The second posited defense is that there is no evidence suggesting gadolinium accumulation is toxic. However, this argument is highly absurd. It is well known that gadolinium itself is highly toxic; for this reason, the FDA has approved it for use only when formulated with a chelating agent to ensure removal from the body. Moshe Rogosnitzky, "What price will we pay for the FDA’s faith in Gd?"
"...this is from 1995. This paper is what, 23 years old? ...In 1995 he [Vogler] published that the macrocyclics were frighteningly...more toxic to the brain if injected in the CSF than the linears. I didn't say less, I said more. ...It seems like every patient you've ever injected contrast into, it gets into the CSF within a few hours...
...In the US it's illegal to say to somebody that a macrocyclic is safer than a linear. ...I get the impression that the macrocyclics, if it's going to stay in the brain, I'm not so sure I would want macrocyclics in my brain if it's going to be there long term. I certainly don't want them in my CSF, from which I'll show you they get into the brain."
"Gadolinium Retention and Claims of Toxicity" Oct. 2018 presentation in Edinburgh for MRI Safety Matters.
"Finally, I believe that the single most important question that has yet to be answered regarding residual gadolinium is, of course, whether or not it's associated with patient injury
I describe this corporate strategy as “manufacturing doubt” or “manufacturing uncertainty.” In just about every corner of the corporate world, conclusions that might support regulation are always disputed. Studies in animals will be deemed irrelevant, human data are dismissed as not representative, and exposure data are discredited as unreliable. Always, there’s too much doubt about the evidence, and not enough proof of harm, or not enough proof of enough harm." David Michaels Source Article
Thorotrast, a thorium based contrast agent, was used from the 1930s-1960s until its devastating effects were finally admitted to after years of warnings.
Thorotrast had a long latency period & few had immediate reactions. Most victims, like the ones shown in the 20/20 episode below, didn't know they were sick until it was too late.
Wonder if they too were told thorium was "medically necessary" just as patients today are told gadolinium is?
1. What do you suggest patients should do to combat the consequences of regulatory capture, revolving doors and pharma sponsored narratives? After all, Iatrogenic Disorders (induced inadvertently by a physician or surgeon or by medical treatment or diagnostic procedures) continue to be the 3rd leading cause of death according to Johns Hopkins.
2. Is it really any kind of stretch to consider an admitted toxin remaining in the body as problematic?
3. Why send gadolinium in attached to chelators if gadolinium doesn’t cause harm?
Statements From The 2017 FDA Hearing On Gadolinium:
‘This is Dr. Toledano & I voted NO & I am the hold out. I absolutely agree with Dr. Brent that people need to know. People- all the people- not just the doctors. And I don't think this plan is sufficient. It is hard to dismiss an anecdotal report when you are the anecdote. A life ruined is a life ruined.
I am here to share my 12 year gadolinium journey... I believe the supposed lack of known clinical symptoms is a misrepresentation. I'm one of those elusive humans with normal renal function yet has retained gadolinium from a single dose of Bayer's Magnevist for over a decade. I've been exhibiting & recording clinical symptoms the entire time...