Project and content management for Contemporary Authors volumes
WORK TITLE: Dolphin Drone
WORK NOTES:
PSEUDONYM(S): Grundvig, James Ottar
BIRTHDATE:
WEBSITE: http://www.jamgrundvig.com/
CITY: New York
STATE: NY
COUNTRY:
NATIONALITY:
https://www.amazon.com/James-Ottar-Grundvig/e/B01N2O1EDV/ref=dp_byline_cont_book_1
RESEARCHER NOTES:
PERSONAL
Male.
ADDRESS
CAREER
Writer, journalist, novelist, and entrepreneur. Freelance investigative journalist, 2005-; Cloudnician LLC, New York, NY, founder and CEO, 2011-. Previously worked for twenty-five years as a consulting engineering and in construction management.
WRITINGS
Contributor to periodicals, including the Financial Times, Epoch Times, and Foreign Direct Investment. Contributor to Web sites, including the Huffington Post, Law.com, and Football.com. Author of the blog Zika Green.
SIDELIGHTS
James Grundvig, a first-generation Norwegian American, spent twenty-five years in consulting engineering and construction management. He is founder of Cloudnician LLC, a cloud-based software startup to integrate supply-chain logistics in the construction IT space. Grundvig also became an investigative journalist and fiction writer who contributes to periodicals and Web sites. As a freelance journalist, he covers a wide range of topics, from technology and business to sustainability and energy. He is especially interested in how these areas interconnect. A personal interest of Grundvig revolves around eschatology, the branch of theology that focuses on death, judgment, and the final destiny of the soul and humankind.
Dolphin Drone
Grundvig is also the author of fiction and nonfiction books. In his debut novel, Dolphin Drone: A Military Thriller, the first in a proposed series, readers are introduced to Merk Toten, a Navy Seal whose love for marine life has led him to become a “dolphin whisperer.” Mark is working off the Strait of Hormuz with his partner, a Special Forces biologist named Morgan Azar, and with his prized dolphins, Tasi and Inapo. They are mapping an Iranian pipeline and conducting surveillance on two U.S. ships hijacked by Somali pirates when they come across sea mines being dropped by a fishing trawler. In the process of documenting the mines being dropped, they are discovered, and Morgan is killed while Merk and his dolphins escape.
It turns out that Merk’s discovery happened to coincide with a fake intelligence report that ended up leading three U.S. drones away from a mission in the Persian Gulf. When Merk begins to investigate the possibility that the events are related, he and his beautiful girlfriend, CIA operative Jenny Ayung King, discover a terrorist plot to bomb New York Harbor. Their best chance of stopping the attack are the dolphins, Tasi and Inapo. The dolphins “have unusual appeal, and readers will hope that any sequels will showcase more of their incredible capabilities,” wrote a Publishers Weekly contributor.
Breaking van Gogh
In his nonfiction book titled Breaking van Gogh: Saint-Rémy, Forgery, and the $95 Million Fake at the Met, Grundvig presents his case that van Gogh’s iconic painting titled Wheat Field with Cypresses, on display at New York City’s Metropolitan Museum of Art (Met), is a fake. According to Grundvig, the painting was actually created by Émile Schuffenecker, an 1800s impressionist painter who was also suspected to engage in forgery. Grundvig points out that there are three Wheat Field with Cypresses paintings and that van Gogh often produced more than one painting of the same kind. However, according to Grundvig, two of the paintings are dated 1889 and were identified as being painted three months apart. The problem, according to Grundvig, is that they are painted from the same perspective and have the exact same cloud formations, something Grundvig claims van Gogh would not do.
Grundvig points out other warning signs of forgery, such as a mistakenly placed blue blob, something that Grundvig again believes van Gogh would not do. The book also provides a history of the painting and a study of van Gogh’s techniques. Gerundvig “uses his investigative skills to question the provenance and painting style and materials of Wheat Field with Cypresses in a book that reads like a mystery as he builds layers of evidence that not all is as it should be with the multimillion-dollar painting,” wrote Winnipeg Free Press Online contributor Chris Smith.
Master Manipulator
In Master Manipulator: The Explosive True Story of Fraud, Embezzlement, and Government Betrayal at the CDC, Grundvig once again delves into a deception, this time focusing on the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC). According to Grundvig, the CDC in 2000 purposefully manipulated data in six vaccine-safety studies in order to counter the claim that vaccines cause autism. Grundvig writes that the motive for a cover-up stemmed from the federal government’s potentially facing billions of dollars in compensation claims due the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, which would become the Omnibus Autism Proceedings.
Grundvig believes the cover-up centered on a Danish scientist named Poul Thorsen, as well as the financial influence of giant pharmaceutical companies and Washington lobbyists. According to Grundvig, the CDC used data from a research group headed by Thorsen to produce findings that countered earlier research connecting vaccines to autism. Thorsen, writes Grundvig, manipulated data to hide evidence showing that rates of autism dropped by thirty percent in Denmark when mercury was removed from the vaccines in that country. Grundvig details the CDC’s efforts to cover up any links between vaccines and autism as well as a fraud scheme that ended up with Thorsen’s being indicted by the U.S. Justice Department for stealing more than $1 million of grant money from the CDC.
Master Manipulator “gives us many insights into thoroughly rotten culture which gave rise to this chilling, outrageous story,” wrote Age of Autism Web site contributor John Stone. Epoch Times contributor Louis Conte remarked: “Grundvig paints a picture of a CDC where science is manipulated by people with a shocking lack of conscience.”
BIOCRIT
PERIODICALS
Publishers Weekly, July 25, 2016, review of Dolphin Drone: A Military Thriller, p. 48.
ONLINE
Age of Autism, http://www.ageofautism.com/ (June 20, 2016), John Stone, review of Master Manipulator: The Explosive True Story of Fraud, Embezzlement, and Government Betrayal at the CDC.
Epoch Times, http://www.theepochtimes.com (July 4, 2016), Louis Conte, review of Master Manipulator.
Fox News Web site, http://www.foxnews.com/ (November 7, 2016), Bill Sanderson, “Is the Met’s $95 Million van Gogh Masterpiece a Fake?”
Huffington Post, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ (July 10, 2013), James Grundvig, “Hacking van Gogh: Is the Master’s ‘Fingerprint’ Missing from a MET Painting?”
James Grundvig Home Page, http://www.jamgrundvig.com (April 14, 2018).
Natural News, http://www.naturalnews.com/ (March 14, 2017), Mike Adams, “Author Exposes the ‘Vaccine Deep State’ … a Massive Criminal Fraud and Embezzlement Ring inside the CDC.”
Winnipeg Free Press Online, http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/ (February 25, 2017), Chris Smith, “Van Gogh or No?: Author Posits One of Artist’s Most Famous Paintings Is a Fake.”
James Ottar Grundvig is a first generation Norwegian-American, who lives and works in New York City. As an investigative journalist, he covers technology, sustainability, energy and business, and their intersections. James has outmaneuvered mainstream media in breaking stories, from the political red-tape with the BP Oil Spill, to the Zika money grab by the CDC.
James has published dozens of articles in the Huffington Post, the Financial Times Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) magazine, the Epoch Times, Law.com, and GreenMedInfo.com, among other media outlets.
His three published books span a broad range of subjects in the novel "Dolphin Drone" and non-fiction titles "Master Manipulator" and "Breaking Van Gogh."
Technology is the common thread that connects the three books.
James' trifecta of debut books--two non-fiction, one techno-thriller novel--published in 2016 all share one common trait: A Passion for Research. The foundation of any good story begins with detail of an era, scent of a locale, and layers of a person.
Grundvig has researched, written and published dozens of articles, ranging from energy and sustainability, to terrorism, art crime, and technology, in the Huffington Post, Epoch Times, Financial Times Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) magazine, Law.com (James is not a lawyer), Football.com, among other media outlets.
James's favorite subject, Eschatology (n)--'the part of theology concerned with death, judgment, and the final destiny of the soul and of humankind'--as applied to failure of systems and decline of cultures, with recent examples in the BP Oil Spill, terrorism, and the creation of a bogeyman in the Zika virus by U.S. healthcare agencies to foment fear for money.
His blog ZikaGreen.com will cover all subjects Zika with Scare Tactics to Green with Greed.
Dolphin Drone: A Military Thriller
Publishers Weekly. 263.30 (July 25, 2016): p48.
Copyright: COPYRIGHT 2016 PWxyz, LLC
http://www.publishersweekly.com/
Listen
Full Text:
Dolphin Drone: A Military Thriller
James Grundvig. Skyhorse, $24.99 (344p) ISBN 978-1-5107-0931-7
Journalist Grundvig's promising first novel introduces "dolphin whisperer" Merk Toten and his two military-trained bottlenose dolphins, Tasi and Inapo. In the night waters off the Strait of Hormuz, the dolphins are mapping an Iranian pipeline when Merk and his partner, Special Forces biologist Morgan Azar, realize that a nearby fishing trawler is actually dropping sea mines into the strait. Merk decides to document the mining, but they are discovered and Morgan is killed in the ensuing firefight. Meanwhile, Somali pirates seize a Norwegian-owned, Singapore-flagged supertanker in the Gulf of Aden. Their motive is unclear, though a terrorist group is involved. Merk, his dolphins, and his girlfriend, the deadly CIA agent Jenny King, wind up trying to stop a planned attack on U.S. soil. The plot and characters, other than the dolphins, are straight out of the standard military thriller playbook, but the fins, as they are known, have unusual appeal, and readers will hope that any sequels will showcase more of their incredible capabilities. Agent: Greg Aunapu, Salkind Literary Agency. (Sept.)
Book Review: (Poul Thorsen) The Master Manipulator by James Grundvig from Skyhorse Publishing
Master ManipulatorPlease share this post on social media, on your blogs, in email to friends and family. Purchase this book this week to help the launch sales numbers, which leads to more shelves stocked! Buy here.
By John Stone
A welcome for James Grundvig’s book about the Thorsen affair, The Master Manipulator , notwithstanding a certain irony in the title: Poul Thorsen, it must be said, was no Moriarty. In the end this is a tawdry saga of a man who went a little too far in defrauding an institution, the US Centers for Disease Control, which habitually rewarded dishonesty and mediocrity in the public service. We have been here before, for example with David Lewis’s exposé of the Environmental Protection Agency in Science for Sale . This was certainly a place where Poul Thorsen fitted.
Many elements in this story are already familiar though Grundvig sheds a little light on the murky corridors of power and influence. We learn how on secondment to the CDC Thorsen steps into the breach to provide a data source of Denmark’s national disease registry, to which he had free access. The early part of this enterprise, as we know, was the autism vaccine cover-up: the CDC needed data and Thorsen had a fortuitous supply. It was against this background that Thorsen’s very grand sounding research group North Atlantic Neuro-Epidemiology Alliance (NANEA) had been formed in 1999 (was he the Secretary General?): the basic idea seems to have been that the CDC paid the research group a lot of money while Thorsen had a free data source and could underpay and cheat his Danish employees.
It is not very clear how much of a role Thorsen actually played in the research: Kreesten Madsen, lead author of the two key autism studies used by the CDC and the Institute of Medicine in supposedly refuting a vaccine connection, denied to Grundvig that Thorsen had played any at all. This in itself – given the presence over Thorsen on the list of authors – suggests fraud. But in all probability the strategy for massaging the figures in the notorious MMR paper (which echoes that used at the CDC for the thimerosal paper by Vestraeten) came from the CDC’s veteran of the Agent Orange cover up, Coleen Boyle. Boyle wrote in a memo about thimerosal and autism in April 2000:
“... "2. Since most of the dx's [diagnoses] are generally not picked up until the 2nd or 3rd year of life had you considered eligibility criteria of at least 18 months or 2 years?? What happens if you do this?" ....”
In other words: “Why don’t we dilute the autism data for the vaccinated group using the cases that will not have been diagnosed yet to mask the effect that we all know about?”.
There is inevitably a lot of speculation about the role in all of this of Thorsen’s girlfriend and co-author, Diane Schendel. Schendel, an epidemiologist employed within the CDC, followed Thorsen out to Denmark. It seems plausible that she was actually sent out to keep an eye on him, which may have worked in the early years (which of course were the most critical for the autism/vaccine issue and the CDC). And as we learn from Grundvig it was only the retirement of Thorsen’s business partner in NANEA, Ib Terp, in 2005 that Thorsen started syphoning off huge sums of money for his own personal use. By that time the Institute of Medicine report was in and the autism/vaccine connection was supposed to be history. Schendel remained on in Denmark at Aarhus University - still closely (and perhaps anomalously) associated with the CDC but increasingly less associated with Thorsen.
Thorsen’s basic problem is that he does not seem to have been good at anything much: by all accounts he was a poor scientist, researcher and teacher, and he was not good with money – nor in the end was he a good fraudster. But unextradited by the US government, five years after his indictment, he remains (scandalously) a protected man.
James Grundvig’s book gives us many insights into thoroughly rotten culture which gave rise to this chilling, outrageous story.
John Stone is UK Editor for Age of Autism.
Book Review: ‘Master Manipulator’ Accuses CDC of Manipulating Science on Autism 'Master Manipulator: The Explosive True Story of Fraud, Embezzlement, and Government Betrayal at the CDC' by James Ottar Grundvig, introduction by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Skyhorse Publishing, 2016, 296 pages, $24.99 By Louis Conte | July 4, 2016 AT 6:00 AM Last Updated: July 21, 2016 7:31 pm
The cover of James Ottar Grundvig's book,
The cover of James Ottar Grundvig's book, "Master Manipulator: The Explosive True Story of Fraud, Embezzlement, and Government Betrayal at the CDC." (Skyhorse Publishing)
Dirty deeds often require dirty people.
The cover of James Ottar Grundvig's book, "Master Manipulator: The Explosive True Story of Fraud, Embezzlement, and Government Betrayal at the CDC." (Skyhorse Publishing)
The cover of James Ottar Grundvig’s book, “Master Manipulator: The Explosive True Story of Fraud, Embezzlement, and Government Betrayal at the CDC.” (Skyhorse Publishing)
For the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Dr. Poul Thorsen—the subject of James Grundvig’s just-released book, “Master Manipulator: The Explosive True Story of Fraud, Embezzlement, and Government Betrayal at the CDC” (with an introduction by Robert F. Kennedy Jr.)—was the right man at the right time.
In the late 1990s, the CDC’s Vaccine Safety Division, led by Dr. Coleen Boyle, was facing a growing public realization that autism was reaching epidemic levels. Many parents and some scientists suspected vaccines were the culprit in triggering the catastrophe. They pointed the finger at the increasing levels of thimerosal, a mercury-based preservative used in many vaccines. In a stunning failure of oversight, no government regulatory agency caught the fact that mercury exposure in childhood vaccines vastly exceeded safety limits.
The secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) was facing billions of dollars in compensation claims under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP), in what would later become the Omnibus Autism Proceedings.
Grundvig reveals internal emails—acquired through Freedom of Information Law filings—suggesting that the CDC, an agency administered by the secretary of HHS, needed data to exonerate vaccines. The pace of events Grundvig lays out, along with internal CDC emails, implies that the government officials needed it fast.
Enter Thorsen, a visiting Danish scientist with lavish lifestyle ambitions, little talent, a poor work ethic, and an eye for the ladies. With an overabundance of grandiosity, Thorsen created a research group called the North Atlantic Neuro-Epidemiology Alliance (NANEA) in 1999.
The ‘Danish Studies’
Poul Thorsen is currently in Denmark and is awaiting extradition to the United States. (Office of the Inspector General, Secretary of Health and Human Services)
Poul Thorsen. (Office of the Inspector General, HHS)
Thorsen had access to Denmark’s national disease registry, a health care database of all Danish citizens that would be used to “back test” data for studies that would gin up statistics to show that autism rates in Denmark went up after the removal of thimerosal, thereby proving that increases in autism incidence rates could not be blamed on the preservative.
As Grundvig demonstrates in “Master Manipulator,” Thorsen and his NANEA cohorts excluded the data that showed the rates dropped by 30 percent when the mercury was removed in Denmark. Noticing the data manipulation, leading scientific journals (JAMA, New England Journal of Medicine) refused to publish the paper.
The Journal of Pediatrics ultimately published Thorsen’s paper. Before it did, a CDC executive, Dr. José Cordero, urged the journal’s chief editor to do so in a letter, which was also acquired through Freedom of Information requests.
Dr. José F. Cordero is the first Gordhan L. and Virginia B. "Jinx" Patel distinguished professor in public health at the University of Georgia's College of Public Health. For 27 years, he served in the U.S. Public Health Service at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (Screenshot/UGA College of Public Health/YouTube)
Dr. José F. Cordero is the first Gordhan L. and Virginia B. “Jinx” Patel distinguished professor in public health at the University of Georgia’s College of Public Health. For 27 years, he served in the U.S. Public Health Service at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (Screenshot via UGA College of Public Health/YouTube)
Grundvig notes that the CDC officials who are alleged in the controversial documentary “Vaxxed” (which was pulled by the Tribeca Film Festival after pressure from unknown members of the scientific community) to have committed research fraud were the same scientists who brought in Thorsen.
Grundvig highlights the CDC’s role as sponsors of hiring the rogue Danish scientist in Chapter 8, “2001: A Data Odyssey,” by capturing the May 30, 2001, email exchange between CDC’s Dr. Marshalyn Yeargin-Allsopp and Cordero.
Yeargin-Allsopp wrote: “As we discussed on Friday, we have become aware through Poul Thorsen of an exciting opportunity to study the role of MMR vaccine and autism using several registries/existing studies and the repository of biologic specimens and laboratory capabilities in Denmark.”
There were two principal legal theories being tested before Special Masters presiding over the Omnibus Autism Proceedings in the NVICP: whether the MMR vaccine caused autism and whether thimerosal caused autism as well.
Thanks to Thorsen, the CDC had what it needed to help the secretary of HHS avoid responsibility for both the MMR vaccine and, later, thimerosal’s role in the autism epidemic. The “Danish Studies”—six of them in total—would be used to kick out thousands of vaccine-injured claims from vaccine court in 2011. One of the cases dismissed was for Grundvig’s son.
Indictment
Then Thorsen’s recklessness caught up with him.
Grundvig traveled to Denmark and interviewed Thorsen’s associates while Thorsen himself avoided the journalist, declining repeated requests to tell his side of the story. In addition to reaching out to Thorsen through his colleagues, Grundvig contacted the fugitive scientist’s lawyer and his ex-CDC epidemiologist girlfriend Dr. Diana Schendel.
Grundvig learned from sources on the ground in Denmark that Thorsen had begun siphoning money out of NANEA, stopped paying his employees, and then left them with a hefty tax bill. Many of these complaints against him were levied by his underpaid staff, but were not recorded in the U.S. Department of Justice’s 22-count indictment. They were exposed in a separate 2012 Danish trial on Thorsen’s own tax-evasion issues, all of which were investigated and reported by several Danish journalists.
Demonstrators carry signs decrying the use of mercury in vaccines during a protest at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C., on July 20, 2005. Some 300 people marched demanding that mercury not be used in vaccines anymore amid growing concern that it is the cause of autism and other neurological diseases in children. Thimerosal is a mercury-based product used in vaccines. (Nicholas Kamm/AFP/Getty Images)
Demonstrators carry signs decrying the use of mercury in vaccines during a protest at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C., on July 20, 2005. (Nicholas Kamm/AFP/Getty Images)
The 2011 Department of Justice indictment against Thorsen showed his desire to be “upwardly mobile,” buying a $500,000, four-bedroom house in a tony Atlanta suburb, and a classic Harley Davidson motorcycle, plus two other vehicles, including a Honda SUV. The reader will learn that all of this was allegedly done with falsified invoices on CDC letterhead, used to steal more than $1 million in U.S. taxpayer-funded grant money meant for autism research.
Remarkably, no one at the CDC seemed to have noticed the exorbitant purchases until the Office of the Inspector General of HHS did so after picking up on a 2009 Aarhus University internal investigation of Thorsen and the forged CDC invoices.
Somehow, the CDC and the rest of the federal government public health community continues to claim that Thorsen’s science was sound and proved that vaccines don’t cause autism. In other words, “bad guy, good science.”
Fugitive in Denmark
Despite the indictment and the clear data manipulation, Thorsen’s research has never been retracted. But that story is not over yet. Grundvig discovered that the principal investigator on two of the studies, Kreesten M. Madsen, a Ph.D. candidate at the time, claimed that Thorsen did none of the work—a violation of the Vancouver Protocol for peer-review papers. If that claim is true, then protocol would require that Thorsen’s name be removed and that the studies be retracted due to scientific fraud.
The headquarters of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in Atlanta, Ga. (James Gathany/CDC, Public Domain)
The headquarters of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in Atlanta, Ga. (James Gathany/CDC, Public Domain)
Was Thorsen’s alleged stealing from the CDC due to a feeling that he should have gotten more money for saving the agency from the damage of being held accountable for the autism epidemic? Did he commit the alleged crimes because CDC executives were incompetent? Or did the CDC executives let Thorsen slide, because they were afraid to be indicted if he was ever caught?
We may never know. While Thorsen is a fugitive from American justice, he is living openly in Denmark, seemingly without a care in the world. He works at a hospital that still receives CDC money, while his name appears on several studies published as recently as 2015. The scientific community continues to embrace Poul Thorsen.
Related Coverage
Book Review: ‘Master Manipulator’ Accuses CDC of Manipulating Science on AutismThe Zika Breach of Public Trust: The Wealth Transfer Model From US Taxpayers to Big Pharma
Book Review: ‘Master Manipulator’ Accuses CDC of Manipulating Science on AutismThe Ebola Bats: How Deforestation Unleashed the Deadly Outbreak
In “Master Manipulator,” Grundvig paints a picture of a CDC where science is manipulated by people with a shocking lack of conscience. For example, Boyle issued a memo asking employees to include children too young to have an autism diagnosis in autism data. Such an inclusion would have the effect of reducing the recorded rate of autism. In her April 25, 2000, email to longtime CDC colleague Dr. Frank DeStefano, she wrote:
“Since most of the dx’s [diagnoses] are generally not picked up until the 2nd or 3rd year of life, had you considered eligibility criteria of at least 18 months or 2 years? What happens if you do this?”
This damning email strongly supports Grundvig’s assertion that Boyle was willing to manipulate data to get the outcome desired.
And Grundvig goes further—he reveals that before assuming her role at the CDC Vaccine Safety Division, Boyle helped cloud the truth about what Agent Orange did to Vietnam veterans exposed to dioxin, in the compelling chapter “Agent Orange is the New Black.”
As his book supports its main thesis—poisoned soldiers, poisoned children—it’s clear that Thorsen wasn’t the only master manipulator in this sad tale of abuse of power and misuse of government health care funds.
The CDC and Poul Thorsen deserved each other. James Grundvig’s “Master Manipulator” shows that America deserved much, much better.
Louis Conte is the father of triplet boys, two with autism. He has written widely on the vaccine/autism controversy including a novel, “The Autism War;” co-authored a nonfiction book with Tony Lyons, “Vaccine Injuries: Actual Documented Adverse Reactions to Vaccines;” and co-authored a seminal article on the controversy, “Unanswered Questions From the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program: A Review of Compensated Cases of Vaccine-Induced Brain Injury,” which was published in the peer-reviewed Pace Environmental Law Review.
Views expressed in this article are the opinions of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Epoch Times.
Book Review - "Master Manipulator" - By James Ottar Grundvig
Master Manipulator COVERBy Kent Heckenlively, J.D.
I wanted to spend some time praising James Ottar Grundvig's wonderful new book, "Master Manipulator: The Explosive True Story of Fraud, Embezzlement, and Government Betrayal at the CDC" because I think it is something unique in the canon of autism literature. (Read more at Amazon and if you've read the book, please leave a review.)
We have had the personal stories of families dealing with autism, and we have had some fine books dealing with various medical and scientific issues, but we haven't really had a book which examines at length the political culture in which this epidemic has been allowed to happen. Many of you are aware of Poul Thorsen, the Danish researcher who worked for the CDC and is now a federal fugitive for embezzling more than a million dollars to generate studies exonerating vaccines from causing autism. But what you don't know is how that happened behind the scenes at the CDC.
The Thorsen depicted in this book is certainly an intelligent man, figuring out how to data-mine a rich vein of medical information in the Danish health registry. But there is also something else in Thorsen's personality, a need to ingratiate himself to powerful patrons, and give them what they want. It is not an uncommon failing, and may be something particularly American. Grundvig makes the argument that more than anything else, Thorsen wanted to make it big in America, and saw pleasing his superiors at the CDC as just the way to do it. And he also wanted to live large, buying a limited edition Harley, Audi Quattro, Honda SUV, as well as a half-million dollar home in a tony suburb of Atlanta. That money should have been spent doing honest autism research.
Grundvig has a nice, easy to read style, and at a little more than 250 pages it is a quick read. I believe this is an important story which needs to be widely read in our community and beyond. I encourage people to read it, not to be depressed about how we have been betrayed, but to understand how fragile the facade is which keeps our children in their autism prisons. I'm reminded of what one teacher jokingly told me one day. She said, "You know, there's more than a thousand kids at this school, and only fifty of us. If they decided to stop listening to us, we'd be screwed."
People should read this book to understand one simple fact: Our enemies aren't that strong. They have been flailing for years, trying to keep this story from breaking, and I don't think anybody is more surprised at their success than they are. They know that eventually they will lose. We just need to keep the pressure on. I also have to commend Grundvig for his easy-going, even humorous story-telling. He seems like the kind of guy you'd want to hang out with, have a beer, and swap some stories. If Thorsen represents the worst of America, Grundvig's honest reporting represents the best of American traditions.
Kent Heckenlively is Contributing Editor to Age of Autism. Kent's new book, INOCULATED: How Science Lost Its Soul in Autism is currently out at major publishers. The book is represented by Johanna Maaghoul of the Waterside Literary Agency, the world's #1 agency for New York Times bestsellers.
Is the Met's $95 million van Gogh masterpiece a fake?
By Bill Sanderson Published November 07, 2016
Vincent van Gogh purportedly regarded the pastoral scene of wheat, cypress trees and mountains as one of his “best” landscapes — but a journalist insists the Metropolitan Museum of Art’s $95 million masterpiece is a fake.
James Grundvig’s new book, “Breaking van Gogh,” claims the painting titled Wheat Field with Cypresses was really made in the late 1800s by Emile Schuffenecker, “a third-level impressionist painter” and suspected forger.
Look carefully at the canvas in Gallery 822 on the Met’s second floor, and you can see some of the signs of a forgery, Grundvig says. One is a discordant blob of blue paint on the mountain in the background. “That is not the kind of mistake van Gogh would make,” said Grundvig. “The blue blob is very egregious. Van Gogh never did a blue blob.”
Compare the dark-colored cypress in the alleged fake to the lighter van Gogh cypress in Gallery 825 next door, which Grundvig believes is genuine. “See the marked difference in the colors, brushstrokes, etc.,” Grundvig said. The two paintings of the same kind of tree “look completely different.” Grundvig — a construction manager turned author who spent three years researching the van Gogh book — says the painting’s history supports his theory.
an Gogh — famed for chopping off his ear in an insane rage — committed himself to an asylum in Saint Remy, France, in May 1889. The artist produced many paintings during his year there, supposedly including The Met’s. In letters to his brother Theo later in 1889, van Gogh mentions two cypress paintings. Grundvig says that reference to two paintings somehow has come to justify the provenance of three cypress paintings — the fake at the Met, and genuine van Goghs at the National Gallery in London and in a museum in Switzerland.
Van Gogh rolled up paintings before he shipped them from southern France to Theo, a Paris art dealer. This cracked the canvasses’ thick paint. Grundvig says there’s no cracking on the painting consistent with having been rolled up. But the Met disagrees. It says the painting has “weave impressions” that show it was rolled up.
Van Gogh or no?: Author posits one of artist's most famous paintings is a fake
Reviewed by: Chris Smith
Posted: 02/25/2017 3:00 AM
Investigative journalist James Ottar Grundvig, a lifelong fan of Dutch painter Vincent van Gogh, claims one of the master’s works hanging in the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York
City is a fake, and he goes to great pains to prove it
e uses his investigative skills to question the provenance and painting style and materials of Wheat Field with Cypresses in a book that reads like a mystery as he builds layers of evidence that not is all as it should be with the multimillion-dollar painting.
The Annenberg Foundation Gift, 1993
The Annenberg Foundation Gift, 1993
Like a mystery, however, much of the detail uncovered by Grundvig is circumstantial even as it builds toward his assertion. It is missing a key piece to close the case.
Working against him is the fact the Met won’t release the painting’s condition report, which Grundvig asserts will prove it was not indeed painted by van Gogh.
Wheat Field with Cypresses is one of three similar 1889 oil paintings by van Gogh as part of his wheat field series. All were painted at the mental asylum at Saint-Rémy near Arles, France, where he was voluntarily a patient from May 1889 to May 1890. The works were inspired by the view from the window at the asylum towards the Alpilles mountains.
Another, A Wheatfield, with Cypresses, hangs in the National Gallery in London. The third, a smaller painting, is in private hands. The National Gallery has made its condition report public, a report that included "a CSI-like deep-dive investigation to home in on all of the subtle techniques that Vincent van Gogh used," Grundvig says. It is the van Gogh signature material and techniques that Grundvig feels are missing from the Met painting.
The provenance of this book begins in June 2013, when the author was working on an article for the Huffington Post on fake Jackson Pollock paintings sold to wealthy investors.
During his research he asked art expert Alexander Boyle if there were any fake van Gogh paintings. "Sure there’s one hanging in the Met," Boyle replied, and the game was afoot.
Even after his July 2013 Huffingtion Post article, Hacking van Gogh: Is the Master’s ‘Fingerprint’ Missing from a Met Painting?, the Met refused to release the condition report.
Grundvig outlines his extensive research, which includes: van Gogh’s correspondence to his brother Theo, an art dealer who stored van Gogh’s paintings shipped from Arles; the size and thread count of van Gogh’s canvases; the special paint colours made just for van Gogh; and sales records of van Gogh’s paintings, which suggest the Met’s painting may been forged by an art restorer.
The author traces the story from van Gogh’s easel to the art forger Emile Schuffenecker, to the collection of a prominent banking family and a Nazi-sympathizing Swiss arms dealer before it is purchased by a U.S. collector as a gift to the Met.
Breaking van Gogh offers a look at the art world of the artist’s time and his struggles in life, at the wartime looting of European art works by the Nazis, at the sometimes-questionable provenance of post-war art sales and at the difficulty in proving authenticity today.
For all his research, Grundvig still uses phrases such as that a Met official "must have known that Schuffenecker was a forger." That is what you think and say as you are building a case; once you’ve proven that point, you drop the qualifier.
Working in Grundvig’s favour is the fact the Met won’t release the painting’s condition report, which he asserts will prove it was not indeed painted by van Gogh. It’s the old "if you’re innocent, what have you got to hide" argument.
The Met didn’t feel inclined to release the condition report after the initial requests and Huffington Post article. It remains to be seen if a full-length book will reverse that stand. There is a lot at stake, after all.
For now, it appears to be a standoff, but Grundvig and his publisher obviously feel the case has been made for Wheat Field with Cypresses being the work of someone other than van Gogh.
Chris Smith is a Winnipeg writer.
07/10/2013 01:39 pm ET | Updated Sep 09, 2013
Hacking van Gogh: Is the Master’s ‘Fingerprint’ Missing From a MET Painting?
By James Grundvig
James Grundvig
CEO/Founder, CloudNician LLC
James founded the cloud-based software startup in 2011 to integrate supply chain logistics in the Construction IT space. He has 25 years of consulting engineering and construction management experience on projects of scale and complexity in the New York City area. Since 2005, James has written and published as a freelance journalist and columnist, covering subjects from autism, its cause and treatments, clean technology, green energy, and the BP Oil Spill, to business and Wall Street, and the rise of cloud computing technology.
After enduring the Great Recession, the public has shown a backlash against the $25 admission fee for the New York Metropolitan Museum of Art, which charges it as a “donation.”
On Sunday July 7, the New York Post wrote about a former Met supervisor, who claimed the museum has an “entry-fee bounty system” to wring money out of visitors. That has led to a class-action lawsuit asserting the Met violated its 1878 lease with the City of New York. The Met denies the allegations.
What if visitors are paying the Met entry fee, but they’re not getting what’s advertised? Such could be the case with a questionable work attributed to Vincent van Gogh. If it’s a forgery, maybe people should think twice about making the donation to the Met for seeing only part of the master’s true body of work.
The painting in question is a Wheat Field with Cypresses. There are three of them. That wasn’t unusual for Vincent, who painted more than a dozen versions of Sunflowers.
A Wheatfield, with Cypresses hangs in the National Gallery of Art in London; while the claimed pendant, in New York in the Met’s Annenberg Collection. Both paintings claim provenance — a chain-of-custody — from the original artist to heirs down to collectors, art dealers, and museums showing a clear audit trail of who owned the art when.
Both landscapes are dated to 1889, have identical cloud formations, and were painted from the same position in the field. Just one problem: The two paintings were “painted” three months apart. How can that be?
Vincent might have been institutionalized the last year of his life, but his stay at the Saint-Rémy asylum was one of the most productive periods as an artist. Thus, he never would have painted the same painting twice with the same sky a season apart. The color of the wheat should have been seasonally adjusted, but they are too close, while the brushwork on the Met painting borders on muddy.
As a part of the $1 billion “extended” gift from the Annenberg Foundation in 1993 to the Met, Wheat Field with Cypresses was mentioned in Vincent’s Letter #784 (7-2-1889) to his brother Theo, an art dealer in Paris, reading:
“I have a canvas of cypresses with a few ears of wheat, poppies, a blue sky, which is like a multicolored Scottish plaid. This one, which is impasted like Monticelli’s, and the wheatfield with the sun that represents extreme heat, also thickly impasted...”
Except the painting in the passage refers to a Green Wheat Field with Cypress. The emerald green field with “poppies” and the blue “Scottish plaid sky” are easily on display at the Národni Gallery, Prague. They’re not evident in the Met painting.
How can those two wheat field paintings — one green, the other harvest brown of autumn — occupy the same letter of July 2, 1889?
In the view of Susan Alyson Stein, the Curator of European Paintings at the Met, she said, “Call it artistic license. One field painted as is, the other in a color of his choosing.”
Doubtful and amusing. Vincent painted nature directly. He did not cheerfully anticipate a change of seasons while locked up in an asylum. Neither had he experienced full summer or autumn in Saint-Rémy. Indeed, Vincent wrote of his sincere doubts about any future in Lfetter #801.
That generic answer defies logic. The passage refers to one painting, not two. In the Met version the sky is white and grey from a flotilla of clouds — not “blue” as the letter attests.
Van Gogh at the Saint-Rémy Asylum
Today, a car can drive from Paris in north France to Saint-Rémy in the south in six hours. Confined to the asylum, when Vincent finished his oil paintings, and after they dried, he took the canvases off the stretchers, rolled them up, and sent them to his brother in a crate on a much slower train to Paris. Theo stored them under Vincent’s bed in the same rolled up manner.
In the September Letter #800 (9-6-1889), Vincent wrote to Theo: “... The reaper, the bedroom, the olive trees, wheatfield and cypress, that will make four even.”
Nowhere in the letter did Vincent write A Wheatfield, with Cypresses was a copy of an earlier version. “Four even” states four new paintings; nothing else can be interpreted from that straightforward line.
It’s the condition of the art, not only provenance, that becomes a factor in determining whether a painting is authentic or not. So does the artist’s “fingerprint,” as Louis van Tilborgh, a senior researcher at the Van Gogh Museum in Amsterdam and co-author of three books on Vincent’s art, told me in a phone interview.
“An artist’s fingerprint includes colors and pigments, brushstrokes, style, all related to the research from the era concerning provenance that draws a conclusion, either left or right. It’s the total sum... the sum of the parts that makeup the artist’s fingerprint,” van Tilborgh explained.
For van Gogh, he had many elements that formed his fingerprint or DNA, including pointillism, which gave the feeling of movement of wheat by a breeze on the ground in one direction and a jet-stream blowing clouds in the other direction. That is on display in the U.K. National Gallery painting, but is absent from the Met version. Why?
Ronald Pickvance, a former Met curator held an exhibit at the Met on: “Van Gogh in Saint-Rémy and Auvers” (1986-87). In a New York Times article (1-4-87), Art View; the Faces that Haunt van Gogh’s Landscapes, Pickvance discussed the secondary images that van Gogh embedded in his landscape paintings, some in cypresses, others in the sky.
The Times author Michael Brenson wrote:
“At Saint-Rémy, and then, to a lesser degree in the north French village of Auvers, where he spent the last three months of his life, van Gogh’s powers of discernment and organization are unmistakable.”
Those words endorse what Louis van Tilborgh said about an artist’s fingerprint. It also shows the craftsmanship of the artist in the U.K. Wheatfield, in which the haunted face is shown clear at the top of a cloud in the upper left corner, while the same image in the Met painting is smudged. Neither at all subtle, nor done with a confident brushstroke of a master whose “powers of discernment and organization are unmistakable.”
The organization refers to van Gogh’s composition choreographed with rhythmic brushwork flirting with pointillism to imply movement of air. In Ms. Stein’s view, van Gogh’s use of pointillism is not shown in either Wheat Field painting.
Moving in After an Artist Exits
Art forgers start their dark craft after an artist dies. Vincent died at 37, while his peer Claude Monet died at 86 years old in 1926. That’s why few have heard of a forged Monet, while rumors abound about fake van Goghs over the years. Add the death of Theo — his gatekeeper — seven months later, and the Saint-Rémy paintings languished for a decade stored at his sister-in-law’s apartment in Paris.
Ms. Stein agreed that the van Gogh paintings were rolled up for storage. But oddly enough for a curator at a major museum, she asked, “What does ‘impacted impasto’ mean?”
It’s clear that “impacted impasto” means the Saint-Rémy paintings’ impasto — van Gogh’s unique trait — had been subsequently compacted by the physical confinement of rolled up storage. Then add the impact of locked in heat, then cold, and over time the works were subjected to more atmospheric stress while they dried out.
All paintings age. Pigments mixed in oil dry out and thin as mineral spirits evaporate, leaving a harder remnant behind. Take the abstract expressionist Jackson Pollock, who died in 1956. Last year, a New York gallery was closed for having sold new acrylic “Pollocks.”
“The problem with copying artists from other eras is the chemical time bomb,” Robert Alexander Boyle told me in a sit down interview. “Paints, chemicals, and pigments evolve over time. Those chemical varying signatures will show up in condition reports.”
Today, technology allows people to access the van Gogh letters database, do a keyword search, a place search, a period search. It also empowers people to use Google Art to view high definition photos of a painting to see detailed texture, impasto, aging, and pigments blown up, super close in their living room.
Open Source Condition Reports
Add the condition of paintings “rolled up, stored in crates that were sent to Theo in Paris,” Louis van Tilborgh noted, and a certain type of stress cracking and impacted impasto in the paintings can be detected. “Theo stored his brother’s paintings rolled up under the bed, as that was the way he stored them.” He emphasized, “It wasn’t just to send them by train.”
How the questionable van Gogh made it into the halls of the Met was a conversation I struck up with Boyle. After we discussed the Pollock forgeries, I asked: “Has anyone forged a van Gogh?”
“Twenty years ago I was told by an art world elder of this unique situation regarding the condition of van Gogh’s paintings and to advise clients to steer clear of the ones without impacted impasto,” he said. Mr. Boyle is an art specialist, who has worked at American museums and was a speaker on PBS about 19th century landscape paintings. (Disclosure: Mr. Boyle worked for the Met in 1985-86 as an assistant director on their PBS film, American Paradise, the World of Hudson River School).
“How the van Gogh paintings at Saint-Rémy age over time depends on how they were stored, rolled up in crates. You see features such as impacted impasto, a high layer of paint. It depends on the pictures, how thick the paint was, humidity, warmth. We saw in Vincent’s letters paintings needed roughly one month to dry before they were good enough to send,” van Tilborgh said.
“From condition reports I’ve read on van Gogh’s Saint-Rémy work, paint dried while rolled up. But the longer drying times in such circumstances enhances the impacted impasto affect to all van Goghs and to what Anthony Reeve, of the National Gallery of Art in London, described in his precise condition report regarding the U.K. example,” Mr. Boyle said.
In the Met’s Annenberg Catalogue on Wheat Field, Footnote #14 calls the National Gallery condition report “the definitive study” on the paintings. A paragraph later in the footnote, states: “Some myths die hard” regarding the controversy surrounding the two Wheat Field paintings being identical with the same sky.
The difference between the three leading van Gogh collections in Europe — the U.K. National Gallery, the Van Gogh Museum, and the Kröller-Müller Museum — the museums all display the same “open source” European model. They make their condition reports available online, they continuously test new technologies on van Gogh paintings, caring more about vetting the truth on authenticity than the push back the Met gave my request to view the condition reports on three van Gogh paintings.
From Saint-Rémy to Schuffenecker
In 1900, Johanna van Gogh-Bonger — widow of Theo — reached out to a minor French artist named Emile Schuffenecker, whose brother Amedée was an art dealer. Jo worked with Emile on restoring and selling many of Vincent’s Saint-Rémy paintings. The restoration of the artwork gave Emile the means and opportunity to make copies of any painting he was restoring. It also gave him the motive: Money.
Emile’s name shows up in the Met’s provenance of Wheat Field, an origin report that includes Dieter Bührle, a Swiss arms dealer for the Nazis and African states torn by civil conflict in the 1960s. So did Emile copy the questionable painting at the Met?
“There’s no proof that Schuffenecker forged any van Gogh painting,” Mr. van Tilborgh said.
Perhaps. But beyond the clouds and landscape being identical in both paintings, painted months apart, the one in the Annenberg Collection has additional red flags.
First, “The dried yellow colors of the fields in the Met painting are not from June,” Boyle stated. “Late spring rains (which Vincent alluded to in a June 1 Letter #774) would endow June with emerald green. Vincent called them malachite green — copper acetoarsenite. Copper is the unstable element that shows the most distress in the U.K. example, yet despite Vincent’s preferences for it, there’s no evidence of that color in the Met example claiming to be from June. The rainy greens would have produced more of the chemical in the original, not less.”
Second, the Wheat Field with Cypresses appears to be too pristine a chemical state to be older than A Wheatfield, with Cypresses, which was rolled, dried, and stored in the same method as the other paintings from that summer. None of the pert impasto in the painting evinces symptoms from being confined with the works rolled up with impacted storage.
Third, the Met hangs their hat on authenticity — the Schuffenecker provenance — as solid proof. In reaching out to Johannes van der Wolk, the former curator at the Kröller-Müller Museum (KMM), which has one of the most extensive van Gogh collections in the world, he once said that based on catalogues, it’s estimated the number of possible (van Gogh) fakes to be as high as 100.
That controversial remark possibly cost van der Wolk his job back in 2000, and it may be why KMM turned down requests for an interview on van Gogh’s art, since it might stir up a past controversy.
The Met Wheat Field appears to be the work of a hack, not a master. Is that one reason why the Met have denied access to the condition reports of the paintings?
In the National Gallery Technical Bulletin, Vol. 11, 1987, the museum’s conservator Anthony Reeve wrote, “In various areas of thick impasto in A Cornfield (sic), with Cypresses... there are impressed marks of other canvases. These may have happened when the pictures were rolled for sending to their various destinations; and the supposition is strengthened by the direction of the vertical cracking visible in the sky painting of the Cornfield (sic).”
In a request to the Met for condition reports on a Wheat Field with Cypresses and two other van Gogh paintings from Saint-Rémy, Susan Stein said, “You can send specific questions about the condition reports on the paintings. There’s no guarantee the conservators at the Met will give you access to them.” Nor would she identify who might be able to answer the questions or furnish a condition report when I asked for a name.
Why be exclusive? Why act like the NSA when the Met is a public institution? What are they hiding? Stein’s response to the last question: “We are hiding nothing.” Okay, then make the condition reports available.
The Met mission statement reads:
The mission of The Metropolitan Museum of Art is to collect, preserve, study, exhibit, and stimulate appreciation for and advance knowledge of works of art that collectively represent the broadest spectrum of human achievement at the highest level of quality, all in the service of the public and in accordance with the highest professional standards.
The public has the right to know whether they are seeing a real painting from van Gogh or an inferior copy, so people can ascend to “advance knowledge of works of art.”
Ms. Stein recommended to me: “You should go to the van Gogh conservators in Europe and learn the intricacies of his painting style.”
I concur. That’s what I did in writing this article: To bring attention to the experts a questionable van Gogh painting, sans his artistic fingerprint. Museums will not comment on a painting that’s not in their collection, however. Perhaps they should rethink that policy.
Finally, the Met is going against the spirit of its mission — “... all in the service of the public and in accordance with the highest professional standards.” — by not making public condition reports that, when lined up side-by-side with the other van Gogh paintings, will show either the same wear and tear, aging, and condition, or will not.
This author will publish again when the Met makes those condition reports available for review. Some local art restorers suspect the chemicals contained in the Met painting differ greatly from the U.K. report, thus the evasiveness of the Met’s answers to the questions posed.
Until they comply, I recommend to the people visiting the Met to make a “donation” lower than the Met’s suggested entry fee.
Author exposes the “Vaccine Deep State” … a massive criminal fraud and embezzlement ring inside the CDC
Tuesday, March 14, 2017 by: Mike Adams
One of the most explosive books you’ll ever read that documents the shocking criminal enterprise known as the CDC — including details of fraud, cover-ups and embezzlement — is called Master Manipulator – The Explosive True Story of Fraud Embezzlement and Government Betrayal at the CDC by James Ottar Grundvig. You can find the book at this Barnes & Noble link.
The book is published by Skyhorse Publishing, which I consistently find to be the single most courageous publisher of truth books in America. Time and time again, so many of the best titles exposing fraud, corruption and criminality inside the “status quo” are published by Skyhorse.
The foreward for Master Manipulator is written by none other than Sharyl Attkisson, and the introduction is penned by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. who states:
This is a story of how CDC used a con man to gull the public and ended up getting conned itself! Poul Thorsen is a world-class villain whose manipulation of health data gave CDC and big pharma what they wanted: a report clearing thimerosal of any possible role in the autism crisis. His story merits a book length expose because the fraud he casually helped orchestrate has had a monumental impact on the health of millions of children globally.
Master Manipulator is a must-read for anyone hoping to be truly informed about the depths of criminality and fraud inside the CDC, “science” and the vaccine industry. One section in particular is especially noteworthy. It’s called the “Vaccine Deep State.” I’m reprinting part of that section of the book below. Buy the book yourself at Barnes & Noble to read more. (RELATED: Follow more news about the deep state at DeepState.news.)
The Vaccine Deep State
The monolith of the CDC-FDA-NIH is supposed to be separated by a divide with the big pharma vaccine producers. But since the NIH rejected the Swedish scientist’s brief that all thimerosal should be removed from vaccines in 1992, there has been little to no separation of powers, policies, messaging, or enforcement between government oversight and industry manufacturers.
The separation of church and state doesn’t exist anymore in the vaccine industry, not with Vaccine Court squashing all comers, the Dick Armey “Lilly Rider” slipped into the 2002 Homeland Security Act, and the FDA’s approval to double the doses of aluminum adjuvants in several vaccines.
Vaccines today are part of a program rife with ROT and deception.
In a September 2007 hearing by the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions for “Thimerosal and Autism Spectrum Disorders: Alleged Misconduct by Government Agencies and Private Entities,” the executive summary naturally found no misconduct on behalf of the CDC—this was a case of one hand washing the other. It read: While the five studies in question may have varying connections to the CDC and/or vaccine manufacturers, their value to consideration of an alleged link between vaccines and autism is a matter for the experts of the ISR Committee, and not for Congress.
What the findings got wrong by one half of the government to keep Congress in its place, since they were not qualified to review scientific data, as good as the “experts” that false assertion was nothing more than a ruse, a smokescreen. What Congress needs to do is evaluate the human side of this tragedy and ongoing fraud. It has nothing to do with science—no scientific expertise is required, just the nose to follow the money.
It has everything to do with corruption, cover-up, relentless greed, pulling the ripcords on golden parachutes, shielding vaccine makers from harm, all while exposing millions of babies, children, and people around the world to great harm.
Congress needs only to examine agendas, follow the email trails, and begin to pull the weeds that have infested the CDC, FDA, and NIH lawn, removing all of the ROT as they should have done in 1990 with the Agent Orange finding. Had they done that, then maybe Coleen Boyle would have become a librarian instead of the director of NCBDDD, and Diana Schendel would have done good collaborative studies instead of the studies that had a fixed objective to show no association, and maybe Poul Thorsen wouldn’t have been invited to come to the CDC as a visiting professor or been able to secure funding for the cooperative agreements because the “hunt for good data” never would have taken place.
…Why is it so hard for mainstream media, independent journalists, and government officials on both sides of the aisle to grasp the dangers of micro small toxins? If they believe that the unseen greenhouse gas particulates and molecules can superheat the world and change climate, why is it so hard to believe that traces of mercury and aluminum in vaccines have harmed so many once promising, healthy children for the past two decades?
If a grown man can die from a tiny amount of venom in a bee sting, then why is it so hard to believe that trace amounts of metals in babies who weight from seven to twenty-five pounds can have adverse reactions to being injected with toxins, especially when all of their bodies—from the central nervous and immune systems to the brain and lungs—are under development?
“Less is more” is a motto that our politicians need to take up with the Vaccine Deep State and rein it in. If they cannot do it, don’t have the will to do it, don’t have the balls to do it, or won’t expend the political capital to do it, a tipping point will soon one day force there hand.
When will that occur? When 1 in 40 babies are born on the spectrum? One in 25 babies born? How about 1 in 10? Will the rate of autism incidence in the United States have to soar to that sky high number for our government to react and belatedly realize that the autism epidemic has been real all along, and its long-over due to do something about it?
The next generation of Americans, who will be born over the next decade, is awaiting your call to action. Will you act?