

ADHD: 11.35 times more likely

autism: 7.62 times more likely

ADD: 6.38 times more likely

Tics: 5.65 times more likely

Speech and language delay: 2.08 times more likely

(As an aside #2: This study alone invalidates the 2nd claim excerpted from the AAP and PHS joint statement above. If there were no data, Verstraeten would have had nothing to compile. If what he compiled was not taken seriously, surely the CDC would not have bothered to hold a private meeting of 51 experts to discuss it.)

For frame of reference, Robert F. Kennedy Jr famously points out that the relative risk for smoking a pack of cigarettes a day and getting lung cancer is 10. Of course, cigarettes come with a Surgeon General’s warning on every pack, but I digress…

(As an aside #3: it is outside the scope of this article to discuss the issues of how and why the subsequent analyses of this study concluded with results that are far more favorably suited for public vaccine policy. Those interested in a very detailed discussion of that issue may refer to Age of Autism’s Special Report: Vaccines and Autism- What do Epidemiological Studies Really Tell Us? Verstraeten’s study is discussed at length along with several others.)

The Simpsonwood Transcript was uploaded in a 259 page pdf by the group Safeminds.org. Safeminds obtained the transcript of this meeting along with subsequent private correspondence between some of the researchers via a FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) request. Some very illuminating comments from this correspondence are included in the Age of Autism Special Report linked above, in the section on Verstraeten’s study.

Thimerosal was mostly removed from vaccines in 2001. How is this discussion relevant today? These excerpts are an irrefutable example of the disparity between the CDC’s often definitive, “science is settled” type statements (which essentially amount to public relations blurbs) found in their superficial, front page, pediatrician’s office summarized info sheet- type information versus the data discussed privately among their experts. While the focus of the meeting was specifically thimerosal, many comments unequivocally illustrate the uncertainly about the safety of other vaccine ingredients (particularly aluminum- which is still in many vaccines) and of the vaccine schedule as a whole, with respect to the very same neurodevelopmental concerns. Summarized in one statement:

The Simpsonwood Transcript is why no parent can accept any statement of “settled science” regarding vaccine safety at face value.

FULL DISCLOSURE:

I have personally read this entire document. I intentionally chose comments to highlight the disparity between definitive statements made by the CDC/other officials and private expert conversations, NOT to provide a summary or overview of the entire meeting. To avoid accusations of misrepresentation, each citation will be followed by its corresponding page number so that the reader may personally read it in its context. The first citation of each commenter will be followed by that individual’s biographical information provided on pages 1-8 of the transcript.

-Begin-

Dr. Johnston (Immunologist and Pediatrician and the University of Colorado School of Medicine and National Jewish Center for Immunology and Respiratory Medicine. Says “Adverse events related to vaccines has been of particular focus and interest for me mostly through serving on a series of committees dealing with the relationship between the vaccine and punitive adverse events.”):

“…Thimerosal is in many vaccines because it is a preservative and lowers the rate of bacterial and fungal contamination that may occur during the manufacturing process, packaging and the use of vaccines in the field…” (p. 14)

“…There are three licensed preservatives in the United States…We won’t talk about the other two today…Thimerosal is the most active and it has been utilized in vaccines since the 1930’s…” (p. 15)

“Thimerosal functions as an anti-microbial after it is cleaved into ethylmercury and thiosalicylate, which is inactive…There is a very limited pharmacokinetic data concerning ethylmercury. There is very limited data on its bloodlevels. There is no data on its excretion. It is recognized to both cross placenta and the blood- brainbarrier. The data on its toxicity ,ethylmercury, is sparse. It is primarily recognized as a cause of hypersensitivity. Acutely it can cause neurologic and renal toxicity, including death, from overdose…” (p.15)

“…And then at the end of the meeting ironically, Walt Orenstein asked the most provocative question which induced a great deal of discussion. That was, should we try to seek neurodevelopmental outcomes for children exposed to varying doses of mercury by using the Vaccine Safety Datalink data from one or more sites?” (p. 18)

“…Finally I would like to mention one more issue. As you know the National Vaccine Program Office has sponsored two conferences on metals and vaccines…We just recently had another meeting that some of you were able to attend dealing with aluminum in vaccines. I would like to say just one or two words about that before I conclude…First, aluminum salts…reduce the amount of antigen and the number of injections required for primary immunizations. Secondly…it would present a significant burden to try and develop different vaccines for primary and subsequent immunizations…Aluminum and mercury are often simultaneously administered to infants …However, we also learned that there is absolutely no data, including animal data, about the potential for synergy, additivity, or antagonism, all of which can occur in binary metal mixtures that relate and allow us to draw any conclusions from the simultaneous exposure to these two salts in vaccines.” (pp. 19-20)

Dr. Clarkson (“associated with the mercury program through Rochester [NY] for a long time):

“As you know, there is a paper just published on this now…if you are given mercury day by day as the guidelines are based on, whether it’s EPA, ATSDR, or FDA, these are based on constant daily exposure…Whereas we are just considering one single dose for vaccines. But nevertheless, a single dose from vaccines can raise blood levels by a certain amount…” (p. 22)

Dr. Brent (Developmental Biologist and Pediatrician from Thomas Jefferson University and Dupont Hospital for Children) repsonding to Dr. Clarkson’s comment above:

“It’s just the sensitivity of the central nervous system, based on the mechanism that’s involved in producing the end result. You know the thalidomide data taught us that autism is related to the high brain and it produces it in the 22nd day of gestation, while the central nervous system from the standpoint of mental retardation, its most sensitive period is in the eighth week to the fifteenth week. That’s when we see neuro-maturation…I think that you have to realize that each of the developmental problems that have been evaluated here have a different stage where they are most sensitive from environmental factors.” (p. 23)

*** If you’re not familiar with the thalidomide reference he is making, you can learn the basics at this Wikipedia entry.

Dr. Johnson (State Public Health Officer in Michigan and member of ACIP) responding to Dr. Brent’s comment above:

“Are any of them different from birth, term birth to six months?” (p. 23)

Dr. Brent responds:

“In Hiroshima, Nagasaki, you had severe mental retardation after 75 rads. If you give 75 rads to an infant, nothing will happen with regards to their central nervous system development. So you have this changing sensitivity throughout embryogenesis and early childhood development that makes it difficult to generalize.” (p. 23)

Dr. Johnson responds: “So the answer is that we don’t know…” (p. 23)

Dr. Sinks (Associate Director for Science at the CDC National Center for Environmental Health, Acting Division Director for the Division of Birth Defects, Developmental Disabilities and Disability Health):

“I want to ask an unrelated question, and this has to do with potentially looking at confounding as we go through this. You mentioned the issue of aluminum salts. I know it’s an issue, but I don’t know the specifics of it. I wonder is their a particular health outcome that has been of concern that is related to the aluminum salts that may have anything to do with what we are looking at here today?” (p. 24)

Dr. Weil (Pediatrician representing the Committee on Environmental Health of the Academy):

“Two things. One, up until this last discussion we have been talking about chronic exposure. I think it’s clear to me anyway that we are talking about a problem that is probably more related to bolus acute exposures, and we also need to know that the migration problem and some of the other developmental problems in the central nervous systems go on for quite a period after birth. But from all the other studies of other toxic substances, the earlier you work with the central nervous system, the more likely you are to run into a sensitive period for one of these effects so that moving from one month or one day from birth to six months of birth changes enormously the potential for toxicity. There are just a host of neurodevelopmental data that would suggest we’ve got a serious problem.” (p. 24)

“The second point I could make is that in relationship to aluminum, being a nephrologist for a long time, the potential for aluminum and central nervous system toxicity was well established by dialysis data. To think there isn’t some possible problem here is unreal.” (p. 24-25)

Dr. Johnson responding to Weil:

“Thank you, Bill, for your comments. As an old pediatrician, I had that same kind of feeling. That there must be a difference with age.” (p. 25)

Dr. Verstraeten (EIS Office at National Immunization Program- leading author of study linked above which is being discussed):

“…Finally, and this may be the toughest one of all, how do we know that it is a Thimerosal effect? Since all vaccines are Thimerosal containing, how do we know that it’s not something else in the vaccines such as aluminum or the antigens?” (p. 50)

“In conclusion, the screening analysis suggests a possible association between certain neurologic developmental disorders. Namely Tics, attention deficit disorder, speech and language disorders and exposure to mercury from Thimerosal containing vaccines before the age of six months…” (p. 50)

Dr. Weil:

“I think what you are saying is in terms of chronic exposure. I think the other alternative scenario is that this is repeated acute exposures, and like many repeated acute exposures, if you consider a dose of 25 micrograms on one day, then you are above threshold. At least we think you are, and then you do that over and over to a series of neurons where the toxic effect may be the same set of neurons or the same set of neurologic processes, it is conceivable that the more mercury you get, the more effect you are going to get.” (p. 75)

Dr. Bernier (Associate Director for Science in the National Immunization Program):

“…let me just reemphasize if I could the importance of trying to protect the information that we have been talking about. As many of you know, we are invited here. We have asked you to keep this information confidential. We do have a plan for discussing these data at the upcoming meeting of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices on June 21 and June 22. At that time the CDC plans to make a public release of this information, so I think it would serve all of our interests best if we could continue to consider this data The ACIP work group will be considering also. If we could consider these data in a certain protected environment. So we are asking people who have done a great job protecting this information up until now, to continue to do that until the time of the ACIP meeting. So to basically consider this embargoed information…” (p. 113)

Dr. Brent:

“…The other thing is with some biological of some chemicals, the more you are exposed to them sometimes enzymes change with regard to excretion and metabolism. Is that known for mercury at all or is it totally unrelated to experience with the substance?” (p. 123)

Dr. Clarkson (repsonding to Dr. Brent’s question):

“As you know, methylmercury and ethylmercury are slowly metabolized to inorganic mercury. The common mercury bond is broken. It’s achieved in two ways. The microflora in the intestinal tract break down methyl to inorganic and that’s how we get rid of it. Methylmercury goes through entroypathic recirculation from liver to bile, to intestine and back reabsorbed again and but for these obliging micro organisms in the GI tract, we wouldn’t really get rid of it. So does the microflora break it down to inorganic, which is not well absorbed and comes out in the feces.” (p. 124)

“The other way it is metabolized is by phagocytic cells in almost every tissue in the body, probably including microglia in the brain. These phagocytic cells will also break down methylmercury. We don’t know for ethyl, but it is probably the same mechanism. So to what extent this change would do us, it’s not known. It’s an interesting question, but that’s not know (sic).” (p. 124)

Dr. Phillips (Family Medicine Private Practice in Seattle, Washington; Chair of Commission on Clinical Policies and Research for the American Academy of Family Physicians):

“…What is the population attributable risk we are talking about? Even if we assume that all children completed the complete series of immunizations and they all include Thimerosal containing vaccinations, what is the burden of illness that we are talking about for these areas of interest? Speech delay and ADHD, that could possibly be attributable, if we believe these figures, to this exposure? What is the public health impact of the findings?” (p. 145)

Dr. Verstraeten (responding to Phillips’ question):

“I haven’t come around to calculating the attributable risk…As you are aware, however, a large majority of children are vaccinated, so it will probably be quite high, if we believe the signal.” (p. 145)

Dr. Brent:

“…many of your curves showed the rise in the relative risk, is that not correct?…I mean over a period of time, you give me the explanation of why over a period of time you got this increased risk.” (p. 161)

“Wasn’t it true that if you looked at the population that had 25 micrograms you had a certain risk and when you got to 75 micrograms you had a higher risk…What is your explanation? What explanation would you give for that? ” (p. 161)

Dr. Verstraeten (responding to Brent’s questions):

“Personally I have three hypotheses. My first hypothesis is it is parental bias. The children that are more likely to be vaccinated are more likely to be picked up and diagnosed. Second hypothesis, I don’t know. There is a bias that I have not yet recognized, and nobody has yet told me about it. Third hypothesis. It’s true, it’s Thimerosal. Those are my hypotheses.” (p. 161)

Dr. Brent (in response):

“If it is true, which or what mechanisms would you explain the finding with?” (p. 161)

Dr. Verstraeten (answers):

“You are asking for biological plausibility?” (p. 162)

Dr. Brent:

“Well, yes.” (p. 162)

Dr. Verstraeten:

“When I saw this, and I went back through the literature, I was actually stunned by what I saw because I thought it is plausible.” (p. 162)

Dr. Brent:

“…I would add a couple of things in there and that is that there are three reasons you might have the findings that you reported. One is, and we don’t have the data, that with the multiple exposures you get an increasing level, and we don’t know whether that is true or not. Some of our colleagues here don’t think that is true, but until we demonstrate it one way or the other, we don’t know that. The other thing is that each time you have an exposure there is a certain amount of irreversible damage and that as you exposure (sic) the damage adds up. Not because of dose but because they are irreversible. And the third thing is that maybe the most sensitive period is later, like in the fifth or sixth month. In other words, the sensitivity period is not the same over the first six months. Those would be explanations that you could only demonstrate with research, and probably not human…” (p. 163)

Dr. Weil:

“…there is something else we won’t ever find out from these data, I don’t think, and that is whether or not 37.5 milligrams at one month is different than 37.5 milligrams at two months or three months, and that may be because of brain development. A critical issue and we can’t answer that from these data, no matter how they get manipulated or how many times we review. So some of the really gutsy questions from a person who is very concerned about neurodevelopment cannot be answered out of this. I don’t think we have anything that says this establishes this. All we can say is we are anxious and we need to get data the way we ordinarily do. We need to go to animal neurotox studies, developmental neurotox. We need to look at some other data that can be obtained to see if we get a comparable kind of impact, but let’s not try to refine and refine and refine these data. These are what they are. They show something and you cannot, by twiddling them and manipulating them, get much more out than Tom, Bob, and others have already done.” (p. 178)

Dr. Johnson:

“…Do you think the observations made to date in the Vaccine Safety Datalink Project about a potential relationship between vaccines which contain Thimerosal and some specific neurologic developmental disorders, speech delay, attention deficit, ADHD and developmental delays constitute a definite signal? That is are a sufficient concern to warrant further investigation?…” (p. 179)

**** To the question above, most vote yes along with explanations for their votes which I will not cite in their entirety. These votes along with comments can be found on pages 179 and following. I will continue citing comments only as they are relevant to my stated goal. If a comment references a “yes” vote, it is a response to this.

Dr. Oakes (Chair of Biostatistics at the at the University of Rochester):

“The other side to this is these data are out now. I mean they may not be public, but they will be. So this data exists, and then we can’t go back to the state where this duty has not been done, so there is a need to understand the data we have…” (p. 187)

Dr. Clover (Chair of the Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of Louisville, and ACIP member):

“Maybe that’s an impossible question to answer, your first question, because no one around here is going to say that mercury per say is not a concern.” (p. 187)

Dr. Weil:

“…My answer is yes. Although the data presents a number of uncertainties, there is adequate consistency, biological plausibility, lack of relationship with phenomenon not expected to be related, and a potential causal role that is as good as any other hypothesized etiology of explanation of the noted associations. In addition, the possibility that the associations could be causal has major significance for public and professional acceptance of Thimerosal containing vaccines. I think that is a critical issue. Finally, a lack of further study would be horrendous grist for the anti-vaccination bill. That’s why we need to go on, and urgently I would add.” (p. 187-188)

Dr. Brent:

“…I remember when I was an intern, I rotated to Boston and there was a woman there by the name of Pricilla White. Because I had been a researcher before I was an intern, she would come down and show me these placentas from mothers who were diabetic and because they were using DES, and she would say to me look at that placenta. Look how healthy it is from mothers who are on DES. Of course she was eventually crushed psychologically when they found out that it caused adenocarcinoma of the vagina. And the implications here are much vaguer. That was an epidemic which was horrendous. Causing learning disabilities and behavioral disorders. ADD is a tremendous problem in our society and I think it is one we should be very concerned about.” (p. 190)

“Although my gut reaction, which is totally irrelevant, is that it is probably not causatic, the only way you can come to a conclusion is through the data, and that’s the data I think we have got. Even if we put the vaccine in single vials and put no preservatives tomorrow, we still want the answer to this question. Because remember, epidemiological studies sometimes give us answers to problems we didn’t even know in the first place. Maybe from all this research we will come up with an answer for what causes learning disabilities, attention deficit disorders, and other information…” (p. 191)

Dr. Koller (Pathologist, Immunotoxicologist, College of Veterinary Medicine, Oregon State University):

“…As you increase the vaccination, you increase effects, but you don’t know. You have modified live viruses. You have different antigens. There is a lot of things in those vaccinations other than mercury, and we don’t know if this is a vaccination effect or a mercury effect. But I am almost sure it is not a mercury effect. Positive as a matter of fact, and there are several experts particularly that have viewed this, the methylmercury aspect who I think would agree with that due to dose response.” (pp. 192-193)

Dr. Johnson (to Koller):

“Loren, if you are absolutely sure there is no causal relationship, why would you answer yes to question one?” (p. 194)

Dr. Koller (responding to Johnson):

“Because I think there are other factors. There is (sic) many confounders that have not been evaluated. Biological and environmental. As a matter of fact, in question two one of my answers is there does appear, however, to be a weak positive association between increased numbers of vaccinations and some neurological endpoints…Because as you increase mercury, you increase vaccinations, so there could be several other factors in those vaccinations that are causing these effects. There is (sic) also other types of vaccines that these children are exposed to. There might be a combination biological effect. It might be antigen effects. There is (sic) all kinds of possibilities here. Some of these are modified live viruses. I would assume they are modified live viruses. Something between the combinations or subsequent exposures in a sensitive population, or hypersensitive population may trigger some of these effects.” (p. 194)

Dr. Clarkson:

“It will be interesting, Mr. Chairman, to know the conclusion of the aluminum meeting in Puerto Rico. What came out of that? Because we heard yesterday from the CI’s that the aluminum will correlate just as well as mercury with these results. Is Dr. Myers here? What were the conclusions?” (pp. 194-195)

Dr. Myers (Acting Director of the National Vaccine Program Office):

“Well, first we didn’t have this data to study. We didn’t have available what we are discussing today. This study, so I am not sure.” (p. 195)

Dr. Clarkson:

“What did they reveal about the all (sic) aluminum in terms of…” (p. 195)

Dr. Myers:

“They thought there was an enormous margin of safety, that were well below concerns, but again they hadn’t seen these associations. By summary we thought we were well below the mercury as well.” (p. 195)

Dr. Stein (General Pediatrician and General Pediatric at University of California, San Diego; Co-Chair of the American Academy of Pediatrics recent practice guideline on diagnosis and evaluation of ADHD):

“…Well, of course I answered yes also, but first I want to say thank you to everyone for giving me a course in Epidemiology. I learned a lot. I also want to congratulate the group that did the data and the study analysis. It also gave me a great respect for the problems of evaluating vaccine safety beyond what I had ever known or expected before, and obviously I have been practicing pediatrics for a long time…” (p. 195)

Dr. Johnson:

“…In my opinion the evidence today is insufficient to determine whether or not Thimerosal containing vaccines caused the neurological sequelae in question…Now on the other hand, the data suggests that there is an association between mercury and the endpoints. ADHD, a well known disability, and speech delay as entered into the database…This association leads me to favor a recommendation that infants up to two years old not be immunized with Thimerosal containing vaccines if suitable alternative preparations are available. I do not believe the diagnosis justifies compensation in the Vaccine Compensation Program at this point.” (p. 199)

“I deal with causality, it seems pretty clear to me that the data are not sufficient one way or the other. My gut feeling? It worries me enough. Forgive this personal comment, but I got called out at eight o’clock for an emergency call and my daughter-in-law delivered a son by C-section. Our first male in the line of the next generation, and I do not want that grandson to get a Thimerosal containing vaccine until I know better what is going on. It will probably take a long time. In the meantime, and I know there are probably implications for this internationally, but in the meantime I think I only want that grandson to only be given Thimerosal-free vaccines.” (pp. 199-200)

Dr. Brent:

“…The epidemiological data is valid, as is (sic) the associations that were reported. It is more difficult, if not impossible, to refute a causal association based on this study. Therefore, the question of causal association remains unanswered until we obtain the data that was suggested in the answer to the first question I wrote.” (p. 205)

Dr. Weil:

“…The number of dose related relationships are linear and statistically significant. You can play with this all you want. They are linear. They are statistically significant.” (p. 207)

“…The increased incidence of neurobehavioral problems in children in the past few decades is probably real…I work in the school system where my effort is entirely in special education and I have to say that the number of kids getting help in special education is growing nationally and state by state at a rate we have not seen before. So there is some kind of an increase. We can argue about what it is due to…But there are certainly more kids with ADD and there are more kids with speech and language disorders than there have been in the past.” (p. 207)

“…The rise in the frequency of neurobehavioral disorders, whether it is ascertainment or real…is much too graphic. We don’t see that kind of genetic change in 30 years.” (p. 207-208)

Dr. Oakes:

“…I don’t think we have seen any evidence that the causal agent, if there is one, is Thimerosal and not some other constituent of the vaccine.” (p. 211)

Dr. Brent (responding to Oakes):

“Could you say that again?” (p 211)

Dr. Oakes (responding to Brent):

“We haven’ seen any evidence that it is the mercury, if there is some damage being caused, that these associations are real, that it is an association with mercury. The question is what other things are in there that are also potential causal agents?…” (p. 211)

Dr. Myers:

“Can I go back to the core issue about the research? My own concern, and a couple of you said it, there is an association between outcomes and vaccination that worries both parents and pediatricians. We don’t really know what the outcome is, but it is one that worries us and there is an association with vaccines. We keep jumping back to Thimerosal, but a number of us are concerned that Thimerosal may be less likely than some of the other potential associations that have been made. Some of the other potential associations are number of injections, number of antigens, other additives. We mentioned aluminum and I mentioned yesterday aluminum and mercury. Antipyretics and analgesics are better utilized when vaccines are given…and yet all the questions I hear we are asking have to do with Thimerosal. My concern is we need to ask the questions about the other potential associations, because we are going to the Thimerosal-free vaccine. If many of us don’t think that is a plausible association because of the levels and so on, then we are missing looking for the association that may be the important one. I thought I would put that out. That we shouldn’t just think in terms of mercury.” (pp. 231-232)

Dr. Chen (Chief of Vaccine Safety and Development at the CDC National Immunization Program) responding to Myers:

“To address Marty, I think that is quite reasonable, although we have a limited amount of manpower because of what we just studied. At the moment, I would think most people around the room would argue that these are biologically plausible outcomes potentially related to mercury, and then we will keep the other ones in mind…” (p. 233)

Dr. Myers (responding to Chen):

“I agree with you, Bob, but the think the conclusion (sic) is that there is an association between vaccinations and the outcomes that we cannot reject and of which one compliment of the vaccines that is associated is Thimerosal, but it is only one of the associations. I don’t think it is any more plausible than some of the others. And I think I heard several of the consultants say the same thing.” (p. 233)

Dr. Caserta (Chief Medical Officer for the Vaccine Compensation Program):

“One of the things I learned at the Aluminum Conference in Puerto Rico that was tied into the metal lines in biology and medicine that I never really understood before, is the interactive effect of different ions and different metals when they are together in the same organism. It is not the same as when they are alone, and I think it would be foolish for us not to include aluminum as part of our thinking with this.” (p. 234)

Dr. Orenstein (CDC’s Director of National Immunization Program):

“You have to add smallpox and IPV. In fact, one of the studies from the perinatal project suggested an increased risk of tumors in the off spring (sic) of parents who received three CBL. Heard of these associations.” (p. 234)

Dr. Clements (Expanded Program on Immunization, WHO, Geneva):

“…I am really concerned we have taken off like a boat going down one arm of the mangrove swamp at high speed, when in fact there was no (sic) enough discussion really early on about which way the boat should go at all. And I really want to risk offending everyone in the room by saying that perhaps this study should not have been done at all, because the outcome of it could have, to some extent, been predicted and we have all reached this point now where we are left hanging, even though I hear the majority of the consultants say to the Board that they are not convinced there is a causality direct link between Thimerosal and various neurological outcomes.” (pp. 247-248)

“I know how we handle it from here is extremely problematic. The ACIP is going to depend on comments from this group in order to move forward into policy, and I have been advised that whatever I say should not move into the policy area because that is not the point of this meeting…But there is now the point at which the research results have to be handled, and even if this committee decides that there is no association and that information gets out, the work has been done and through freedom of information that will be taken by others and used in other ways beyond the control of this group. And I am very concerned about that as I suspect it is already too late to do anything regardless of any professional body and what they say.” (p. 248)

“My mandate as I sit here in this group is to make sure at the end of the day that 100,000,000 are immunized with DTP, Hepatitis B, and if possible Hib, this year, next year, and for many years to come, and that will have to be with Thimerosal containing vaccines unless a miracle occurs and an alternative is found quickly and is tried and found to be safe.” (p. 248)

“So I leave you with the challenge that I am very concerned that this has gotten this far, and that having got this far, how you present in a concerted voice the information to the ACIP in a way they will be able to handle it and not get exposed to the traps which are out there in public relations…How will it be presented to a public and a media that is hungry for selecting the information they want to use for whatever means they have in store for them…I have the deepest respect for the analysis that has been done, but I wonder how on earth you are going to handle it from here.” (p. 249)

-End-

As a former very pro-vaccination individual, these are the things that bother me the most about this interaction:

    • Experts do not know what I consider to be basic and necessary safety information for a multitude of vaccine ingredients and how they may or may not interact with one another and affect the body.
    • The absence of the above information is in no way considered an impediment to vaccine approval, utilization, and forceful recommendation.
    • Prior to reading private conversations such as this, I assumed the experts did know these basic and necessary data.
    • The public is preliminarily assured of safety before anyone has any idea of whether or not these assurances are accurate, even before scientific data has been sufficiently collected and/or reviewed.
    • Given evidence of the distinct possibility that some element of vaccination (not sure which, it could be multiple things) is directly associated to neurological developmental disorders (among other things), experts feel justified in withholding this information from the public to ensure that confidence in vaccination is not lost.
    • Although aluminum was clearly identified as (at the very least) an ingredient equivalently dangerous to mercury, there was not, and there has not been, any effort to remove this ingredient or seriously study it.

These realizations are particularly unsettling in light of the 2011 Institute of Medicine Report. The ICAN white paper on Vaccine Safety summarizes their findings on pages 8-9:

“This third IOM Report reviewed the 158 most common vaccine injuries claimed to have occurred for vaccination from varicella, hepatitis B, tetanus, measles, mumps, and/or rubella. The IOM located science which ‘convincingly supports a causal relationship’ for 14 of these serious injuries including pneumonia, meningitis, hepatitis, MIBE(deadly brain inflammation a year after vaccination), febrile seizures, and anaphylaxis. The review found sufficient evidence to support ‘acceptance of a causal relationship’ for 4 additional serious injuries. The IOM, however, found the scientific literature was insufficient to conclude whether or not those vaccines caused 135 other serious injuries commonly reported after their administration…For the remaining 135 vaccine-injury pairs, over 86% of those reviewed, the IOM found that the science simply had not been performed.”

I won’t list all of the 135, but the following is a sampling: Encephalitis, Encephalopathy, Seizures, Transverse Myelitis, Multiple Sclerosis, Guillain-Barre, Systemic Lupus Erythematosus, Juvenile Ideopathic Arthritis, Rheumatoid Athritis, Fibromyalgia, SIDS. (Relevant IOM Report link here)

At the outset of this article I asked the reader to reflect on the last two statements made by the AAP and PHS. After considering this interaction between experts, how would you answer the following questions: 1) Are they sufficiently transparent and unbiased? 2) Do you trust that you are being given adequate information to make your own decisions? 3) Do you agree with policies and recommendations that have been made in the interest of public health? 4) Going forward, would you accept official statements at face value and continue to vaccinate yourselves and your children, no questions asked? 5) Does it bother you that the US is reaching epidemic levels of autoimmune diseases and neurological behavioral disorders, yet the cause is a complete mystery? 6) Might the interest of the public health be at odds with your interest, as a parent, in the specific health of your child? 7) Is the risk of historically benign, low risk, short-lived infections such as measles, mumps, and chicken pox beginning to look very attractive compared to the vast number of unknowns and high stakes long- term, life- altering diseases potentially associated with vaccination?

 

If you answered those first four questions with a “no” and the last three with a “yes”, welcome to the “vaccine hesitant” club.

 

Posted on

Why Did the CDC Silence the Million Dollar Harvard Project Charged With Upgrading Our Vaccine Safety Surveillance System?

There are major problems with the vaccine adverse event reporting system (known as VAERS) which the CDC considers the “front line” of vaccine safety. VAERS was created in 1990 by the CDC and FDA as a means to collect and analyze adverse effects that are associated with vaccines. Unfortunately, the failings of VAERS are “kept from the consciousness” not only of the public, but also from the doctors, pediatricians, and nurses that the public rely on to provide reliable information as to the safety of vaccines. I say “kept from the consciousness” rather than “kept secret” because while these failings are publicly disclosed for all the world to see, they are for all intents and purposes BURIED in documents seldom searched out by the average member of the medical community, much less by the average individual. You could say that the information has been very effectively hidden in plain sight.

By far, the most dire failure of the VAERS system is the vast underreporting of vaccine adverse effects which leads to a dangerous false security in vaccine safety and an erroneous assumption that the benefits of vaccination far outweigh the risks.

Who DOES know about the deadly elephant in the room?

The CDC, the FDA, the Institutes of Medicine (IOM), and Congress to name a few. Oh, and an organization called Harvard Pilgrim Healthcare, Inc.- but we’ll get to them in a minute.

This is what the CDC says about the VAERS system, “Passive surveillance systems (e.g. VAERS) are subject to multiple limitations, including underreporting, reporting of temporal associations or unconfirmed diagnoses, and lack of denominator data and unbiased comparison groups. Because of these limitations, determining causal associations between vaccines and adverse events from VAERS reports is usually not possible.” (emphasis mine)

In 2000, the 6th Report by the Committee on Government Reform addressed the failings of VAERS in its address of the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. The report states, “The quality of VAERS data has been questioned. Because reports are submitted from a variety of sources, some inexperienced in completing data forms for medical studies, many reports omit important data and contain obvious errors. Assessment is further complicated by the administration of multiple vaccines at the same time, following currently recommended vaccine schedules, because there may be no conclusive way to determine which vaccine or combination of vaccines caused the specific adverse event.”

The same Congressional report notes (on page 15), “Former FDA commissioner David A. Kessler has estimated that VAERS reports currently represent only a fraction of the serious adverse events.” (emphasis mine)

The Congressional report above listed 4 limitations that the IOM Committees noted, “1) Inadequate understanding of biologic mechanisms underlying adverse events; 2) Insufficient or inconsistent information from case reports and case series; 3) Inadequate size or length of follow- up of many population- based epidemiological studies; 4) Limitations of existing surveillance systems to provide persuasive evidence of causation; and 5) Few published epidemiological studies.” The report continues by noting that the “IOM warned that ‘if research capacity and accomplishments [are] not improved, future reviews of vaccine safety [will be] similarly handicapped.’”

The IOM has been telling the CDC for over 23 years that they have inadequate information (and none at all in some cases) to advise on the causal relationship between vaccines and adverse events for a majority of adverse events reported. In a 1994 report on vaccines and adverse events the IOM stated, “The lack of adequate data regarding many of the adverse events under study was of major concern to the committee…Although the committee was not charged with proposing specific research investigations, in the course of its review additional obvious needs for research and surveillance were identified, and those are briefly described here.” (emphasis mine) In 2011, the IOM conducted another study examining the scientific evidence in studies available for 158 vaccine adverse effects. Again, they concluded that they had inadequate information to come to a decision, “The vast majority of causality conclusions in the report are the evidence was inadequate to accept or reject a causal relationship.” (emphasis mine)

While one might expect a new program (new in 1990) to have a few bugs that need to be worked out, I would expect that when it comes to being able to ascertain vaccine safety, working out those bugs should be priority number one. Certainly today in 2017, a whopping 27 years later, the failure of the CDC to address this monumental danger to public health should be viewed with a skepticism much greater than mere suspicion.

That leads us to the interesting case of the CDC and Harvard Pilgrim Healthcare Inc.

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) gave Harvard Medical School a $1 million dollar grant to track VAERS reporting at Harvard Pilgrim Healthcare for 3 years and to create an automated reporting system which would revolutionize the VAERS reporting system- transforming it from “passive” to “active.”

This project was called Electronic Support for Public Heath- Vaccine Adverse Reporting System (ESP:VAERS). According to the grant final report, the scope of the project was, “To create a generalizable system to facilitate detection and clinician reporting of vaccine adverse events, in order to improve the safety of national vaccination programs.” To accomplish this the team used the electronic medical records at Harvard Pilgrim Healthcare, Inc, which is described as a “large multi-specialty practice.” Every patient that received a vaccine was automatically identified and followed for 30 days. Within that 30 days the individual’s diagnostic health codes, lab tests, and prescriptions were evaluated to recognize any potential adverse event. Another goal of the project was to evaluate the performance of the new automated system via a randomized trial and to compare this new data to the existing data collected by VAERS and Vaccine Safety Datalink.

Just the preliminary description of this program is head and shoulders above the current functioning of the passive VAERS system. In our current system, adverse events are to be spontaneously reported by parents or health care providers. Most parents aren’t even aware the VAERS system exists, much less aware that they are supposed to be reporting to it. Health care providers are “supposed” to report adverse events, but we have no idea of the efficiency level with which this is occurring, and more than a hunch that this reporting is grossly neglected for a variety of reasons. Furthermore, many vaccine adverse events are never reported because either the parent, patient, or doctor is completely unaware that a subsequent adverse event is in fact due to a vaccine. This new reporting system would remove all of these failures from the equation.

What were the results?

Data was collected from June 2006 to October of 2009 on a total of 715,000 patients. Of those 715,000 patients, 376,452 were given 1.4 million doses of 45 different vaccines. A total of 35,570 possible adverse reactions were identified, so 2.6% of vaccinations were followed by a possible adverse reaction.

Let’s just take a minute to reflect on that last sentence. Out of only 376,452 individuals that received a vaccine at this Harvard practice, the new automated system identified 35,570 possible adverse reactions in a three year period. How does that stack up to the number of adverse effects reported to VAERS? According to the CDC, only 30,000 adverse events are reported every year for the entire US population. This finding alone should have had the CDC saying:

I’ll quote the findings directly from the report, “Adverse events from drugs and vaccines are common, but underreported. […] Likewise, fewer than 1% of vaccine adverse events are reported. Low reporting rates preclude or slow the identification of ‘problem’ drugs and vaccines that endanger public health. New surveillance methods for drug and vaccine adverse effects are needed.”

Again, let’s stop and think about this revelation for a moment: fewer than 1% of vaccine adverse events are reported. The CDC’s entire vaccination propaganda campaign rests on their claim that side effects from vaccination are exceedingly rare (and predominantly minor). According to the CDC, in 2016 alone, VAERS received 59,117 vaccine adverse event reports. Among those reports were 432 deaths, 1,091 permanent disabilities, 4,132 hospitalizations, and 10,274 emergency room visits. What if these numbers actually represent less than 1% of the total as this report asserts? Simple multiplication would yield vaccine adverse events reports numbering 5,911,700!

Of course, at this point that figure is nothing but a guess. But, again, why do we HAVE To guess? Because in 27 years the CDC has failed to provide a post- licensure vaccine safety surveillance system that the IOM, FDA, physicians, and the public can have confidence in.

The report also states, “Barriers to reporting include a lack of clinician awareness, uncertainty about when and what to report, as well as the burdens of reporting: reporting is not part of the clinician’s usual workflow, takes time, and is duplicative.

So, WHY aren’t the reports currently being made to VAERS? According to the findings above, clinicians don’t know for sure what a vaccine adverse event is. This isn’t surprising at all considering what we learned from the 2011 IOM report above. There haven’t been enough studies performed for highly trained IOM scientists and physicians to even determine whether or not the majority of the currently suspected 158 adverse vaccine effects are indeed caused by vaccines. How could we possibly expect our average pediatricians or general practitioners to know what a team of IOM personnel have determined we have inadequate information to decide? In addition, this report basically finds that your clinician frankly doesn’t have the time to devote to proper VAERS reporting under the current inconvenient system.

You’d think that the CDC would be jumping for joy that this Harvard team just created a proactive, reliable, automated system that would improve the quality of our vaccination program by improving vaccine adverse event detection thereby increasing public confidence in post- licensure surveillance.

What was the CDC’s response?

Basically, the same response your average college student falls back on when they decide they are no longer interested in continuing a relationship- they cut all lines of communication. No more answering phone calls or emails. You heard me correctly, the United States of America Centers for Disease Control ghosted Harvard Pilgrim Healthcare, Inc. For those who are unaware, Google dictionary defines ghosting as, “the practice of ending a personal relationship by suddenly and without explanation withdrawing from all communication.” Personally, I would hope that I could hold an organization like the CDC to a higher standard, but…

After a one million dollar grant was paid and three years of research conducted on what appeared to be a very successful upgrade to the passive VAERS system, the team’s CDC contacts went MIA. The ESP:VAERS final report states, “Unfortunately, there was never an opportunity to perform system performance assessments because the necessary CDC contacts were no longer available and the CDC consultants responsible for receiving data were no longer responsive to our multiple requests to proceed with testing and evaluation.”

According to the final report, the only thing left for the CDC to do was link the VAERS system to the Harvard Pilgrim system in order to transmit the data. The team requested that the CDC do this, “However, real data transmissions of non-physician approved reports to the CDC was unable to commence, as by the end of this project, the CDC had yet to respond to multiple requests to partner for this activity.”

What do we, the public, take away from this debacle?

As I see it there are only two options.

  1. You give the CDC the benefit of the doubt, assume deep down they have the safety of the public at heart and chalk up their monumental waste of money, time, and a good idea to bureaucratic incompetence.
  2. You stop naively believing that the CDC cares ultimately about public safety and realize that the vaccine industry makes way too much money to allow public confidence in the safety of vaccines to be eroded by a surveillance system capable of giving the public a glimpse of the scope and magnitude of the adverse effects vaccines are actually responsible for.

To assist you in your decision making, I’ll leave you with a statistic from the ICAN (Informed Consent Action Network) request to the HHS to meet the obligations set forth by the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Safety Act regarding the CDC’s role in the vaccine industry market, “When the CDC recommends a pediatric vaccine for universal use, it creates for that vaccine’s maker a liability free market of 78 million children typically required by law to receive the vaccine.” (emphasis mine)

Posted on

Analysis of Las Vegas Shooting Police Scanner Audio- Are Conspiracy Theories Unwarranted?

A lot of people are asking a lot of questions about the Vegas shooting. Most fall into one of three camps: A) you think all “conspiracy theories” are ridiculous, unfounded, and that we should just believe what we are told; B) you have looked at the facts presented and are coming up with some very legitimate questions because in many cases the narrative doesn’t match evidence; or C) you have totally gone off the deep end entertaining theories that make even less sense than the official narrative.

For all of you who wonder what in the world all the debate is about, I’m going to break down the information we have available to us  such as: police scanner audio, maps so that you can follow along with what the police are talking about in the scanner audio, cell phone video of the events as they unfolded, witness interviews, waveform audio of the gunshots, and you can come to your own conclusions. In my opinion, the primary question that surfaces from an analysis of this information is: Does the evidence appear to point to a lone gunman or multiple shooters? Any other theories floating around out there about motives cannot be definitively determined from any information that I’ve seen so far.

The following is NOT a complete transcript of the police scanner audio, although I have provided the full links for those who would like to listen to it. Instead, I have listed quotes of interest. I have noted the approximate time for each quote so that you can listen for yourself. Please keep in mind while listening to and/or reading these quotes that every single quote that you hear an officer utter DOES NOT mean that that particular information is correct. These officers ran into a chaotic scene and they are voicing their perception of events at that particular time, from their particular point of view. As the events unfold, new information obviously leads the officers to conclusions that may differ from what they originally perceived to be occurring. At the same time, the original perception of these officers is certainly valuable when compared to other evidences.

It should be noted that during the entirety of this audio, the LVPD treat this incident as a multiple shooter situation. It is now the official stance of the LVPD, in hindsight review of the situation, that there was a single shooter only, though he most likely had outside help in planning.

Here is a map to help you visualize the initial situation.

First scanner audio recording:

:56- “Shots are coming from Mandalay Bay halfway up.”

      • Upon entry this officer believes shots are coming from halfway up Mandalay. We now know from video that the reason he believes this is because he sees what appears to be muzzle fire coming from that area. There are multiple videos documenting this. You can see it clearly in this clip of the cab driver’s video:

1:12- “We have an active shooter inside the fair grounds.”

3:45- “Control be advised I have shots coming from Gate 7.”

      • File this quote away for later. Note from this venue map that there is no labeled “Gate 7.” You will notice, however, that there are 2 gates labeled “Gate 2”. If we re-number the gates chronologically, the gate labeled “6” on the venue map would become gate 7. This is entirely my own speculation given scanner audio and the venue map. Regardless, this bit of information becomes interesting in light of later scanner audio.

5:36- “flashes in the middle of Mandalay Bay on the North side, kind of on the West tower but towards the center”…”one of the middle floors.”

      • Again, this officer is seeing the flashes we’ve got video of and at this time believes they are muzzle flashes.

6:20- I’m inside the Mandalay Bay on the 31st floor. I can hear the automatic fire coming from one floor ahead, one floor above us.”

7:00- “flashing coming from about 1/3 of the way up, center tower Mandalay Bay.”

– Another officer seeing the same flashing light from video.

9:00- “Does anyone have eyes on this shooter?” Different officer responds, “About 15th floor on Mandalay Bay.”

– Again, same story. He sees the flashing light from the videos.

14:03- “I haven’t seen any flashes from Mandalay but if it’s coming from Mandalay there is a strobe light coming from one of those windows on the east side.”

      • Ok, here we have an officer clarifying that the flashing light everyone is seeing is coming from a strobe light. There is video of this blue strobe light flashing both before and after the shooting. Here is one such video:

To be fair, I’ve seen some individuals claiming that the blue strobe is coming from a different window than the white and orange flashing light that everyone is reporting as muzzle fire.However, I personally have been unable to discern that from watching the videos. These people also note that some lower floor windows are service windows that do in fact open, however I have been unable to confirm this.

      • One thing that DOES bother me about this is the explanation (given by an investigator featured on Hannity) that this flashing light is a reflection of actual muzzle fire from the 32nd floor reflected in the mirrored glass. First of all, it would be all but impossible to imagine a scenario in which light from the shooter’s  32nd   floor windows could be reflected in only one window on the 10th or 15th floor. Second, I have not seen one video surface yet of muzzle fire coming from the 32nd story windows. How is light that is not present reflecting on a lower window? The lack of muzzle fire from the 32nd floor windows can be viewed in multiple videos. Here’s a particularly good one:

14:45- “We’re getting from civilians saying there might have been 3 shooters.”

      • It’s impossible to learn anything from this quote. The officer doesn’t say why the people thought there were 3 shooters. Did they think they heard three distinctive guns or see gunfire originating from differing angles? Did they visually see three possible gunmen? We don’t know.

14:55- “We’ve interviewed multiple people in concert venue that is on the north side of Hacienda, east side of Las Vegas Blvd saying there are multiple people who have been shot or were shooting in the concert venue.”

15:35- “I’m in the stairwell on the 32nd floor…I’m on the 32nd floor, the room is going to be 135.”

16:28- “410 vehicle going the wrong way- a white car going down Las Vegas Blvd towards Mandalay Bay.”

16:38- “It’s room 1-3-5 on the 32nd floor. I need SWAT.”

16:45- Dispatch- “Just confirming that Mandalay Bay 32nd floor room 1-3-5.” Officer responds, “That is affirmed. We have a 4 man element on the very end of the hall.”

17:40- “We’ve spoken to security at Mandalay Bay, they say they have shots fired on 29th and 32nd levels.”

      • This one’s hard to explain. Mandalay security personnel report shots fired on both the 29th and 32nd levels.

18:00- “We’re coming out on the 32nd floor.”

18:20- “We have a security officer also shot in the leg on this 32nd floor. He’s standing right by the elevator.”

      • We now know that Paddock had cameras rigged so that he could see when police entered the hallway. This Mandalay security officer attempted to approach Paddock’s room after he heard shots fired and Paddock fired approximately 200 rounds through the door of his suite hitting the security guard in the leg. According to LVPD, the guard remained on the hallway by the elevators and subsequently helped them clear rooms on that level.

UPDATE 10/11/17: Currently LVPD has changed their story and timeline regarding the security guard. Now they assert the security guard was on the 32nd floor to investigate a fire door that was ajar 6 minutes prior to Paddock firing his first shots onto the crowd. Paddock saw the guard via his surveillance system and shot 200 rounds at him wounding him in the leg. MGM Resorts (which owns Mandalay Bay, however, disagrees with this timeline. They agree that the guard went to the 32nd floor to check the fire door and was fired upon. However, they add that a maintenance worker then joined the security guard and they were both fired upon. MGM then asserts that they sent an armed security force to the 32nd floor which arrived about he same time the  LVPD arrived at the 32nd floor. By that point, Paddock had ceased firing upon the crowd. According to scanner audio, no one was present on the 32nd floor when they arrived except the wounded security guard by the elevator.

18:40- “He [Paddock] shot down the hallway and hit a security guard.”

– See description above.

18:50- “We’re going to have a blockade on the 32nd floor. We will need the 29th floor. It sounds like it’s confirmed there are at least two shooters with fully automatic weapons.”

      • This quote is troublesome. If you’ll note throughout the entire audio,  time and again, nothing is CONFIRMED until it is 100% verified, not just reported. Here we have an officer noting 2 confirmed shooters- one on 29th and one on 32- both with automatic weapons. Make a mental note that we have one other “confirmed” report that is later dismissed later in the audio.

19:15- “See if we can get cameras watching that 32nd and 29th floor.”

26:10- “About 3 minutes ago a black dually unknown truck, looked like a Chevy, unknown occupied, ripped out of the parking lot east of Excalibur heading South to the Delano…keep an eye on it.”

      • No reports ever come across the scanner detailing if officers track down or investigate this vehicle.

26:30- “We’re clearing the 29th floor.”

27:10- “I’m on the 29th floor of Mandalay Bay with an element.”

27:40- “We’re going up to floor 30. There’s already a (? inaudible) on 29.”

29:15- “We have an 8 man element clearing the casino floor and one SWAT unit moving up to the 32nd floor right now.”

34:00- “Over by the Motel 6 by Tropicana there’s a white RV. I have pedestrians saying that the older white male in fatigues and a black bag went into the motor home…pedestrians say he came from the area of the shooting.”

– No resolution regarding this suspect is ever transmitted over the audio. RV location circled in red:

35:30- “There’s one WMA (white male adult) in black fatigues in a white RV off of Koval and Tropicana south of.”

36:18- “Giles and Alibaba, several casualties.”

      • Ok, now go back and reference the quote I told you to file away about shots coming from Gate 7. Hold on to these two quotes for a second and get a visual of this location in your mind. The area circled in red is the intersection of Giles and Alibaba.

37:00- “We believe its the northernmost room on the 32nd . Unknown where on the 29th or anywhere in between. We believe it’s the northernmost room on either side on the 32nd floor of the Mandalay Bay.”

37:25- “We’re going to put a shotgun facing the RV that the suspect is supposed to be in. It’s going to be behind the Clarke Co Fire Dept engine.

38:30- “Confirming I have casualties at Alibaba and Giles east of the Catholic Shrine as well as in the Mandalay Bay. So we have 2 scenes.”

      • Ok, here is where you should take the quote from the officer about shots from Gate 7 and the quote from the Officer about casualties at Giles and Alibaba and apply them to this new information. This officer is CONFIRMING (again we’ve discussed how throughout this audio nothing is confirmed until verified) that there are 2 separate shooting scenes. One shooter in Mandalay Bay and apparently at Giles and Alibaba. Look at the photos above and ask a couple of things. 1. Could the shots fired from the 32nd floor of Mandalay Bay reach this intersection of Giles and Alibaba? 2. Are there casualties in between the two areas to indicate one continuous scene or are they two distinct scenes separated by significant space? I noted above that there is no Gate 7 labeled on the venue map. Was the officer mistaken about what gate he was at? Or, was there another Gate at the venue that isn’t labeled on the venue map? If this is the case, where would Gate 7 be located according to the gate numbers already indicated? It seems logical that a Gate 7 could have been located somewhere near this intersection of Giles and Alibaba. According to the venue map, Gate 5 backs up to Giles/Alibaba.  Nothing can be confirmed, but these are legitimate questions based on the information that we have.

39:15- “Zebra (team on 32nd floor) I need to know if we have that floor evacuated other than the suspects. We’ve got snipers going up here soon, so I need to know if that’s evacced.” Officer replies, “Well, that’s going to be a negative. Nothing has been evacced…We’re still clearing floor 31.”

41:05- “I need someone at Reno and Tropicana, we might have a possible.”

      • The yellow highlighted streets are Reno and Tropicana. Very close proximity to the intersection of Giles and Alibaba:

 

41:30- “I have a 5 man team going to floor 2.”

41:50- “Please be advised, there is a subject on the heli-pad.”

43:10- “FYI, we’re posted on Koval just north of the target RV at Tropicana, there’s two of us here.”

43:20- “Floor 31 is clear, we’re moving up to 32 with the other team.”

43:45- “We’re going out on a possible right at the side of Motel 6. There’s 3 of us here.”

45:10- “Confirming the Mandalay Bay and Alibaba/Giles are the two shooting locations. Do we have a 3rd?

      • Again, more communication confirming two shooting locations and asking if a 3rd has been confirmed. No response is ever recorded regarding this question.

47:00- “Have we confirmed with Luxor that nobody heard shots over there? When we were getting shot at we wanted that checked.”

      • This is two officers that were on the festival grounds. They are asking to confirm that no shots were fired from Luxor because they thought that there were when they were on the ground getting shot at. The Luxor is labeled on the map at the introduction of this article. It’s the pyramid.

55:25- “Please be advised, subject has a possible suspect pinned down at Industrial and Circus.”

      • Nothing is ever referenced regarding this on the rest of the scanner audio. This location is circled in red.:

57:30- “We have reports of possible shots fired inside NYNY.”

-NYNY is circled in red:

58:55- “We’re getting a 415a (assault with a gun) the advisor was a shooter at the front desk. NYNY. And everyone is in the kitchen.”

– Sounds like pretty specific information. File this one away.

59:18- “Hey a citizen just advised me a vehicle, black Audi, in the valet at the Luxor possibly has a 445 (bomb), she said it has wires sticking out so don’t let any officers go through the valet at Luxor.”

59:50- “We are getting people saying that there is someone at NYNY.”

1:00:59- “At NY they are advising the active shooter’s possibly coming down the escalator from NYNY to Excalibur.”

– Again, pretty specific information regarding the NYNY sighting. File it away.

1:04:07- “Do we have a 415a (assault with a gun) at NYNY?”

1:04:35- “There’s approximately 150 subjects sheltered in place inside the kitchen area there. And two shots were fired inside casino floor…there is several subjects down at NYNY/Zumaniti.”

      • Again, very specific information on NYNY incident- 2 shots fired. Add this to the mental file.

1:05:05- “No answer from NY security.”

– Trying to confirm with NY security, but no answer.

1:05:13- “Send, if there’s not already 2 strike teams in route, send 2 strike teams in route, they need to advise their call signs, and we need update as soon as they get there.”

1:06:30- “Whoever is responding to NYNY from the control side, I need somebody to get the cameras to verify whether this is a diversion.”

      • First mention by officers that these reports might possibly be diversions to attract attention away from the main event at Mandalay. Make another mental file for this.

1:06:54- “ Ok now I’m getting information on an active shooter at Tropicana.”

1:07:10- “Advise there is an active shooter at Tropicana, active shooter at Tropicana.”

1:07:20- “Entering NYNY with a strike team.”

1:07:42- “I’m outside Tropicana, we’re not hearing any 434’s this could be a diversion.”

1:09:20- “Referencing Tropicana they’re advising there was a hispanic male, dark skin with an afro, unknown clothing with a backpack. Said he squatted in the driveway of Hooters and looks like a suspect.”

1:10:55- “We have a set (? hard to hear clearly) on the suspect’s door. I need for everyone in that hallway to be aware of it and get back. We need to pop this and see if we can get a response from this guy…see if he’s in here or if he’s moved on somewhere else.”

1:11:06- “All units on the 32nd floor, SWAT has explosive breach. Everyone in the hallway needs to move back. All units move back.”

1:11:20- “Breach, breach, breach.”

1:12:00- “Reports from civilians shots just fired. Two shots in the park area of NYNY.”

– Matches the earlier report of 2 shots fired at NYNY.

1:12:12- “Be advised there are 2 shots fired in the park area of NYNY. Now they’re also saying one at Aria.”

1:12:20- “So far NYNY is clear, negative shots fired.”

      • Officers at NYNY report no shots were fired at NYNY. This is troublesome given the specific information given earlier in the audio.

1:13:15- “We’re sending 2 teams to Excalibur right now based on earlier detail.”

      • Remember, earlier ( at 1:00:59) they reported possible suspect running down escalator from NYNY to Excalibur.

1:13:50- “I’ve got medics reporting they’re getting shot at at Tropicana.”

      • Ok, time out. This is entirely different than possibly erroneous reports of gunfire from panicked civilians. Here you have EMT’s reporting that they’re being shot at. The EMT’s are located at Tropicana. File this away. The Tropicana location is circled in purple:

1:13:55- “We have a strike team available send them to the Tropicana.”

1:14:12- “We are clearing this room. We have one suspect down.” (This is the team at Paddock’s room)

1:14:30- “We need the air clear for Zebra 20 (team at Paddock’s), they have one suspect down inside the room.”

1:15:20- “We made contact inside the Tropicana. They are reporting negative shots fired.”

      • Ok. Let’s stop here a minute. Here we have an officer reporting that there were no shots fired at Tropicana. Remember, shots here were not only reported by civilians, but by EMT’s on scene who reported that they were being shot at. This becomes especially interesting in light of this witness interview:

        • At the 13:15 mark, this man says that he saw shell casings on the ground inside the festival grounds AND at the entrance of the back door of the Tropicana. For those who may not be aware, the presence of shell casings would be an absolute confirmation  of an active shooter in that specific vicinity. Shell casings from shots fired from the 32nd floor of Mandalay would not be found inside the concert venue grounds, much less over at the Tropicana.

1:16:00- “There is one down, 32nd floor Mandalay Bay.”

1:16:40- “Reports of shots being fired at the Aria appear unfounded at this time.”

1:16:52- Zebra 20: “We have another explosive breach going on to get into an adjoining room. Going to be going off in about 5 seconds.”

1:17:43- “Talking to security now, they’re saying they don’t have any shots fired inside NYNY.”

      • Security at NYNY is now apparently saying there were no shots fired. Remember, we had quite a specific set of information given regarding shots at NYNY- the shots occurred on the casino floor, there were 2, people fled to shelter in the kitchen. Now we’re hearing that there were no shots fired there.

1:19:30- “Please be advised now we’re getting shots fired at Caesar’s and Bellagio.”

1:20:18- Zebra 20: “We do not need anyone else up on this floor. (Partially inaudible) have two breaches, we also have one shot officer that did fire. Negative injuries on anybody else.”

      • It’s hard to understand from this particular communication, but it appears that Paddock possibly shot an officer that was entering the room before killing himself. Sheriff Lombardo has confirmed in subsequent interviews that an officer was shot in the leg.

1:21:15- “We got reports of a guy with a gun here.” Dispatch says, “What’s your location?” Officer replies, “We’re at the Paris.”

1:21:40- “Is that reported or confirmed?”

1:21:45- “We’ve got people running and security trying to point out where the gunman is and we can’t find him.”

Audio ends

The following quotes are from an individual’s continued recording of police scanner audio. At approximately the 16 minute mark this video picks up where the first scanner audio ends:

https://hooktube.com/watch?v=OVDn1FvRyiU

16:05- “Lets get some arriving units at Flamingo and the Blvd trying to get this guy to stop him from going north anymore.”

      • It appears from this communication that an active shooter has potentially been seen fleeing Paris. Security officers have apparently tried to point out his location to the officers in Paris, but they were unable to find him. At this point, dispatch sends officers north to intercept him.

16:15- “Bellagio saying negative shots fired. At Bellagio negative shots fired Bellagio. No one’s going in or out. They’re locking it down.”

      • Here we have audio confirming that no shots were fired at Bellagio. However, this Bellagio guest and witness tells a different story and Bellagio staff appears to confirm what she is saying. Her video was removed from youtube. However, this video includes her video. Her actual video begins at around the 6:25 mark. Her conversation with the Bellagio staff member begins around the 9:57 mark.

UPDATE 10/11/17: Rene (the Bellagio guest who shot the FB live video above) has given her testimony in the following interview. The information that she reveals is nothing short of shocking. Her husband is retired military. She describes their experience from the glass shattering automatic gunfire into the Bellagio, to taking shelter with other guests in a rear hallway of Bellagio, to being restricted from entering the area where clean up crews were working feverishly to restore the lobby area, to checking out the next morning when Bellagio management told her there had been no shots fired at Bellagio the night before. This is an interview you won’t want to miss:

18:43- Dispatch to team at Paris- “Are you still hearing 434’s?” (illegal shots fired) Officer responds, “Sorry, there were reports of 434 but I’ve got people running everywhere.” Dispatch- “Ok, are YOU hearing 434’s actively right now?” Officer- “Negative, negative.”

19:50- “I have two teams, we’re coming in the main valet of the Paris right now.”

20:02- “Can we contact Planet Hollywood? We’re getting some reports of possibly shots fired there.”

20:20- “Victor (Paris team) originally said there were shots but she did not hear them and people were running everywhere and that were being reported of 434’s.”

20:32- “I have security talking to me right now. They say there’s a person saw a male with 413 (person with a gun) inside the Luxor males restroom.”

23:04- “We have several strike teams inside the Paris. Negative 434’s. Everybody’s leaving though.”

23:30- Zebra 20- “Copy some information, a potential name possibly related with the suspect. It was a players card out on the countertop next to the wallet of the suspect that’s (? inaudible). It’s an MLife Platinum card with the name of Marilou Danley.

24:40- It looks like that name I gave you shares an address with the subject.”

25:38- “I am strike team 3. I am still in NYNY. I know negative shots fired but we’re still clearing. We have multiple witnesses here as well as people are down on the ground, not shot, just sheltering in place.”

      • Apparently still calming people down who are sheltering in place even though subsequent reports indicated no shots occurred.

26:05- “Please be advised there’s a male walking into the Bellagio.”

– Bellagio is on lock down at this point. No one should be entering or exiting.

26:13- “Paris casino is clear, we’re gonna clear up the nightclub- Chateau.”

      • Make a note of this. Officers reported no shots fired at Paris even though a massive panic occurred earlier. They have cleared the casino and are now heading to the nightclub Chateau.

26:19- “Please be advised, at the Bellagio employee entrance, there’s a male walking in with a rifle. Bellagio employee entrance.”

      • No more radio traffic is heard regarding this oddity besides an all clear given in the next couple of minutes.

27:05- “Units be advised. There’s gonna be 3 armored cars in route to south central command followed by a silver Dodge Ram. They’re taking Frank Sinatra (a street) to Russell (also a street.)

28:25- “The Bellagio employee entrance looks Code 4.” (no further assistance needed)

– This is in regards to the guy with a rifle walking into Ballagio.

30:45- “We have 3 armored cars that are at Russell and Las Vegas Blvd. They are not affiliated with law enforcement, but the Sargeant called them from Battlefield Las Vegas and they’re awaiting their orders.”

      • Battlefield Las Vegas is a 5 acre military style complex outdoor training area. You can shoot various US and foreign weapons from their collection in a realistic military setting. They have fire arms dating from WWI all the way to weapons used by NATO forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. (www.battlefieldvegas.com)

Dispatch responds, “They’re gonna go to south central air command. We’ve been advised south central that they are in route.”

31:27- “We’ve got a citizen advising that a Ford Superduty dually white pick-up truck with the plate 444-XLM pulled up and a guy with a rifle got out and ran northbound.”

35:55- “Update on the Mandalay Bay command. The casino floor is secured, subjects have been cleared off of casino floor. Now we are being told that there’s no additional injured inside the hotel, and we still have subjects upstairs.”

36:43- “We’re getting intel that possibly a white male in a black t-shirt with a long rifle is going into nightclubs and areas and clearing people out. He may be the one causing all the pandemonium…Last seen at the Chateau probably about 20 minutes ago.”

      • Ok, I’m assuming this is the same guy that they are referring to in the 31:27 communication. Note they said his last known location was the Chateau (nightclub at the Paris) about 20 minutes ago. Remember, the Paris is where shots were reported fired and security tried to point out to officers where the guy ran and they couldn’t find him? Then they sent officers north to try to intercept him. If you’ll also remember, Paris subsequently reported no shots fired after all. Now we’re hearing this guy was there. This guy is not mentioned again in the scanner audio.

43:18- “415a now Bellagio PR (?) is hearing a lot of shots being fired.”

      • New report of shots at Bellagio.

43:52- “Please be advised a 415a Bellagio, PR’s hearing a lot of shots being fired, not seeing anyone. They’re on the 1st floor and whispering…and now she’s saying suspects are inside with her and she’s whispering to not talk.”

      • Seems like this person is definitely convinced she has heard shots and is in the presence of the shooter. So much so that she’s hiding and whispering. Honestly, you can go either way with this. Seems like surely she’d know what she was talking about considering she’s apparently hiding and whispering. Then again, I can say that I personally know people, that if they recounted this story to me, I would not believe. Not knowing the individual reporting this, there’s no way to assign weight to her report.

44:50- “Units reference the Bellagio’s going to be negative 415a and that’s per security.”

      • Security says the there’s nothing to the this woman’s report. Again, no way to know.

49:53- “Control can you copy any update on the 445 (possible bomb in Audi at Luxor)… The plate’s gonna be AC0027 Nevada. Newer model black SUV. The car was dropped off at 2213 hours in the valet in front of Luxor. 4 individuals got out. 4 males. Descriptions: 1st is a AMA (Asian male adult), beige shirt and green shorts. 2nd ‘s an AMA black shirt, khaki shorts. 3rd is an AMA with a yellow and black shirt and khaki shorts. 4th is a WMA (white male adult) with a t- shirt and dark shorts, a hat and a beard.”

53:20- “We have a possible behind the trashcan on CVS north of Monte Carlo. We’re calling them out now. It’s a possible, lot of weapons.”

55:30- “We’ve got 2 in custody, taking the 3rd one into custody now. Still compliant.”

      • Apparently, amid all of these reports of suspicious individuals and possible shooters, these three individuals are actually taken into custody. We have no idea who they are. Do they fit the descriptions of any of the other possible suspects that have been described? I have also never seen NVPD sheriff mention any individuals taken into custody in any press conference. It’s possible that they had nothing to do with anything and were dismissed.

1:00:50- “Is there a unit that can be in route to Mirage? There’s a female calling in whispering. She thinks there’s a shooter there on the 7th floor of the garage.”

– Another weird report similar to the one at Bellagio. Again, we get no further info.

No significant traffic after this point.

An analysis of this information reveals that there some very legitimate issues.

  1. It cannot be definitively determined if there was indeed only one shooter.
  2. Troubling evidence exists casting doubt on the NVPD’s position that no shots were fired from alternate locations.
  3. Even if you give the mainstream narrative the benefit of the doubt and say that there was only one shooter, there appeared to be a somewhat coordinated attempt to create diversions by reporting multiple shots fired from other casinos. Who would do this and why?

I’d like to provide you with 2 videos of 2 separate individuals performing a sound wave analysis of the shots fired based on various witness videos of the event. Both seem to come to the conclusion that it is very difficult to say definitively that there was only one shooter. Furthermore, they both seem to agree that if there was only one shooter there are some very difficult to explain portions of audio.

To end, I will just say that whatever conclusion you come to given all this information, we can probably all agree that when it comes to our government and the FBI it’s best to have a healthy skepticism of what we are told.