Underlying conditions  Aluminium

Part Four: Autopsy and Jasmine Renata

Hilary Butler - Tuesday, January 05, 2010

Rhonda’s focus turned to the question of “why did Gardasil do this and how?”. In reviewing Jasmine’s medical records and all the talks Rhonda and I had, I was most concerned at certain aspects of Jasmine’s last few months, in particular the deterioration of her ability to make decisions, and to work out how to do simple jobs which she had done since childhood. It seemed too me that apart from the other symptoms in Jasmine’s body, there was something going on in her brain.

I went through all my information on aluminium adjuvant mode of action, toxicity and then tried to find out whether there had been any studies done on the impact of adding Polysorbate 80, which is a very effective surfactant used to trick and open up the blood brain barrier (Lannone, SunKreuter and Tianbin for starters) , and allow nano-drugs to be dragged through into the brain. There was nothing I could find about the combination of polysorbate 80 and aluminium, and what that might do in Jasmine's brain.

But as part of that investigation, I came across some studies done in animals, which showed that aluminium adjuvants used in vaccines could cause neuronal damage in animals. I contacted the doctor and obtained copies of the papers, and as I read those papers, what was happening in those animals was what I saw in Jasmine.

The Renata’s received from the coroners office (after pushing them for answers), a letter from ESR , which listed samples delivered to them, and the results. Basically, they confirmed what everyone knew – that Jasmine didn’t take opiates, P, acetaminophen, alcohol etc, and there was nothing “self-inflicted” in her system which could have caused her death.

That’s it. End of story.

I contacted the author of the studies about aluminium adjuvants, and asked him if he would look over Jasmine’s details. He agreed, and I sent everything to him, and asked him what tests could be done on Jasmine’s samples, which the parents had asked to be kept. His reply was as follows ;

 In terms of postmortem tests: various stains for dead/dying motor neurons would tell the tale, as well as the Morin stain for aluminum.

I happened to know a pathologist, so quizzed him as to what an autopsy involved, and was shocked to find that other than something really “gross” (such as a tumour), the average autopsy isn’t designed to find out real answers. Certainly, an autopsy didn’t look for dead or dying motor neurons, or perform the Morin stain to find a known cause of dying motor neurons. And he doubted that if asked, the pathologist would agree to doing them, even though those tests might give the Renata’s an answer.

I discussed the situation with another pathologist as well, ...  who also pointed out that even if the tests showed aluminium, a barrage of ‘excuses” would be proferred showing why the aluminium couldn’t possible have come from the vaccine, and would have “had” to have been another ‘underlying’ condition. Anything, to protect a sacred cow.

Contrast the inaction of the New Zealand autopsy system, with that of the system in UK, when Natalie Morton died after a Cervarix vaccine. The Morton family had the results of the autopsy back in a week, which showed that Natalie had a serious malignant tumour in her chest, which was so bad it could have killed her any time.

Of course, no questions were asked why a child, who was not well anyway, and who had been back and forwards to the doctor like a yo-yo, was considered “fit” to have a vaccine, in the absence of meaningful investigations to find out why she was sick before she had the vaccine. But that’s another all too common story. Often the “answer” is that there are no contraindications to vaccines, and really, the sicker you are, the more you need them.

However, Natalie’s parents had answers within a week.

 Four months later, the Renata’s are still waiting.

The difference?

The Mortons went straight to the media.

The Renatas trusted the system.