Senior CDC Scientist Says Agency Forced Researchers To Lie About Safety Of Mercury Based Vaccines

by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.

I am, now and have always been fiercely pro vaccine. I had all six of my children vaccinated. I believe that vaccines have saved the lives of hundreds of millions of humans over the past century and that broad vaccine coverage is critical to public health. But I want our vaccines to be as safe as possible. The new revelations in the following article support what I have been saying for eight years: Thimerosal is brain poison. When you vaccinate, always ask for Thimerosal-free vaccine, which are now available for virtually all vaccinations on the CDC schedule.

A senior CDC vaccine safety scientist, Dr. William Thompson, has invoked the protection of the Federal Whistleblower Statute following the release of his taped conversations disclosing pervasive corruption within CDC’s Vaccine Safety Division. Dr. Thompson, a sixteen year veteran and a senior scientist at CDC’s Immunology Safety Office is currently employed at CDC’s National Center for Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities. Thompson is an author of two of the three epidemiological studies on American population touted by CDC to “prove” the safety of Thimerosal against developmental disabilities. Thimerosal is a controversial mercury based vaccine preservative that research scientists and vaccine safety advocates have connected to the epidemic of brain disorders in children. The vaccine industry’s foremost spokesman and the world’s premier champion for Thimerosal in vaccines, Dr. Paul Offit, stated in 2008 that Dr. Thompson’s “wonderful” 2007 study was the “definitive” study on Thimerosal safety.

But Thompson now says that his bosses at CDC pressured him to alter the results of that study to conceal Thimerosal’s risks. Dr. Thompson says that his superiors at the CDC Developmental Disabilities Branch pressured him to manipulate the study’s findings and to bury the links between Thimerosal and brain damage.   In response to this pressure, the published version downplayed data showing that Thimerosal causes “Tics”, a family of grave neurological injuries – including Tourette’s Syndrome – that are associated with Autism. Thompson now says that the data showed a definitive statistically significant association between Thimerosal and tics. “Thimerosal from vaccines cause tics….I can say tics are four times more prevalent in kids with autism. There is biologic plausibility right now to say that Thimerosal causes autism-like features.” After burying these findings, CDC touted Thompson’s study to exculpate Thimerosal for use in current flu vaccine which is administered to pregnant women and young children. Thompson stated recently, in a taped interview with Simpson University biochemist Dr. Brian Hooker, “Do you think a pregnant mother would want to take a vaccine that they know caused tics? Absolutely not!! I would never give my wife a vaccine that I thought caused tics.”

Thompson was also the co-author of a 2004 study in Pediatrics in which he now admits that, under pressure from CDC bosses, his team fraudulently withheld data demonstrating a significant link between the MMR vaccine and autism in African American boys. In a taped conversation, Thompson confessed, “I have great shame now when I meet families with kids with autism because I’ve – I’ve been part of the problem.”

In a written statement issued by Thompson’s attorney, Rick Morgan of Morgan Verkamp of Cincinnati, Ohio – a firm that specializes in Federal whistleblower cases – Thompson said: “I regret that my coauthors and I omitted statistically significant information in our 2004 article published in the Journal Pediatrics. The omitted data suggested that African American males who received the MMR vaccine before age 36 months were at increased risk for autism. Decisions were made regarding which findings to report after the data were collected, and I believe that the final study protocol was not followed.”

Thompson described a pervasive culture of corruption at CDC’s Immunization Safety Office directed toward concealing statistical links between vaccines and brain injuries, particularly autism. “I have a boss who is asking me to lie. The higher ups wanted to do certain things and I went along with it. I was, in terms of chain in command, I was number four out of the five. Colleen [Boyle] was the Division Chief. Marshalyn [Yeargin-Allsopp] was a Branch Chief. Frank [DeStefano] was a Branch Chief at the time.”

Immediately after release of Thompson’s audio taped revelations, Dr. Frank DeStefano, now Chief of the Immunization Safety office, admitted in a September interview to CBS reporter, Sharyl Attkisson, that vaccines may indeed trigger autism in some vulnerable children.

Thompson’s attorneys have handed over thousands of damning CDC documents to Congressman Bill Posey of Florida. Last week, Posey’s staff said that the Congressman is working with Committee Chairman, Lamar Smith, to schedule a hearing this spring on Thompson’s revelations before the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology. Posey hopes to subpoena Dr. Thompson, who is still employed by CDC; Thompson has promised that he intends to come clean about CDC.   “If forced to testify, I’m not going to lie. I basically have stopped lying.”

Dr. Thompson told Dr. Hooker that “[CDC researchers] are not doing what they should be doing because they’re afraid to look for things that might be associated [with autism].” Thompson says that corruption is so rooted within the Immunization Safety Office that the only way to get to the truth now is for Congress to take the vaccine safety research away from CDC and give it to independent contractors who can create a transparent process. According to Thompson, the autism controversy has brought vaccine safety research to a halt. “CDC is….they’re paralyzed. The whole system is paralyzed right now and the whole branch is paralyzed and it’s becoming more paralyzed. So there is less and less being done, as the place just comes to a grinding halt.”

Thompson also stated that he feels angry at himself for having participated in CDC’s decade of deception to conceal the links Thimerosal and brain damage including autism. “I have great shame now when I meet a family with kids with autism, because I have been a part of the problem….Here’s what I shoulder. I shoulder that the CDC has put the research ten years behind. Because the CDC has not been transparent, we’ve missed ten years of research, because the CDC is so paralyzed right now by anything related to autism. They’re not doing what they should be doing. They are afraid to look for things that might be associated. There’s still a lot of shame with that….”

Thompson said that he is prepared for the personal consequences of coming clean; “So I have to deal with a few months of hell if this becomes public. No big deal. I’m not having to deal with a child who is suffering day in and day out. So that’s the way I view all of this. I’m completely ashamed of what I did.”

Thompson described in chilling detail to Dr. Hooker, the intense pressure from his CDC bosses after he first broke ranks on vaccine safety. In 2004, he sent a letter to CDC Director, Julie Gerberding alerting her that CDC scientists were breaking research protocols to conceal the links between Thimerosal and brain damage in children. Gerberding never responded to Thompson’s allegations, but her deputy, Robert Chen, then head of CDC’s Immunization Safety Office and Thompson’s direct boss, confronted Thompson in an agency parking lot threatening him and screaming, “I would fire you if I could.” In 2009, Gerberding matriculated to Merck as Chief of the company’s Vaccine Division. Two years prior to the move, she approved Merck’s HPV vaccine for pre-adolescent girls – an estimated billion dollar value to the company. Following Thompson’s revelations, Merck transferred Gerberding from its Vaccine Division to Executive Vice President for Strategic Communications, Global Public Policy and Population Health.

CDC’s Immunization Safety Office is a troubled agency. In recent years a series of studies by Federal Investigators and Congressional committees, have issued scathing reports highlighting the dire conflicts of interest at CDC’s vaccine and research divisions.   A 2000 report by the Government Regulatory Reform Committee entitled “Conflicts of Interest in Vaccine Policy Making” identified a long inventory of corrupt financial ties between regulators and vaccine makers in FDA and CDC’s vaccine programs that are diverting the agency from its task of safeguarding public health. A 2007 US Senate investigation by Senator Tom Coburn, “CDC Off Center” found widespread corruption and mismanagement at CDC’s vaccine programs (Coburn, CDC Off Center, 2007). In 2008 an investigation by the Office of the Inspector General (IG) of HHS found that 97% of Special Government Advisors on committees in the CDC vaccine program failed to disclose necessary information about conflicts of interest (Levinson, 2008). Those findings prompted a series of criminal investigations. In March 2014 the US Office of Research Integrity (ORI), Director, David Wright, quit his job issuing a searing letter claiming pervasive scientific misconduct in biomedical research at CDC, the National Institute of Health (NIH) and the Public Health Service (PHS) all part of HHS which he characterized as “a remarkably dysfunctional bureaucracy.” (Wright, 2014) There is no evidence that CDC has moved to adopt the recommendations of these reports or to cure its problems in the vaccine division.

Despite the evidence, mainstream journalists refuse to report the myriad problems at CDC’s vaccine program.   Instead media outlets and journalists, almost without exception, dutifully parrot CDC’s assurances that all is well and censure vaccine safety advocates who urge the removal of Thimerosal from vaccines. The pharmaceutical industry spent $3.8 billion in direct marketing to TV, radio, newspapers and other direct marketing outlets in 2013 and an astonishing $5.4 billion in 2005. Some vaccine safety advocates have questioned whether that cash pipeline accounts, in part, for the mainstream media’s blackout affecting discussions of Thimerosal safety.

Thompson is not the first scientist to complain about pressure from his bosses at CDC’s Immunization Safety Office. In 2001, CDC researcher, Thomas Verstraeten, made similar allegations. Verstraeten was the co-author of the first of three studies offered by CDC to exculpate Thimerosal from developmental disorders. (Verstraeten et al. 2003 Pediatrics 112:1039) Verstraeten’s initial analysis showed correlations between Thimerosal and autism – and a host of other neurological disorders – comparable to the causal relationship between cigarettes and lung cancer. Over the next three years, a team of CDC researchers produced five consecutive versions of the report; each one eliminating more people and watering down the Thimerosal/brain damage relationship. Finally Verstraeten complained on July 14, 2000 in an email to toxicologist, Phillipe Grandjean, a CDC consultant, “I do not wish to be the advocate of the anti-vaccine lobby…..but at least I feel we should use sound scientific argumentation and not let our standards be dictated by our desire to disprove an unpleasant theory” /media/2.20.pitl. When CDC tried to present the watered down version of the study as proof of Thimerosal’s safety, Thompson wrote a strong rebuke to CDC scolding the agency for misrepresenting the study as an exculpation of the Thimersoal autism link. See also:

The CDC came under similar fire for its controversial study of Thimerosal’s links with autism ambiguous in Denmark. The authors have acknowledged that the so called “Madsen Study” employed deceptive data to make it wrongly appear that autism rates increased after the Danes removed Thimerosal from vaccines in 1993.   Poul Thorsen the study’s principle investigator and CDC’s primary contact, was fired from his post at Andhaus University and is now on the run from Interpol, having stolen at least a million dollars in research monies from CDC.  A subsequent study by CDC published in JAMA in 2013 has shown that autism rates dropped in Denmark every year for ten consecutive years after Thimerosal’s removal from vaccines (Grenborg et al. JAMA Pediatrics 2013).

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. is an author, environmental activist, and attorney specializing in environmental law. Follow him on Twitter @RobertKenedyJr.

Обращение студентов РФ в ответ на обращение студентов Украины – Кто же они?

Кто же те “студенты” которые ответили обвиняя Россию?‏

Для тех которые смотря на этот видео верили в том, что это записали представители российских студентов. Студенты ли они? или политические активисты? Что такое движение Весна? Это бывшее «Молодежное Яблоко» (Young Yabloko)

Кто такой Антон Горбацевич на видео? Активисты нового молодежного движения «Весна» – о том, что плохого сделал им Путин Какая у них цель? Кто их спонсор (Young Yabloko)? National Endowment for Democracy 1025 F Street NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20004 / (202) 378-9700 Это групировка предателев, которые числятся в платежной ведомости США!

Estudio fresco: Los disidentes del SIDA tienen “razones suficientes” para serlo.

Estudio calentito: Científicos independientes (rusos) califican las posturas criticas del VIH/SIDA como “razonables”:

An AIDS-denialist online community on a Russian social networking service: patterns of interactions with newcomers and rhetorical strategies of persuasion.CiteNPL

J Med Internet Res.2014 Nov 17;16(11):e261. doi: 10.2196/jmir.3338CiteNPL


Contrary to the widespread public health depiction of AIDS denialists as totally irrational, our study suggests that some of those who become AIDS denialists have sufficiently reasonable grounds to suspect that “something is wrong” with scientific theory, because their personal experience contradicts the unitary picture of AIDS disease progression. Odd and inexplicable practices of some AIDS centers only fuel these people’s suspicions. We can conclude that public health practitioners’ practices may play a role in generating AIDS-denialist sentiments.


“.. En contra de la imagen ampliamente extendida de los negacionistas del SIDA como totalmente irracionales, nuestro estudio sugiere que algunos tienen bases suficientemente razonables como para sospechar que “algo está mal” con la teoría científica porque sus experiencias personales contradicen la imagen unitaria sobre la progresión del SIDA. Las prácticas extrañas e inexplicables de algunos centros de SIDA contribuyen a alimentar las sospechas de estas personas. Podemos concluir que las prácticas de salud pública podrían estar influyendo en la creación de sentimientos negacionistas.”

Es lo que tiene aterrorizar y envenenar hasta la muerte a personas en perfecto estado de salud, que genera “sospechas” en la gente que piensa.

Bravo por los rusos! Parece que sea el último gran pais donde queda algo de cordura.

Experiencia muy interesante (y típica) de un sujeto del estudio anterior:

When I was pregnant I was diagnosed with HIV. And on the fifth month [of my pregnancy] my immune status is 350 cells – it is very little. it is thought that if less than 250, it is already AIDS. Viral load 85000…Next test: Immune status 750, viral load – 25000. That is, I did not take any medicines, and the viral load decreased by itself. According to the theory this is impossible. I asked them where did 60000 viruses go, one said “he doesn’t know”, the second that “maybe they mixed up something in the lab”…At this point I stopped coming to the AIDS-center.

Thus, from community members posts (old and new), we can see that their stories or lab tests results contradict (or seem to contradict) what we call the “AIDS-metanarrative”.


“Cuando estaba embarazada me diagnosticaron VIH. Al quinto mes mi inmunidad era de 350 linfocitos – muy poco. Se cree que menos de 250 ya es SIDA. Mi carga viral era de 85.000… En la siguiente prueba: 750 linfocitos y 25.000 de carga viral. Es decir, sin tomar medicación alguna la carga viral bajó por sí misma (y los linfocitos subieron). Les pregunté a dónde se habían ido esos 60.000 virus, uno me dijo “no lo sé” y otro que “puede que se liasen en el laboratorio”. A partir de ahí dejé de acudir al centro para el SIDA.”

De este modo, a partir de los mensajes de la comunidad vemos que sus historias y sus resultados en las pruebas contradicen (o parecen contradecir) la “metanarrativa del SIDA”.

Lista de las contradicciones mas típicas que la gente (las víctimas del fraude) se encuentran tras ser diagnosticados “seropositivos”:

“However, there are some points that contradict or seemingly contradict this AIDS-metanarrative that we saw in the community members’ posts:
(1) absence of a risk situation: “I couldn’t get it because I have never used drugs or cheated on my partner, and I’m 100% sure that he didn’t cheat on me either”,
(2) nontransmission of HIV from a positive to a negative: “I live with my husband and we have unprotected sex, and still seven years later he’s negative”,
(3) nontransmission of HIV through sharing injection equipment: “My friend was a junkie and he shared needles with other junkies but he never caught HIV”,
(4) lowering of the viral load without treatment: “My viral load dropped despite I faked taking HAART and threw out the pills”,
(5) rise of the immune status without treatment: “My CD4 count rose even though I didn’t take HAART”, and
(6) death of HIV-positives despite taking HAART: “People take HAART and die nevertheless”.


“De todos modos, hay puntos que contradicen o parecen contradecir esta metanarrativa del SIDA y que vimos en los mensajes de los miembros de la comunidad
(1) ausencia de situaciones de riesgo: “No pude contagiarme porque nunca consumí drigas ni le puse los cuernos a mi pareja, y estoy segura de que él tampoco me engañó a mi”,
(2) ausencia de contagio a la pareja seronegativa: “vivo con mi marido y tenemos relaciones sexuales sin protección, aun así y tras 7 años él es negativo”,
(3) ausencia de contagio a pesar de compratir jeringuillas: “Mi amigo fue drogadicto y compartía jeringuillas con otros drogadictos pero nunca pilló el VIH”,
(4) descenso de la carga viral sin tratamiento: “Mi carga viral bajó a pesar de que fingí seguir el tratamiento HAART mientras tiraba las pastillas”,
(5) mejora del estátus inmunitario sin tratamiento: “Mi recuento de CD4 subió a pesar de no seguir el tratamiento HAART”,
(6) muerte de seropositivos a pesar de seguir el tratamiento: “La gente toma HAART y se muere igual”.

Ucrania: la junta de Kiev anuncia matanzas de niños en Novorrusia

Con el beneplácito y las ayudas europeas, Poroshenko anuncia su plan para ganar la guerra contra Novorrusia:

1. quitarles puestos de trabajo (bombardear fábricas)
2. quitarles las pensiones
3. quitarles sanidad (bombardear hospitales)
4. impedir que los niños novorrusos vayan a la escuela y a las guarderías (bombardear dichas instalacioens)
5. hacer que los niños novorrusos se escondan en los sótanos (bombardear a la poblacion civil).

Ya ni se molesta en justificarse con “terroristas”, les declara la guerra abiertemente a todos los civiles del Donbas.

Los Reyes de España, Bélgica, Holanda, Reino Unido etc aprueban los planes de Poroshenko para externminar a la población rusa. No dejen de pagar sus impuestos religiosamente que hacienda ya tiene partidas asignadas a este genocidio.

Estudio echa por tierra la vacunación de bebés.

El Instituto de la Salud Pública holandés publica los resultados de un estudio transversal a gran escala de dos años de duración (2006 y 2007).

El estudio compara la dinámica de los anticuerpos en madres e hijos entre dos comunidades distintas: la población general (con alto gtrado de vacunación) y las comunidades protestantes (que rechazan las vacunas).

El resultado es un golpe bajo a la teoría de la vacunación:

Waning of Maternal Antibodies Against Measles, Mumps, Rubella, and Varicella in Communities With Contrasting Vaccination Coverage

National Institute of Public Health and the Environment, Centre for Infectious Disease Control, Epidemiology and Surveillance Unit, Bilthoven, the Netherlands.

Conclusions: Children of mothers vaccinated against measles and, possibly, rubella have lower concentrations of maternal antibodies and lose protection by maternal antibodies at an earlier age than children of mothers in communities that oppose vaccination. This increases the risk of disease transmission in highly vaccinated populations.

Conclusiones: Los hijos de madres vacunadas contra el sarampión y posiblemente la rubeola tienen concentraciones mas bajas de anticuerpos maternos y pierden la protección por anticuerpos maternos a edad mas temprana que los hijos de madres en comunidades opuestas a la vacunación. Esto aumenta el riesgo de contagio en poblaciones con alto grado de vacunación.

Ébola: ¿de qué coño estarán hechas las pruebas?

Las pruebas del ébola indican que solo en Alemania ya hay 5 millones y medio de infectados (el 6,9% de 80,6 millones).

Y lo peor… los infectados no saben que lo están!

Evidence for occurrence of filovirus a… [Med Microbiol Immunol. 1992] – PubMed – NCBI

“…several groups of human sera comprising a total of 1288 specimens from people living in Germany were examined for the presence of antibodies directed against filoviruses (Marburg virus, strain Musoke/Ebola virus, subtype Zaire, strain Mayinga/Reston virus)..

6.9% of the human sera reacted positively with at least one of the three different filovirus antigens.

Esto es una epidemia de ébola proporciones apocalipticas, y en pleno epicentro de la UE!

¿De qué coño estarán hechas estas pruebas? ¿De Bratwurst?

Riquísima bratwurst

Nadie se plantea esta elemental pregunta. Hay límite a la estupidez humana?

¿De qué coño estarán hechas estas pruebas?

No hay nadie en este puto pais capaz de responder. Esta ha sido mi carta a los castuzos que firmaron los protocolos de actuación frente al ébola:

Estimado Dr/Dra/Sr/Sra X,

Su nombre se incluye en la lista de autores de los protocolos de actuación frente al Ébola, razón por la que me dirijo a usted.

Quisiera que aclarase unas dudas que tanto yo como muchas personas de mi entorno nos planteamos sobre las pruebas PCR que actualmente se usan en España para diagnosticar infección por ebolavirus.

La obligatoriedad de someterse a estas pruebas por parte de ciudadanos considerados sospechosos constituye una restriccion de los derechos fundamentales. A pesar de la imposición no existe ningún tipo de información pública disponible sobre el origen y las garantías de especificidad de estas pruebas, creando una situación de indefensión frente al Estado.

Las serias consecuencias para la libertad individual y la salud de las personas afectadas por los protocolos justifican una mayor transparencia.
Por las razones expresadas le pido acalaraciones sobre los siguientes puntos:

– Modelos y fabricantes de las pruebas PCR del ebolavirus usadas en la aplicación del protocolo.
– Documentos de su aprobación para uso diagnóstico en España o la UE.

Muchas gracias.


Estas son sus direcciones de correo:


Hoy por fin me ha llegado la primera respuesta… aunque debería decir “no-respuesta”. Aquí la tienen:

Presidente AEEMT

EStimado Sr.

Le remito este email a la DG Salud Publica del Ministerio de Sanidad, responsable del protocolo EVE. La AEEMT ha trabajado en colaboracion con otros compañeros, siendo el Ministerio quien ha liderado el protocolo.

Muchas gracias por haberse puesto en contacto con nosotros


¿Cómo se puede firmar u protocolo desconociendo la validez de las pruebas diagnósticas que se imponen en el mismo?

Los castuzos (ir)responsables de un protocolo que anula derechos fundamentales se pasan la patata caliente de una pregunta tan obvia como incómoda para la que no tienen respuesta.

Ante el silencio administrativo, no me queda mas remedio que indagar por mi cuenta. Todo lo que cito a continuación es material de la FDA (Food and Drug Administration) y procede directamente de la web de la FDA (U S Food and Drug Administration Home Page).

El material se refiere a la prueba diagnóstica que se está utilizando para calificar a personas – a menudo sin síntomas – como “infectadas” por el maligno:

“…No advertising or promotional descriptive printed matter relating to the use of the authorized EZ1 rRT-PCR Assay may represent or suggest that this test is safe or effective for the diagnosis of Ebola Zaire virus..”

Traduzco las instrucciones de la FDA sobre la prueba del Ébola:

Ningún material publicitario o medio escrito promocional relacionado con el uso del ensayo autorizado EZ1 rRT-PCR podrá representar o sugerir que esta prueba es segura o efectiva para el diagnóstico del virus.

No sé si queda clara la postura de la FDA sobre la seguridad y efectividad de estas pruebas. ¿Lo han pillado? léanlo de nuevo antes de continuar.

Significa que la prueba del Ébola carece de los requisitos mínimos para salir al mercado (seguridad y efectividad) y a pesar de ello se están distribuyendo.

¿Qué hay de los canales de distribución? Pues bien, estas pruebas no homologadas que se usan en España las fabrica y distribuye el departamento de Defensa norteamericano:

Ebola Zaire (EZ1) rRT – PCR (TaqMan ®) Assay

Manufactured by the Naval Medical Research Center for The U.S. Department of Defense

Departamento de defensa que usa sus propias pruebas no homologadas como justificante para invadir paises incluida nuestra querida penínisula preafricana:

La expansión del virus: EE UU pide el uso de las bases para su operación militar contra el ébola | España | EL PAÍS

Hay que estar muy empanados para, con los datos en la mano, seguir creyendo en la buena fe de todo este montaje.

Eso que llaman “ebolavirus”, es infeccioso ¿si o no?

Nuestra primera tarea es bucar estudios sobre infectividad de ebolavirus en la literatura científica y averiguar a qué están llamando “virus” los investigadores: ¿a una proteina? ¿a un trozo de ARN? ¿a una enzima? ¿o acaso al virus propiamente aislado de los pacientes o cultivos sujetos a experimentación?

Tomemos un estudio que promete aclarar la cuestión de la infectividad:

(1999). Pathogenesis of experimental Ebola virus infection in guinea pigs.

aquí los investigadores califican de “virus” a lo siguiente:

“…EBO-Z (Mayinga strain of EBO virus) was obtained as the original human serum specimen (057931) and passed once in Vero cell cultures.”

traduzco: (el “virus”) se obtuvo en forma de muestra del suero humano original inocluado una sola vez en células Vero. (057931)

Vemos que estos investigadores califican de “virus” a una muestra de suero humano supuestamente infectada. Luego identifican “infectar con ebolavirus” con inyectar dicho suero en un cobaya. Sin embargo en el suero humano hay infinidad de moléculas capaces de copiarse y por tanto de “transmitirse” de un cultivo a otro sin ser necesariamente el “virus”. Otra cosa hubiese sido demostrar la transmisión mediante aislamiento viral, cosa que no se ha hecho.

Otro fallo del estudio: el grupo de control debería haber recibido una inyección de suero humano no infectado, para descartar muertes por anafilaxis en el grupo de experimentación. En vez de eso se les inyecta una sustancia biológicamente inactiva (solución salina).

“…Twenty-six guinea pigs were inoculated sc in the right upper thoracic limb with the guinea pig-adapted EBO (Mayinga strain) virus (103.8 pfu/0.5 mL PBS). The remaining 4 guinea pigs served as shaminoculated controls and received 0.5 mL of PBS.”

(PBS: phosphate-buffered saline)

por tanto no sabemos si la muerte la causa el “virus” del suero “infectado” u otras sustancias presentes en todos los sueros humanos estén infectados o no (p.ej. proteinas causando choque anafiláctico).

Otro fallo mas: No se intenta “titración viral” en los cobayas de control, sino solo en los supuestos “infectados”:

“..Groups of 4 EBO-infected guinea pigs were weighed, killed, … whole blood was obtained by cardiac puncture for hematology counts, serum biochemical assays, and infectious virus titration”.

En un ensayo controlado todos los sujetos deben ser sometidos a los mismos procesos de verificación. Todos, no solamente los que nos interesa.

Sin un intento de titración en cobayas no inoculados no sabemos si el parámetro indirecto que sustituye al virus es específico de los cobayas inoculados o no. Si se intenta y dan titración se les cae todo el experimento (y la virología con él ) así que mejor no lo tocamos…

¿Qué conclusiones se puden sacar de este estudio? Solo estas:

1. Los cobayas inyectados con suero humano mueren de choque anafiláctico,

2. los cobayas inyectados con solución salina sobreviven.

Nada mas. Sobre la transmisión del Ébola no demuestra nada.

Es lastimoso pero la virología actúa de esta manera tan plagada de sesgos y dogmas autoconfirmados. Me parece mas acertado calificarla de “viromancia“.