Home // Health Ranger

Children’s Health Defense demonstrates shocking scientific illiteracy, conflating “elements” with “chemicals” and misleading the public with scary-sounding headlines rooted in junk science (UPDATED)

10/18/2024 // Mike Adams // Views

Tags: badscience, CHD, chemicals, elements, ICP-MS, junk science, misleading, molecules

UPDATE: Brian Hooker, PhD, a chief science advisor with Children's Health Defense, has informed this publication that he has requested his name to be removed from the paper that is the subject of this article. He told us that he also had questions about this paper when he reviewed it, and he wasn't aware that his name was being attached to it. The other names still attached to the paper include Stephanie Seneff, PhD, Tamara Tuuminen, MD, PhD, Robert Davidson, MD, PhD, James-Lyons Weiler, PhD, and Christopher Shaw, PhD, whom are all credited as people, "who read and approved this paper for publication."

BASIC SCIENCE LESSON, especially directed toward Children's Health Defense which demonstrates itself to be surprisingly scientifically illiterate:

ELEMENTS are combined to make MOLECULES. Those molecules are often called "chemicals." The same elements can be used to make very different "chemicals" which are either toxic or nutritive, based entirely on their configuration.

If I combine Hydrogen, Carbon and Oxygen in a certain way, I can create lifesaving vitamin C. (C6H8O6) If I take the exact SAME elements and combine them in a different way, I can create a deadly, neurotoxic, cancer-causing chemical known as formaldehyde (CH2O). Same elements. Different molecules.

So when CHD touts a study claiming "55 undeclared chemical elements" found in vaccines (see study link here), but fails to describe a single chemical compound or molecule (since the instrument used in the study can't detect chemicals, but only atomic elements), they are grossly misleading the public and pretending that all 55 elements are extremely toxic at absurdly low concentrations, in some cases picograms per mL. You would think that all the PhDs at CHD would know this, but apparently they don't. Describing the atomic elements present in a substance does not determine in any way the toxicity of "chemicals" that once existed in that substance. Carbon Monoxide can kill you (CO), but add Hydrogen in the right ratios and it's a nutrient that prevents scurvy. I can't believe I have to keep explaining this to PhDs who should know better.

Why are so many credible scientists putting their names on this flawed paper?

CALLING OUT Stephanie Seneff, PhD, James-Lyons Weiler, PhD, Brian Hooker, PhD, Christopher Shaw, PhD: Regretfully, I now have to publicly question the integrity and honesty of Children’s Health Defense, which has still failed to issue a retraction or correction on their “55 undeclared chemicals elements” story which cites a horrendously flawed and deceptive study that has been revealed as a hoax.

It appears to me that CHD is getting so much traction from this hoax story that they are using it as a fundraiser to attract more donations while failing to address the utter lack of honesty in the underlying study paper. The study presents false and misleading data in its results, implies high levels of harm from extremely tiny (beyond “trace”) levels of non-toxic atomic elements and is wildly misleading in its headline and discussion text, implying that there is some requirement for vaccine companies to declare concentrations of all atomic elements in their final products. No such requirement exists for ANY product. Not for foods, medicines, supplements, vaccines, cosmetics or anything else.

The study authors are deliberately choosing misleading words to frighten the public or generate clickbait to increase attention. Further, the entire study was based on a laboratory instrument (ICP-MS) that is incapable of detecting “chemicals” in the first place.

Additionally, the instrument is not capable of achieving the detection and quantitation limits published in the data sets, which include sub-ppb (parts per billion) quantitation claims for specific atomic elements, especially when considering the dilution factor in the sample prep described in the paper itself. I own two of these instruments and have run this tech for 10+ years, and I can assure you that the data claimed in this study is not possible to achieve with these instruments if you care about signal-to-noise ratios and legitimate quantitation capabilities. No scientist I’ve ever met in the world of ICP-MS laboratory science would take the claims in this paper seriously.

The article for CHD is authored by Brenda Baletti, Ph.D. The study paper gives acknowledgments to Stephanie Seneff, PhD, James-Lyons Weiler, PhD, Brian Hooker, PhD, Christopher Shaw, PhD, who the paper says have “read and approved this paper for publication.” I know several of these people and have interviewed some of them and I cannot believe that any of them would put their names on a paper like this if they were made aware of the serious errors and obviously false claims made within the paper. Do they not know that their names are on a paper that’s riddled with obviously false information and glaring errors? Did they actually read the paper they put their names on? How could they have missed this?

Please help me share this information with those individuals, because I do not believe they would deliberately seek to mislead anyone, and they may not be fully aware of what a junk science disaster this paper is, in my well-educated opinion. My mass spec laboratory is ISO-17025 accredited, and I am a published food science author and multi patent holder based on research carried out via ICP-MS. I’m the author of Food Forensics and have easily run over 10,000 ICP-MS sample tests of food, water, hair, soil, vaccines and more. I’ve developed novel in-house mass spec methods, I’ve run method validation on numerous instruments, I’ve co-authored numerous mass spec posters presented at mainstream science events, and I’ve publicly published large-scale testing results on water filters, glyphosate in beer, heavy metals in herbs, cacao and much more.

Furthermore, I call for this paper to be RETRACTED and for CHD to retract its article covering this paper. The public is using this paper’s false and misleading information to spread false and misleading information about vaccines, distracting from the legitimate safety concerns surrounding their contents. Even worse, this feeds right into the FDA, CDC and Big Pharma narrative that claims alt media is scientifically illiterate and doesn’t know what they’re talking about.

This study will only DISCREDIT CHD and the so-called “anti-vax” movement because it’s so atrociously bad that anyone with real experience in an ICP-MS laboratory would likely laugh at what this paper claims. Even the sample prep procedure described in the paper is bizarre: SIX DAYS of vortexing a 5 microliter vaccine sample in nitric acid? Truly bizarre. And why would anyone use such a tiny sample size (5 microliters) and then dilute it to a 10 mL vial with nitric acid and water? That’s a 2000X dilution, so your instrument LoQ goes to crap.

The CHD story is found here.

And my write-up of the significant problems in the flawed study is on Natural News.

###

 

---

---