Why Do All Vaccine Advocates Refuse To Answer or Justify This Question?
Regardless of their reputation, credentials, experience or background, proponents of vaccines can never answer or justify one simple question: Why are the pharmacokinetics, specifically the rates of bodily absorption, distribution, metabolism and excretion of vaccine ingredients including any of the toxic extraneous components never studied?
To the ordinarily sane person,
injecting a heavy metal such as mercury into the human body (no matter how small or insignificant an amount) seems counterproductive to the advancement of health. There is no such thing as a safe dose of any poison, especially mercury.
Although the FDA gave a two year deadline to remove thimerosal from vaccines after it was banned in 1997, it continued to appear in vaccine formulations and ironically the FDA is now supporting these drugs, not prohibiting them. Year after year, thimerosal appears in influenza vaccinations just in time for every flu season. WHY???
Research from the Environment International Journal showed that women with higher levels of mercury exposure are more than twice as likely to have elevated levels of antibodies that are associated with autoimmune disorders such as arthritis and lupus.
The real question is why are neither the short or long-term pharmacokinetic effects which study the bodily absorption, distribution, metabolism and excretion of vaccines and their ingredients never examined or analyzed?
Why are non-clinical toxicological findings such as the carcinogenesis, mutagenesis or impairment of fertility never evaluated?
How can a physician possibly inform
a patient of any risks regarding vaccines if their formula constituents and their pharmacokinetics have never been studied on human beings?
Ok, maybe it's more than one, but why will nobody ever answer these questions?
Take your pick at almost any vaccine insert or research your own, and look under the heading Pharmacokinetics or Non-Clinical Toxicology and you will find either no listing of these at all, or a listing of them with the statement "not evaluated" or "not clinically significant" meaning they haven't studied it, or they took an extremely small sample size/term so that essentially the long-term safety evaluation is clinically impossible to determine. It's their scapegoat because they know any long-term pharmacokinetic study, whether before clinical efficacy trials or after, will show how harmful many of these ingredients actually are once they bioaccumulate after days, weeks, months and even years.
Why do they not want us to know the determination of the fate of these substances being administered to human beings?
Forget about what side of the fence you are on in terms of vaccines. Shouldn't any person receiving a vaccine that has been designated as safe be fully informed of the risks including the non-clinical toxicological implications or at least how the ingredients will generally behave within the human body? If the answer is yes, then why are these specifics never studied or evaluated to any depth?
Dave Mihalovic is a Naturopathic Doctor who specializes in vaccine research, cancer prevention and a natural approach to treatment.