“It is dangerous to be right in matters on which those in positions of authority are wrong” (Voltaire)
“When science serves state power, and the state serves the corporate world, each becomes corrupt and corrupting, and society moves one step closer to a repetition of medicine’s darkest time.” (Dr. Paddy Rawlinson, Immunity and Impunity, 2017)
“Recently, the authors of many vaccine safety investigations are being personally criticized rather than the actual science being methodologically assessed and critiqued. Unfortunately, this could result in making vaccine safety science a “hazardous occupation”.
(Dr. Yehuda Shoenfeld, 2017)
“[Scientists] are afraid to publish because of the intellectual terror”
(Nobel Laureate, Dr. Luc Montagnier)
Appendix 9 focused on how powerful vaccine stakeholders who are motivated by their collective intersecting financial interests, gained control over the science and safety assessments of vaccines by forming an elaborate international web of collaborating institutional consortia, and how they have gained control over the professional scientific and mass media information channels. Industry’s corrosive influence in undermining the scientific integrity of medical journals, whose reports influence medical practice and public health policies, has been acknowledged by foremost former journal editors.[i]
In this appendix, the focus is on how the media and the internet have been methodically turned into vehicles of propaganda to promote vaccination policy and to counter (in effect) to silence dissident voices of scientists, doctors, and parents who raise concerns about the safety of administering a high number of multiple vaccines simultaneously – as recommended on the government-dictated childhood vaccination schedule. The safety of vaccination policies and of newly marketed vaccines are endorsed and widely disseminated by both the professional and mass channels of information with the fervor of theological certainty.
No issue in medicine is as polarized, nor the rhetoric as vitriolic.
The voices of independent scientists and journalists whose research and examination of the evidence raises doubts about the claimed safety of some vaccines are drowned out. These scientists are marginalized and barred from participating in public discussions. Doctors who express any skepticism about the claimed safety, efficacy, or need for all the vaccines recommended by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), are denounced as “anti-vaxxers” “quacks” who engage in “pseudo-science” “heretics” “pariahs”.[ii]
Before examining the pro-vaccine propaganda, and its purveyors who dictate conformity to a uniform message controlled by a corporate/state “Ministry of Truth”, I bring to your attention the following facts:
Pro-Vaccine Propaganda Campaign Was Initiated to Counter Dissident Voices
In a 1999 survey, 25% of parents felt their children’s immune systems could be harmed by too many vaccinations, and 23% shared the sentiment that children receive more vaccinations than are healthy. “There is every reason to think that those numbers—gathered before the vaccine-autism controversy reached anything like its current intensity—have risen since”.[iii]
In 2011, a pro-vaccine campaign strategy was kicked off at a pharmaceutical industry conference, convened by Fondation Mérieux, to counteract ever growing public concerns about the safety of vaccines and the concomitant growing public distrust of health authorities. The Foundation “partners” encompass the gamut of the pharmaceutical industry; they include all three MMR manufacturers , GlaxoSmithKline, Merck and Sanofi. Others include: the CDC Foundation, the Bill and Melinda Foundation, the World Bank, and the Islamic Development Bank.
Attendees were especially encouraged to utilize social media to deflect public perception and suspicions and to persuade the public about the safety of vaccines. Phillip Weiss, the founder of a PR communications agency and author of Hyperthinking: Creating a New Mindset for the Digital Age, emphasized the need to rethink the immunization conversation. He urged participants to accept that the global communications environment has changed and they need to adapt their thinking accordingly:
“the Internet is the ultimate source of information, the logical conclusion is that Internet is power; the power to shape perception. Embrace social media or risk being left behind.”
The keynote speaker was Brian Deer, the journalist who hatched the unfounded, but calculated poisonous accusation of fraud against Dr. Andrew Wakefield. [Read: L’Affaire Wakefield: Shades of Dreyfus] In his speech, Deer emphasized the power of fear: “nothing travels like fear.”
In Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media (2011) Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky identify the three stages of propaganda:
- Terrify by fabricating disasters and spreading fear
- Hammer the point of impending disaster
- Offer a government method for eradicating the threat
Vaccine promoters adhere to those three techniques: America’s vaccine promoter-in-chief, Dr. Paul Offit subscribes to the potency of fear as the most persuasive argument for gaining parents’ compliance with vaccination policy. He pushes the fear button in his numerous public presentations and his published writings. For example, in a videotaped panel discussion sponsored by the National Meningitis Association (NMA), Dr. Offit declared: “What’s the best way to convince a parent to get a vaccine is to have an outbreak. Nothing is as convincing as a virus.”
In his book, Deadly Choices: How the Anti-Vaccine Movement Threatens Us All (2011) he declares that parents who chose not to vaccinate pose a threat to society. His wife, a pediatrician in private practice, drew a line in the sand. According to Offit, “she basically laid it on the line”;[iv] if a parent chooses not to vaccinate their child, his wife refuses to have the child in her practice. [Dr. Offit’s promotional extremism and multi-million financial stake in vaccines was documented in Appendix 9]
At this pharmaceutical sponsored conference, vaccine promoters – all of who are financially tied to industry – including government officials, the medical establishment, and mainstream media – invoke frightening catastrophic scenarios of infectious diseases to persuade the public to vaccinate in accordance with vaccination policies. Concern was expressed about how to overcome public skepticism.
“public scepticism and anti-vaccine sentiment have increased. A number of health scares, such as the debunked but high profile claim that the MMR vaccine causes autism, have hampered immunisation campaigns. Creeping mistrust of science, and of authorities in general, have also fed into the debate on vaccine safety and efficacy… There was much discussion throughout the conference on whether and how public health authorities, scientists, industry and frontline health professionals should deploy anecdote and emotion.” (Fondation Mérieux Report)[v]
Injecting Emotional Appeal into the Vaccine Storyline
The vaccine paradigm is credited with having “saved more lives and prevented more suffering than every other medical intervention combined”. (Science-Based Medicine) Vaccines are promoted with the fervor of ideological certainty.
“Globally, vaccination saves two to three million lives per year” (CDC.gov); “Vaccines are safe. Vaccines are effective. Vaccines save lives.” (American Academy of Pediatrics, 2017)
In 2009, prior to the resignation of Dr. Julie Gerberding as Director of the CDC, Richard Edelman, the advertising industry’s mogul whose PR firm employs 5,000 in 65 offices worldwide, lavished praise on her as a “selfless crusader” whose ability to “humanize communications” and “the need to tell stories to buttress traditional CDC reliance on science and facts.”[vi] New York Attorney Robert Krakow notes that
“The praise lavished by Edelman on Gerberding is fitting coming from a global leader in the creation of what some media critics call “fake news” reports that accompany pharmaceutical promotion. Edelman is a Director of the CDC Foundation, a private organization set up by corporate America to support the CDC and fund special projects – euphemistically termed a “public private partnership.”
- Three weeks after lauding Gerberding’s storytelling ability, she was hired by the influential Edelman public relations firms an advisor on global health strategy, and then moved to Merck.
The current emphasis – even in the scientific journals – is on how to shape “the story” to overcome “vaccine hesitancy”.[vii] This emphasis on shaping a uniform story line suggests the lack of credible scientific evidence from scientifically valid studies that document the safety of vaccines. Indeed, the studies that continue to be cited by vaccine promoters are the same series of discredited CDC epidemiological studies[viii]– including several that have been documented as fraudulent.[ix] The principal scientist in several pivotal CDC-commissioned reports is an indicted Dr. Poul Thorsen.[x],56 The reliance on discredited, fraudulent reports suggests that the official vaccine “story line” lacks scientifically valid evidence to support it. One way to overcome this lack of evidentiary support for the claimed safety of vaccines is to make additional false, unsupportable assertions such as:
“Vaccines are held to a much higher safety standard than medications used for people who are already sick… the safety of vaccines is systematically reevaluated independently from pharmaceutical companies… the U.S. has a sophisticated system, a federally funded program that does not receive any money from vaccine manufacturers”.[xi] (Scientific American, 2017)
The authors of the Scientific American article are employed by Kaiser Permanente, the largest managed care company in the U.S. The company works closely with CDC and vaccine manufacturers on numerous projects. CDC awards Kaiser Permanente lucrative contracts, and Kaiser contributes millions of tax exempt dollars to the CDC Foundation with which Kaiser has a wide-ranging partnership.[xii] Indeed, Kaiser’s senior VP for research and health policy, Raymond Baxter, sits on the CDC Foundation board of directors. Kaiser has multiple ongoing financial ties to vaccine manufacturers on whose behalf the Kaiser Vaccine Study Center (VSC) “coordinates clinical trials of new vaccines at Kaiser Permanente’s largest medical facilities in Northern California… VSC studies of new vaccines have led to licensing of vaccines to prevent diseases caused by Haemophilus influenza, pneumococcus, chickenpox, meningitis and flu”.
Image by Ray Baxter & Elizabeth McGlynn https://www.nap.edu/read/18945/chapter/3#23
The claim by Kaiser Permanente officials that the safety of vaccines “is systematically reevaluated independently from pharmaceutical companies” is blatantly false; it is contradicted by the Institute of Medicine report (2013) 3 That false claim is an example of how “fake facts” are widely disseminated – not only by the media and blogosphere, but by medical journals that purport to be gatekeepers who preserve the integrity of science. Indeed, former editors of those journals have acknowledged that the journals have become de facto sources of disinformation.1 As is documented in Appendix 9, the studies purporting to evaluate and confirm the safety of vaccines were conducted by scientists and institutions that are financially tied to CDC and vaccine manufacturers, such as Kaiser Permanente. False claims are reinforced through repetition and wide dissemination through the professional channels of information, through the mainstream and social media, and on the internet blogosphere.
- The widely broadcast, uniform support for vaccination policies has generated soaring profits.
- The number of (essentially) mandatory vaccines for a two-year-old child in the U.S. has expanded to 40 doses; that is more than twice the number recommended in the 1980s.
- In 2017, the vaccine industry garnered $34 billion in sales and is projected to reach more than $49 billion by 2022.[xiii]
Protecting the Cash Flow
To protect the cash flow, vaccine stakeholders have made a concerted effort to shape public perception that there is virtual unanimity among the credible medical experts about the safety and effectiveness of vaccines, and the necessity of conforming to the childhood vaccination schedule. Therefore, any physician or scientist who raises questions about the validity of the evidence casts doubt about that unanimity, which in turn may undermine public confidence. Any diminution in public confidence poses a serious financial threat. Therefore every skeptical scientist is regarded as a heretic who must be silenced.
The most maligned vaccine skeptic is Dr. Andrew Wakefield who is blamed for fomenting public distrust not only in the safety of the multi-virus MMR vaccine, but blamed for the burgeoning resistance to the government-dictated childhood vaccination schedule, which a growing number of parents object to, and some refuse to comply with.
Resistance to Vaccination
The intersection between medicine and government is highly problematic. because vaccination is required by government, it is one of the most contested area in medicine because it violates the human right to free choice regarding invasive medical interventions.
In fact, refusal to comply with compulsory vaccination goes back to the 1850s and 1860s in England. Indeed, the term ‘conscientious objector’ emerged when the English people refused to vaccinate following the enactment of compulsory vaccination acts – the term did not originate from refusal to go to war:
“How much of the reaction to vaccines is government distrust, and how much is medical distrust? When you combine the nature of the act, which is violent, and then you add to that the fact that its compulsory, that’s what upsets people. The compulsory-vaccination acts in the 1850s and 1860s in England really helped solidify the first anti-vaccination activity.”[xiv] (Meredith Melnick, TIME, 2011)
Since his Lancet case series was published in February 1998, Dr. Wakefield’s influence, according to his critics, has attained surreal powers. A BBC trailer for an Adam Rutherford broadcast marking the 20-year anniversary declares:
“the Wakefield scandal hasn’t just fostered the current ant-vax movement but has played a key role in helping to undermine trust in a host of scientific disciplines from public health research to climate science and GM technology.
The continuing legacy of the anti-vaccine movement on the anniversary of one of its most notorious episodes, and explore its impact on health, on research and on culture both at home and abroad”. (BBC, February 2018)
The Information Age is an Age of Intolerance
Galileo’s Middle Finger: Heretics, Activists, and the Search for Justice in Science (2015) by Alice Dreger,[xv] documents how scientists’ reputations were often demolished with fabricated charges against them:[xvi]
“groups of progressive self-appointed defenders of social justice banded together to launch full-throated assaults on legitimate science, and the extent to which these attacks were abetted by left-leaning academic institutions and activists too scared to stand up to the attackers, often out of a fear of being lumped in with those being attacked.”
Case in point: Napoleon Chagnon, (University of California), an extremely influential anthropologist who immersed himself for years living among the Yanomamö, an indigenous tribe situated in the Amazon rain forest on the Brazil-Venezuela border. His 1968 book Yanomamö: The Fierce People is viewed by many as an ethnographic classic. However, Chagnon’s reputation as a careful, dedicated scholar didn’t matter to his critics — what mattered was that his version of the Yanomamö was “not your standard liberal image of the unjustly oppressed, naturally peaceful, environmentally gentle rain-forest Indian family…” Chagnon challenged the romantic image of the “noble savage”, by documenting the tribe’s violence- dominated social life, declaring that they “live in a state of chronic warfare”. He was trashed and pilloried by cultural anthropologists who deplored his emphasis on biology as a factor in behavior.[xvii]
Just as the case against Dr. Andrew Wakefield was concocted by a freelance journalist
The case against Chagnon and James V. Neel (University of Michigan) a noted physician and geneticist and honored member of the National Academy of SciencesChagnon, was concocted by a freelance journalist. Patrick Tierney leveled a series of spectacular allegations against two of the most widely known figures in their fields. In his book, Darkness in El Dorado: How Scientists and Journalists Devastated the Amazon (2000), and in an excerpt in the New Yorker, Tierney, accused Chagnon and Neel of numerous episodes of scientific misconduct.
Tierney charged that one or both men had manipulated data, incited the Yanomami tribe to start wars, and paid tribespeople to kill one another. However, Tierney’s most serious accusation was that Chagnon and Neel, deliberately infected the Yanomamaö tribe with a defective Edmonston Zagreb (EZ) measles vaccine that caused hundreds if not thousands to die. They were accused of “purposefully withholding medical care while experimental subjects died from the allegedly vaccine-induced measles.” The alleged purpose was to test Nazi- eugenics theories.
A media firestorm followed with headlines such as: “Scientist ‘Killed Amazon Indians to Test Race Theory’” (The Guardian, 2000); Anthropology Community Upset Over Ethics Scandal (San Francisco Gate, 2000.) Dreger uncovered evidence that all the explosive accusations about Nazi-like activities and exploitation, and the intentional fomenting of violence, were simply made up or willfully misinterpreted. Worse still, she found that some of these allegations “could have been easily debunked with just a tiny bit of research”[xviii] The case against Dr. Wakefield is debunked by the adjudicated evidence which anyone can access.
Vaccine Exceptionalism Declares Vaccine Safety a Taboo Subject
Vaccine manufacturers and their financially dependent collaborators in government, professional medical associations, and academia have a stranglehold on vaccine science. They declare the growing body of research findings that contradict vaccine orthodoxy “dangerous”, and they deny its existence. Their dogmatic safety claims are not supported by science, they rely on seriously flawed, discredited epidemiological studies and reviews by institutions beholden to industry for financial support. In her essay Beyond Vaccine Exceptionalism (August 2016) Dreger noted that:
“vaccines are pushed in and by a medical industrial complex that is, particularly in the United States, rife with financial conflicts of interest, overtreatment, and iatrogenic harm from practices adopted without sufficient evidence. Vaccines are produced and marketed by the same pharmaceutical companies that have been found, again and again, to engage in unethical and also illegal practices in pursuit of profits.
Vaccine exceptionalism –the attitude among many science and public health advocates, that approved and recommended vaccines are never to be questioned or doubted – is historically and politically naïve.”
A recent example is an article posted on John Hopkins Hub (2017) declared: “The Science is Clear: Vaccines Are Safe. Effective, and do not cause autism.” No new studies are cited. Readers are referred to the reviews by the Institute of Medicine, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the American Academy of Pediatrics – all of which have been shown to be corrupted [See, Appendix 9 Betrayal of Trust]
Doctors and scientists who express skepticism are tagged as “quacks” and are barred from participating in public discussions about vaccines.[xix] When it comes to vaccines, this is an age of intolerance, much like the era of the Spanish Inquisition. As has been observed, “It is quite predictable that when one goes on a witch hunt, one inevitably finds “witches,” especially when there are certain benefits to demonizing a potential competitor.” (Huffington Post, 2017)
Journalism no longer prides itself on being fair, balanced, and independent of commercial interests. Indeed, in January 2013, the Australian Communication and Media Authority (ACMA) upheld the refusal by journalists to present peer-reviewed medical information about the risks of vaccines when reporting about vaccines. ACMA went so far as to claim that presenting information in the medical literature about vaccine risks would mislead the public with the impression of a “false balance”.
American muckraking journalism prided itself on being fair, balanced, and independent of commercial interests. Its mission was to provide truthful information and to focus on the public good. That focus has changed radically as the media cartel took control over the channels of information, stifling investigative journalism. “In theory, new technologies make it more difficult, and ultimately impossible, for governments to control the flow of information”. However, new technologies can also be manipulated not only by repressive governments, but by commercial entities that own channels of information.
“the media no longer seem to possess the spirit of progressivism, and no longer enlighten the public to the wrongdoings of government and big business in order to spark reform. On the contrary, the media is now big business itself, and only getting bigger with the rise of huge media conglomerates like AOL Time Warner, Disney, and Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp. When it comes down to it, the media is relatively incapable of serving the public good”.(InfoRefuge)[xx]
“the global, interconnected internet; ubiquitous social media platforms; smartphones with cameras – were supposed to make censorship obsolete. Instead they have just made it more complicated.”[xxi] (Committee to Protect Journalism (2017)
Journalists who report the substance of the dissenting views about vaccines are banished from mainstream media as well. [As demonstrated below, orchestrated attacks were levelled at Katie Couric, following the airing of a segment on her ABC program that featured both sides of the debate about the safety of the HPV vaccine.] Indeed, any scientist, journalist or parent who expresses skepticism, or concern about the safety of a vaccine or the timing of the childhood vaccination schedule, is subjected to vitriolic attacks as an “enemy of the public”.
The drumbeat by vaccine stakeholders – all of whom are funded directly or indirectly by industry or government – drowns out the voices of independent scientists whose research uncovered evidence suggesting that some vaccines are linked to serious harm including neurological and autoimmune adverse effects. Australia’s level of media ownership concentration is one of the highest in the world:[xxii] It is controlled by the Murdoch media cartel: “News Corp owns controlling stakes in Foxtel – which has a monopoly in the pay TV market – and Sky News, which is carried by Foxtel”.
An opinion piece in the (UK) Guardian (2013) titled “Anti-Vaccination Activists Should Not Be Given a Say in the Media” inveighed against “false balance” in the media. The author, Rachael Dunlop is a highly active Australian Vaccine promoter (known as Dr. Rachie”). She is part of the front group Science in Medicine, is vice-president of Australian Skeptics, and blogs as Skeptics Book of Pooh Pooh. In her OpEd she declared:
“99% of experts support the view that childhood vaccinations are safe and effective, whilst 1% do not.” She further claimed that: “stories about vaccines that include false balance are actually more dangerous than those that are purely anti-vaccine. Stories that offer both sides of the coin can have a greater negative influence on people’s decision to not vaccinate than those that are purely anti-vaccine.”
Dunlop exhorted the mainstream media not report vaccine minority views at all: “With vaccination, there is not debate. The science is in and the benefits far outweigh the risks. No balance required”.
Dr. Offit has made a fortune from the rotavirus (RotaTeq) vaccine patent and from his aggressive promotional activities. Dr. Offit has taken the lead in the effort to suppress scientific information and debate about vaccine risks. In a presentation (2008) he cited a series of discredited CDC studies and CDC-sponsored Danish epidemiological studies as “scientific evidence” of safety – despite the fact those studies have been shown to be not only grossly skewed, some are outright fraudulent.[xxiii]
He warned against the “fallacy of balance” and called for an end to fair and balanced media coverage of the vaccine debate. His advice to journalists is not to cover the issue at all. In 2013, he objected to the airing of a segment concerning the HPV vaccine on ABC program hosted by Katie Couric. Dr. Offit declared – without having examined the medical documentation – that “the HPV vaccine did not cause the death [of the girl].” And he made the following preposterous (needless to say, unsubstantiated) claim in a commentary on Medscape: “in the HPV vaccine we arguably have the most powerful cancer-preventing vaccine for humans.”
In an interview in Forbes (2014) Dr. Offit called for “journalism jail” for reporters who write stories about “debate” on vaccines. He declared that “the contentions of only one side are supported by science”, therefore, there is no debate.
In 2016, Dr. Offit submitted several editorial commentaries in Medscape, expressing his strong objection to its news report titled “Chronic Symptoms After HPV Vaccine: Part of Wider Syndrome?” about the findings of an Italian case series published in the journal Immunologic Research.[xxiv] The study involved 18 girls (aged 12-24) who reported long-lasting, debilitating autoimmune/inflammatory symptoms such as are described in the ASIA syndrome (Autoimmune syndrome induced by adjuvants).
Dr. Offit objected to coverage of the case series and exhibited willful ignorance about the accumulating empirical evidence of thousands of HPV- related vaccine adverse event reports –including deaths following HPV vaccination. [Evidence of serious harm following HPV-vaccine is discussed in Appendix 9] He selectively cited epidemiological studies that are not designed to reveal a causal relationship to statistically rare, but clinically significant adverse effects. The studies he cited were CDC-commissioned Kaiser Permanente studies. [Conflicts of interest are discussed below]
Tara Haelle presents herself as a journalist, photographer and educator who essentially promotes industry’s vaccination agenda in the major media – including The New York Times, Scientific American, Slate, NPR, Parents Magazine and Forbes – which provide her with a veneer of “authority”.
In her article in Forbes titled “How Do You Change An Anti-Vaccine Parent’s Mind? Scare The Crap Out Of Them” (2015), she cited Melanie Tannenbaum, PhD, a social psychologist whose research is focused on “fear appeal”:
“Based on decades of fear appeal research, the double-whammy of making people feel like they are particularly vulnerable to health threats and convincing them that these health threats are particularly severe is an incredibly effective strategy for behavioral change.”
Haelle espouses the view that “from 20vaccine hesitancy and vaccine refusal [are] a global health threat lurks unnoticed until it erupts into unpredictable disease outbreaks that are difficult to contain”. (TEDx, YouTube, 2016) Haelle also promotes annual flu vaccination making “authoritative” sounding declarations that are belied by the evidence. In an article in the New York Times (December 2017) she expounded the virtue of annual flu vaccines using the following made-up “scientific facts” –e.g., “prevents thousands of deaths and hospitalizations” – within a text full of coffee shop food imagery:
“it reduces the severity of influenza infections and prevents thousands of deaths and hospitalizations every year…in fact, the vaccine prevents thousands of deaths every year. Most years, the vaccine cuts your chance of catching the flu in half…
the body is primed for battle with antibodies on standby… Unfortunately, the influenza virus is a ruthless master of disguise..The virus enters a cell and takes over, shutting off the cell’s antiviral response and then using the cell’s machinery to make copies of itself. It’s like bootleggers sneaking booze into a coffee shop, turning off the burglar alarm and using the kitchen to make cocktails in”.
Industry-funded front groups and hired academic-based guns (some of who mask their identity) utilize fearmongering to generate increased uptake of vaccines as their galvanizing call to arms against vaccine skeptics. These “Astroturf” “hit squads” embarked on an assaultive strategy aimed at overwhelming social media and the internet with calibrated defamatory invectives in a concerted effort to drown out the voices of physicians and scientists who dissent from the official imposed “consensus” that has declared all FDA licensed vaccines safe. They derisively dismiss thousands of reports of serious adverse effects following vaccination with the HPV vaccine, arguing that there is no proof of a causal relationship to the vaccine.
And they embark on scaremongering strategies to promote the flu vaccine – even as Cochrane scientists, who reviewed the scientific evidence submitted by the vaccine manufacturer, determined that the flu vaccine lacks evidence of its efficacy. Nevertheless, a scaremongering campaign was initiated by a CDC press release and its message was instantly spread by a plethora of “fake news” outlets:
Children With Neurologic Disorders At High Risk Of Death From Flu ( CDC, 2012); H1N1 Influenza Deaths in Children with Neurological Disorders and Anti-Vaxx Autism Groups Don’t Care (Just the Vax); Children with Neurological Disorders at High Risk of Death from Flu. (LeftBrain/RightBrain); Disability Scoop, History of Vaccines, Autism Science Foundation
The Oxford Dictionary defines skeptic as: “A person inclined to question or doubt accepted opinion.” Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines skepticism as “an attitude of doubt or a disposition to incredulity; the doctrine that true knowledge in a particular area is uncertain; suspended judgment, systematic doubt, or criticism characteristic of skeptics.” An example, Australian Vaccination Skeptics Network (AVSN).
However, groups of vaccine propagandists chose the terms “skeptic” and “science–based” to confer an air of legitimacy to their uncritical, unquestioning – i.e., un-skeptical – support of corporate-influenced government-dictated vaccination policies.[xxv] Source Watch has identified many of these “science-based” “skeptics” as industry front groups that disseminate “fake news” and “fake views” aimed at suppressing information contrary to government policy crafted to boost the interest of the vaccine industry. These front groups and individual bloggers troll the internet and are quick to disparage every negative vaccine research report by independent scientists, declaring such reports: “shoddy science,” “flawed,” “weak,” “poorly designed and conducted,” “too small,” “controversial,” “not replicated,” “refuted by expert authorities,” “junk science.” “should never haven published”.
The safety of vaccines is proclaimed with absolute certainty on the basis of the following faith-based belief, succinctly articulated by John Calfee of the American Enterprise Institute (Junk Science and the Anti-Vaccine Fraud, 2011)
“Vaccines are tested on thousands or tens of thousands of patients, and because they are typically given to healthy persons, dangerous side effects are easy to spot, even when they are quite rare. Vaccines are still probably the most valuable medical tool ever invented, and the failure to use them would be a disaster of epic proportions. Careful examination of huge databases makes clear that when an illness strikes soon after vaccination, it is almost always a coincidence.”
Front groups trash the reputation of any doctor or scientist who raises concerns about vaccine safety issues as “anti-vaxxers”, and denounce professional medical associations, such as, the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) whose views do not comport with state-endorsed (dictated) medicine. Their poisonous rhetoric is aimed at discrediting genuinely skeptical scientists, including neurologists, pharmacists, epidemiologists, immunologists, chemists and microbiologists from reputable academic institutions the world over.[xxvi]
The vaccine protection strategy is intent on quashing dissent by insisting that the safety of vaccines has been well established. Through a series of echo chambers such as, cdc.gov, Voice of America, Unicef, National Geographic, the American Academy of Pediatrics – they boldly declare, without substantiating evidence that: “Globally, vaccination saves two to three million lives per year”.
- They insist that further research into the safety of vaccines should not be undertaken.[xxvii]
From 2000 to 2015, Dr. Thomas Insel, the director of the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) chaired the Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee (IACC). That agency, like most government entities pertaining to autism, is committed to not shaking the boat. Thus, though ostensibly empowered to embark on research into autism, the IACC has carefully avoided funding any autism research that might find evidence belying the government stance absolving vaccines from any risk of autism. In 2009, the IACC led by Dr. Insel voted to rescind previously approved funding for autism research.[xxviii]
“IACC is responsible for developing and updating the Strategic Plan for Autism Research under the mandate of the Combating Autism Act. They decide which studies get funding from the $940 million that was allocated to autism research under the Act. The two vaccine research studies in question totaled $16 million, less than two percent of the available funds. It was decided to reject the previously approved vaccine research studies by a vote of 11 to 7. Five out of six public committee members voted against rejecting the approved studies. The one lone public voice that voted with most of the government representatives was Alison Singer, former Executive Vice President of Autism Speaks”.
Inadvertently perhaps, Dr. Insel acknowledged that the role of government agencies –i.e., CDC and the NIH – who are defendants in the special court adjudicating vaccine injuries, poses a disqualifying conflict of interest. Therefore, he justified rescinding the funds for independent vaccine research. However, that same conflict of interest has not prevented the CDC and NIH from funding numerous epidemiological studies that were designed and purport to exonerate vaccine injuries.
Immediately following that ignoble vote with the government, Alison Singer founded Autism Science Foundation (ASF) with Dr. Paul Offit; Dr. Insel serves on the ASF Board of Directors. In a talk at the Yale Child Study Center in 2010, Singer declared that: “Vaccines are actually green. The only ingredients in vaccines are those that need to be there”.[xxix] Such ludicrous claims by Singer are apparently countenanced by the influential ASF officials who set government vaccination policy – i.e., Paul Offit and Tom Insel. ASF supports only research whose premise is that autism is caused by a strong genetic component and that vaccines do not cause autism. ASF will not fund research that explores cases demonstrating a biologically-plausible involvement of vaccines.[xxx]
Of note, in 2015, Tom Insel left the NIMH after 13 years to join the mega-corporate giant, Google/ Alphabet. In his departing statement he said: “The Google Life Sciences (GLS) team is developing new technologies to transform healthcare… The GLS mission is about creating technology that can help with earlier detection, better prevention, and more effective management of serious health conditions. I am joining the team to explore how this mission can be applied to mental illness.”
Google, the Internet Search Engine Monopoly Joins GSK & Exerts Censorship
In the course of becoming a massive multi-billion dollar corporate juggernaut, Google developed insidious close ties to powerful and repressive state agencies and multi-national corporations.[xxxi] Indeed, in August 2016, The Guardian reported that Google and GSK Form Venture to Develop Bioelectronic Medicines: Verily Life Sciences, a division of Google’s parent company, Alphabet (formerly Google Life Sciences). The BMJ reported that “the joint venture, Galvani Bioelectronics, will focus on research, development and commercialization of bioelectronics medicines” to address chronic conditions.
- We can, therefore, be certain that Google will not undermine the commercially lucrative business of vaccines – which constitutes a major portion of GSK’s investment – by directing searchers toward any research reports that found unfavorable safety issues involving vaccines, such as a link between vaccines and neurological damage resulting in such disorders as, autism.
In 2017, Ben Gomes, Google’s vice president and chief search engineer, announced the rollout of a major new search engine algorithm disingenuously described as, “Our latest quality improvements for search”. The change renders the Google search engine, an engine of censorship. News reports that Google deems to be objectionable –“fake news” or “blatantly misleading” “low quality, false information” — are no longer retrieved by the new Google search engine. The criteria used to determine what information constitutes “truth” and what is deemed “fake news”, is entirely in Google’s discretion. Thus, the Google corporation is the de facto, self-appointed arbiter of what constitutes “truth”.
“The current highly aggressive censorship is implemented by “disappearing” posts of dissenting content, making them invisible to followers and excluded from search results, essentially quarantined in a gulag which Google and YouTube call a “limited state”, to “isolate and contain” targeted users with dissenting opinions. (Digital Tyranny: Google and Facebook’s Censorship Program 21st Century Wire, August 2017.)
The reports that have disappeared following censorship by Google include political news and websites challenge official government and corporate policies and narratives, such as reports about research that validates concerns about vaccine safety. One such article was a debate in the BMJ about whether the childhood vaccination schedule is backed by scientific evidence.[xxxii] The media mostly ignored the change in the Google search engine. It was reported in one short favorable item in The Washington Post, and was extensively reported on the World Socialist Website and 21st Century Wire.
Annual Flu Vaccination Policy is Not Supported By Science: Weak Efficacy, Fake Flu Casualty Numbers
Resistance to government vaccination policy is especially prevalent among the highly educated public.[xxxiii] It is fueled by an increased awareness that evidence about vaccine risks is being withheld or downplayed, and that vaccination policies are being crafted in collusion with an industry noted for corrupt practices and corrupting financial influence on healthcare institutions and the media. Multiple surveys confirm that knowledgeable healthcare professionals are skeptical; only a minority of physicians and nurses chose to be vaccinated with the flu vaccine.[xxxiv]
- Their rejection is grounded in the fact that science does not support vaccination against the flu.
The Cochrane flu vaccine reviews contradict industry-funded studies claims and confirm that “there is evidence of widespread manipulation of conclusions and spurious notoriety of the studies.”(2012) Such honest, publicly disclosed assessments put Dr. Jefferson in the cross-hairs of Dr. David Gorski, an oncologist who is the Managing Editor of ScienceBasedMedicine and also blogs under the pseudonym Orac on his Respectful Insolence blog.
“Tom Jefferson clearly has an agenda about flu vaccines. ..Jefferson is drifting perilously close to crank territory with respect to flu vaccines. Indeed, “methodolatry” is an awesome term to describe his approach. Actually, it’s a great term to describe some of the Cochrane scientists responsible for analyzing the efficacy of mammography screening, as well”. (Science-Based Medicine, 2009)
Dr. Jefferson’s public acknowledgment that valid scientific evidence to support the efficacy of the flu vaccine is lacking, has not changed over all these years – as no valid evidence has been presented to support its efficacy.
A Wave of Vaccine Resistance is Building Around the Globe, So Is Polarization & Politicization
Resistance to government vaccination policy is especially prevalent among the highly educated public.[xxxv] It is fueled by an increased awareness that evidence about vaccine risks is being withheld or downplayed, and that vaccination policies are being crafted in collusion with an industry noted for corrupt practices and corrupting financial influence on healthcare institutions and the media. Multiple surveys confirm that knowledgeable healthcare professionals are skeptical; only a minority of physicians and nurses chose to be vaccinated with the flu vaccine.[xxxvi]
- Their rejection is grounded in the fact that science does not support vaccination against the flu.
- For its part, the Obama administration provided financial reimbursement incentives for healthcare facilities whose staff was fully vaccinated. This incentive (under Obamacare) led some hospital and healthcare facilities in the U.S. to adopt mandatory flu vaccination policies for its employees. Mainstream corporate medical information dissemination outlets such as Medscape (2009) urged everyone to get the flu shot, including: All Children Should Receive Annual Seasonal Flu Vaccines.
- In November 2017, Nurses Against Mandatory Vaccines was founded to protest coercive vaccination policies; their call for civil disobedience went viral.[xxxvii] The nurses refute exaggerated, unfounded claims about the danger of the flu by citing the Vital Statistics Report of CDC:
“The flu vaccine is not an effective way to eradicate a disease that only actually infects 125,000 people each year, and only causes death in approximately 5% of those cases.”
- The media, whose financial indebtedness to corporate advertisers serves as a fearmongering supportive backup in support of mandatory vaccination. For example, the same month as the nurses revolt, the magazine The Atlantic hosted a corporate vaccine promotional event titled Vaccines + Immunity: Examining Modern Medicine in Philadelphia. The event was sponsored by PhRMA. All of the participants were affiliated with one or more corporate vaccine stakeholders.[xxxviii]
- Across the ocean, a brazen capture of the UK public health system by the drug /vaccine industry is currently in full swing through the revolving door: “a brace of recent announcements of important pharmaceutical industry figures taking over parts of UK operations in key aspects of healthcare planning and delivery.”[xxxix] This is but the latest empirical evidence validating public distrust of those who formulate and implement healthcare policies.
Vaccine science and vaccination policy is shackled by a powerful consortium of stakeholders whose financial stake is focused on but one primary goal; that goal is increasing profits by bringing new vaccines to market and ensuring high vaccination rates. This commercial focus has polarized the field to a poisonous level of intolerance and “intellectual terrorism” against scientists who report negative vaccine safety findings.
Daniel Neides, MD, medical director and chief operating officer of the Cleveland Clinic Wellness Institute, has the highest, five-star rating given by his patients, as confirmed by an independent survey (2017). On Friday, January 6, 2017, Dr. Neides wrote a critical column about toxins in vaccines:
“I am tired of all the nonsense we as American citizens are being fed while big business – and the government – continue to ignore the health and well-being of the fine people in this country”.
I took the advice of the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) – the government – and received a flu shot. I chose to receive the preservative free vaccine, thinking I did not want any thimerasol (i.e. mercury) that the “regular” flu vaccine contains. However, what I did not realize is that the preservative-free vaccine contains formaldehyde. WHAT? How can you call it preservative-free, yet still put a preservative in it? And worse yet, formaldehyde is a known carcinogen. Yet, here we are, being lined up like cattle and injected with an unsafe product.”
“we have to wake up out of our trance and stop following bad advice. Does the vaccine burden – as has been debated for years – cause autism? I don’t know and will not debate that here.[what should be discussed] is that newborns without intact immune systems and detoxification systems are being over-burdened with PRESERVATIVES AND ADJUVANTS IN THE VACCINES”. [pdf]
As soon as his column was posted, uproar erupted and Dr. Neides was instantly attacked by a ferocious vaccine protection squad[xl] including likes of Tara Haelle at Forbes who rang alarm bells the next day (7th of January) and accused Dr. Neides of “fully embrac[ing] factually inaccurate anti-vaccine mythology.” She declared his column “a rant” and excoriated Dr. Neides for what she called “indulging in the kind of chemophobia typically seen on anti-science blogs and discredited ‘natural health news’ sites.”
“Right in the middle of flu season, a medical director board-certified in family medicine is using the Cleveland Clinic platform to harmfully spread misinformation about a vaccine that can reduce people’s risk of a life-threatening illness”.
She proceeded to disseminate propaganda –i.e., outlandish false safety claims –claims that manufacturers are prohibited from advertising:
“the flu vaccine has been found sufficiently safe in hundreds of studies. In fact, it’s recommended during pregnancy precisely because it is so safe, reduces the risk of miscarriage and reduces the risk of both mom and baby getting the flu”.
And she bashed the Cleveland Clinic in a tweet: “I wouldn’t trust an ounce of medical advice from the Cleveland Clinic anymore”.
Among the noxious posse of attackers was Dr. David Gorski who used both of his blogosphere websites — Science-Based Medicine and in his Orac guise, Respectful Insolence [xli]— to spew his venom against Dr. Neides and the Cleveland Clinic:
“A social media firestorm erupted over the weekend after Dr. Daniel Neides… posted an article full of antivaccine misinformation. The Cleveland Clinic promptly disavowed it, but shouldn’t have been surprised that one of its “integrative medicine” leaders is antivaccine. If you “integrate” medicine that teaches that “toxins” cause disease and “detoxification” is the cure, antivaccine quackery can’t be far behind, given how much antivaccine ideologues blame “toxins” in vaccines for autism, ADHD, autoimmune disease, and all the other bad things they attribute to vaccines”. (Science-Based Medicine)
Dr. Gorski is probably the most savage of the pack of blogger propagandists who pounce on anyone whose research focuses on inconvenient vaccine safety issues, or anyone who raises doubt about vaccine orthodoxy. The Cleveland Clinic was pummeled by social media; it issued a statement disavowing Dr. Neides views, and removed the offending column following the media “uproar”. By Sunday, Dr. Neides made a public apology (much like doctors in the Soviet Union had been forced to make during Stalin’s reign):
“I apologize and regret publishing a blog that has caused so much concern and confusion for the public and medical community. I fully support vaccinations and my concern was meant to be positive around the safety of them.”
Dr. Gorski’s academic base, Wayne-State has a multi-million dollar partnership agreement with Sanofi-Aventis, one of the largest vaccine manufacturers in the world. Dr. Gorski’s research laboratory at the university’s affiliate is the Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute.[xliii] It focuses on finding new uses for existing drugs – a highly profitable method for manufacturers to extend a drug’s market and patent protection. As indicated on the Wayne State website, Dr. Gorski’s primary research is focused on: “Repurposing riluzole to treat breast cancer, particularly triple negative breast cancer”.
The FDA-approved use of Riluzole (Rilutek) is limited to a very small patient group — amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS, a.k.a. Lou Gehrig disease). Dr. Gorski’s research is focused on expanding the use of the drug whose manufacturer, Sanofi-Aventis, entered into a partnership agreement with his academic institution. Clearly his research has significant financial ramifications for Sanofi, Wayne State, and, Dr. Gorski. His research including the series of clinical trials testing Riluzole, poses an obvious conflict of interest. But Dr. Gorski has failed to reveal that substantial conflict of interest. That conflict of interest showed up when he chastised a blogger for questioning the government reliance on Sanofi-Aventis to develop a swine flu vaccine after the company was fined $100 million in compensation for Medicaid fraud.
Since ALS patients treated with Rihuzole, die, its long-term adverse effects are unknown. The drug is known to cross the blood-brain barrier, inducing brain activity. This prompted several open-label trials of Riluzole for psychiatric behavioral conditions in children, such as obsessive compulsive disorder.[xliv]
A study sponsored by the Karmanos Cancer Institute, listed Dr. Gorski as principal investigator (NCT00903214). Four years after the trial was posted on clinicaltrials.gov it was withdrawn, its funding ended in 2013. [Some observers have speculated that Dr. Gorski’s unfavorable reputation as a doctor influenced patients not to volunteer for his study.]
Gorski, who conceals his financial conflicts of interest,[xlv] unleashes lacerating abusive pejoratives against anyone who questions the safety of vaccine ingredients or the timing of the childhood vaccination schedule. The following examples provide the flavor of Gorski’s ad hominem, vitriolic attacks:
- In 2008, he denounced the American Association of Physician and Surgeons (AAPS) “It’s clear that the AAPS appears to be an organization custom-designed to attract cranks regardless of their political orientation…One area where JPANDS strays far from the medical mainstream is in its explicit stand against mandatory vaccination and its call for a “moratorium” on vaccine “mandates. AAPS has consistently viewed mandatory vaccination as a ‘tool of the state’ and a threat to physician autonomy while minimizing the contribution of mass vaccination to the elimination of various infectious diseases.” Gorski, Science-Based Medicine, 2008 (SBM).
- In 2010, he hurled the following invective: “Someone didn’t nail the coffin shut: Andrew Wakefield returns to the public eye”.
- In 2011, he attacked “Dr. Suzanne Humphries and the International Medical Council on Vaccination: Antivaccine to the core”
- In 2012, he referred to the Age of Autism website run by knowledgeable parents of autistic children as “an antivaccine crank website [that] urges its antivaccine crank readers to write antivaccine crank letters… that wretched hive of scum, antivaccinationism, and autism ‘biomed‘ quackery”.
- In 2012, he accused Nobel Laureate Dr. Montagnier of pursuing non-mainstream, biochemical avenues of autism research. Gorski viciously maligned Dr. Montagnier: “Unfortunately, since winning the Nobel Prize, Montagnier’s been on a downward spiral. It didn’t take long after his Nobel acceptance speech for disturbing signs of crankery and quackery…Worse, of late Montagnier has been turning his talents to the treatment of autistic children. Indeed, he’s run [a] highly unethical study of long-term antibiotics as a treatment for autism. His low point came a month ago, when he actually presented his work at the yearly autism ‘biomed‘ quackfest, Autism One”. (Nobel Laureate Luc Montagnier Hits a New Low: Age of Autism Rallies to Defend Him, Respectful Insolence, 2012)
- In 2015, Gorski attacked a respected, highly accomplished molecular and cellular physiologist, Theresa Deisher, a Stanford University alumni, and the inventor of 23 patents who was first to discover adult cardiac derived stem cells.[xlvi] Gorski accused Dr. Deisher of having “suddenly embraced antivaccine pseudoscience”“apparently based on her embrace of fundamentalist Catholicism. Catholicism appears to be what first led [her] to embrace her pseudoscientific hypothesis about fetal DNA in vaccines and autism, the tragic death of her child less than a month and a half ago is unlikely to do anything but cement in her mind the evils of vaccines made using fetal cell lines”.(Respectful Insolence)
- In December 2016, Gorski called the AAPS “one of the wingnuttiest medical groups…pure antiscience and pseudoscience emanates from the AAPS, particularly through its journal (JPANDS), a veritable cornucopia of ideology-motivated quackery and pseudoscience, including antivaccine pseudoscience… ” (Respectful Insolence)
- In January 2016, he ranted against Dr. Wilyman, whom he called “an antivaccine loon” who was “dangerous”; he trashed her thesis as “pseudoscience”, while acknowledging not having read it: “I can’t bring myself (yet) to go through the entire thesis. It is, after all, 390 pages long, which means I might never find the time to read it all”.
- He accused Dr. Brian Martin (Wilyman’s PhD advisor) who is an expert on the suppression of dissent as of having “a history of being sympathetic to medical cranks.”
- And he accused the University of Wollongong of committing “an academic travesty” for having granted a PhD to Dr. Wilyman. Gorski regards dissenting medical views as unforgivable “crank views” that should be suppressed.
- On December 7, 2017, Gorki’s rant on ScienceBasedMedicine was all-inclusive:
“Christopher Shaw and Lucija Tomljenovic known for their proclivity to publish papers chock full of bad (and fraudulent) science tortured yet more mice in the name of autism pseudoscience…Of course, most antivaccine ‘research’ is basically all bad…Mark and David Geier, Anthony Mawson, Christopher Shaw, Lucija Tomjenovic, Christopher Exley, and Yehuda Shoenfeld, antivaccine crank ‘scientists’ all”.
A currently unfolding tragic story unfolding in the Philippines
A massive school-based vaccination program in the Philippines is a wake-up reminder that some vaccines can precipitate severe, deadly illness rather than prevent it. The case demonstrates the deadly consequences that can follow when public health officials and agencies come under the influence of industry. The possibility of vaccine caused severe immune hypersensitivity has been known to scientists at least since Dr. Charles Richet discovered the phenomenon of anaphylaxis for which he won the Nobel Prize in 1913. When Dr. Richet and Paul Portier tried to immunize dogs with actinia extracts, even a minuscule amount (0.08 g) of the toxin killed dogs weighing 31kg.with 25 minutes.[xlvii]
In his speech at the Nobel ceremony, Dr. Richet stated:
“The discovery of anaphylaxis is not at all the result of thinking, but of simple observation, almost accidental. It had no other merit than that of not refusing to see the facts which presented themselves before me completely evident. These two factors – (a) increased sensitivity to a poison after previous injection of the same poison and (b) an incubation period necessary for this state of increased sensitivity to develop – constitute the two essential and sufficient conditions for anaphylaxis.”
In the case of vaccines, however, the findings of scientists who “see the facts which present themselves” are anathema, if those facts (evidence) deviate from vaccine orthodoxy which maintains that: “vaccines save lives; vaccines are safe and effective”.
- Expert scientists who have studied dengue for decades, and who took seriously Dr. Richet’s early findings, warned Sanofi against mass vaccination, citing risks and complications arising from the unpredictable immune response to four different dengue viruses. Indeed, the risk of a severe immune response to the dengue vaccine was documented in Sanofi’s own Dangvaxia clinical trials (2011- 2014). Those at greatest risk of harm during the trials were young children. Despite this red flag, Sanofi proceeded to rollout the vaccine in the Philippines and Brazil. Philippine government officials provided the cash, and the former Secretary of Health initiated a massive, school-based Dangvaxia vaccination campaign.
- Of the 830,000 Philippine children vaccinated, those who had never been infected with dengue were put at greatest risk of severe, potentially fatal illness for the next five years. [Read Sanofi Dengue Vaccine: Dengvaxia Poses Serious Risk for Children]
Children demonstrate in Manila Re: Dengvaxia, 2017
- Forensic experts report that a “pattern” emerged showing severe dengue developed in some vaccinated children within six months of vaccination with rapid progression of illness among vaccinated children who died within less than 24 hours of illness:
- “An 11-year-old child died having suffered massive bleeding in his brain, lungs, heart, kidneys, and liver. He also had enlarged kidneys and spleen.” (Manila Inquirer, January 10, 2018)
Parents demonstrate alleging their children died from Dengvaxia 2017
The Public Attorney’s Office said more families are willing to come forward to speak up on the ill effects of the vaccine. According to the Philippine Inquirer (May 2018), a letter dated March 27, 2016 was sent to the then Health Secretary before the start of the government’s national anti-dengue vaccination program. The letter expressed the concern of academics, scientists, clinicians, and concerned citizens about “systemic side effects” of Dengvaxia, especially the risk for children. [This is a developing story.]
Australia’s Radical Punitive Approach
The International Journal for Crime, Justice and Social Democracy is a source for detailed information about government administrative regulatory agencies in Australia and New Zealand. The journal documents how government administrative agencies have been utterly corrupted by the intersection of industry.
The term “captured administrative state” is used by critics who view the close cozy relations between industry and administrative regulatory agencies – e.g., pharma industry and (local versions of ) the FDA and CDC – as undermining the public interest in favor of industry’s interest. In captured states positions of authority are given to friends of industry, and such relationships result in putting the interests of industry above the public interest by weakening regulations and their enforcement.
In 2015, Australia passed the Social Services Legislation Amendment (“No Jab, No Pay”), requiring children under the age of 7 to be fully vaccinated, or forfeit their tax benefit payments. In January 2016, the Australian Immunisation Register (AIR) requirements were expanded to include young adults up to age 20. Australia has embarked on a radical policy of compulsory vaccination for everyone. Australians are being denied their human right to consent or to refuse an unwanted, government dictated medical intervention.
Punitive measures are also being applied against doctors who supported parents who refused to vaccinate their children.[xlviii] ABC (Australia) quoted the Health Minister Greg Hunt:
“If there are other doctors out there preaching anti-vaccination positions, then we will find them. If it is accurate that there are registered doctors who are advocating an anti-vaccination position, then they will have the full force of the authorities come down on them.”[xlix]
[i] Dr. Marcia Angell, former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine; Dr. Jerome Kassirer, former editor of the NEJM, Dr. Richard Smith, former editor of the British Medical Journal (BMJ) Dr. Richard Horton, editor of the Lancet; Dr. Ioannidis.
[ii] Dissenting doctors and scientists include Dr. Suzanne Humphries, Dr. Dianne Harper, Dr. Sin Hang Lee, Dr. Anthony Mawson, Dr. Yehuda Shoenfeld, Dr. Christopher Exley, Dr. Jacob Puliyel, Dr. Mark Geier, Dr. Brian Hooker, Dr. Jacob Puliyel, Dr. Christopher Shaw, Dr. Lucijla Tomljenovic, Dr. Sherri Tenpenny…
[vi] The quote is from Rick Edelman’s blog, “A True Public Servant” posted January 13, 2009, but is no longer retrievable. It is cited by attorney Robert Krakow in his essay Fake News, Fuzzy science and the Storytelling in the Autism/Vaccine Debate
[vii] Vaccine Hesitancy: In Search of the Risk Communication Comfort Zone, Joshua Greenberg, Eve Dubé, Michelle Driedger, PLoS, 2017; How Can We Use the ‘Science of Stories’ to Produce Persuasive Scientific Stories? Michael Jones and Deserai Anderson Crow, Nature, 2017; Straight Talk About Vaccination, Matthew Daley and Jason Glanz [Kaiser Permanente], 2017
[viii] Danish Thimerosal-Autism Study in Pediatrics: Misleading and Uninformative on Autism-Mercury Link by Mark Blaxill, Director, Safe Minds, 2003’; An Investigation Of The Association Between MMR Vaccination And Autism In Denmark, GS Goldman, PhD and FE Yazbak, MD, Journal of the Association of Physicians & Surgeons, 2004
[ix] L’Affaire Wakefield, OpCit, Ref. 8
[x] Poul Thorsen Fugitive Researcher, Beth Clay for The World Mercury Project, Update August 2017; World Mercury Project: Criminal Conduct –Poul Thorsen; Exhibits 12-23: Thorsen’s Research with the CDC/Lack of IRB Approvals; Exhibits 24-34: Internal CDC E-mails/The Fraud is Discovered/Thorsen Resigns; Exhibit – Evidence of Misconduct in Danish-CDC Collaboration
[xiv] The Dangers of the Antivaccine Movement, Meredith Melnick, Time , 2011
[xv] Alice Dreger is an historian of medicine and science, a bioethicist and sex researcher, and a patient advocate. She was employed as a clinical medical humanities and bioethics professor at Northwestern University until she resigned (Aug 25, 2015) alleging academic censorship. Northwestern University Bioethics Professor Resigns Over Censorship, Chicago Tribune, 2015.
[xvi] Of note, Paddy Rowlinson, an Australian professor of international criminology, human and development studies at Western Sydney University, also emphasizes that the neoliberal regime within which ‘pharmaindustry’ networks and alliances are nurtured, “facilitates draconian modes of governance through which criticism of mandated vaccination is repressed and silenced, thus protecting the activities of the state and pharmaceutical industry from independent scrutiny.” Immunity and Impunity: Corruption in the State Pharma Nexus, International Journal for Crime, Justice and Social Democracy, 2017
[xvii] How Napoleon Chagnon Became Our Most Controversial Anthropologist, Emily Eakinin The New York Times, 2013
[xviii] Read insightful reviews of Dreger’s book: Crusading for Evidence-Based Actions, Henry Bauer (Professor Emeritus of Chemistry & Science and Dean Emeritus of Arts & Sciences, Virginia Polytechnic Institute) Journal of Scientific Exploration, 2015; Why Some of the Worst Attacks on Social Science Have Come From Liberals, Jesse Singal, New York Magazine, 2015
[xix] Dissenting doctors and scientists include Dr. Suzanne Humphries, Dr. Dianne Harper, Dr. Sin Hang Lee, Dr. Anthony Mawson, Dr. Yehuda Shoenfeld, Dr. Christopher Exley, Dr. Jacob Puliyel, Dr. Mark Geier, Dr. Brian Hooker, Dr. Jacob Puliyel, Dr. Christopher Shaw, Dr. Lucijla Tomljenovic, Dr. Sherri Tenpenny…
[xxi] Introduction: The New Face of Censorship: Governments and Non-State Actors Find Innovative Ways to Suppress the Media, Joel Simon, Committee to Protect Journalists, 2017
[xxii] Australia’s labor shadow minister for communication, Michelle Rowland, substantiated her assertion with documented evidence: The Australian section of the University of Oxford’s Reuters Institute Digital News Report 2016, which covers 26 countries, said that: “Australia has a high concentration of traditional media ownership dominated by News Corporation and Fairfax Media who together own the majority of national and capital city newspapers”. The Conversation, 2016.
[xxiv] Severe Somatoform And Dysautonomic Syndromes After HPV Vaccination: Case Series And Review Of Literature, Palmieri B, Poddighe D, Vadala M, Laurino C, Carnovale C, Clementi E. Immunological Research, 2016
[xxv] Autism Science Foundation, Immunization Action Coalition, American Enterprise Institute (retains 7 scholars issuing pro-industry papers on health policy), American Council on Science and Health (ACSH: Paul Offit is a trustee), Science Based Medicine/Institute of Science in Medicine (Steve Novella, David Gorski, Paul Offit, Rachel Dunlop, et al), HealthNewsReview, Science Media Centre (SMC, UK), Sense about Science (UK), LeftBrainRightBrain (UK), Bad Science (Ben Goldacre, UK), Research Investments in Global Health (ResIn (funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. ResIn is the base of Michael Head, a Southampton University research fellow, and Magdalen Wind Mozley), Task Force for Global Health (is another organization funded by Gates Foundation, and it serves as the administrative umbrella for Voices for Vaccines and Moms Who Vax (founded by Karen Ernst and Ashley Shelby. Dorit Reiss is a member of the board of both VfV and MWV), RedWine and AppleSauce (Tara Hawlle), ScienceBasedMedicine (Dr. David Gorski, Managing Editor who also blogs under the pseudonyms, Respectful Insolence and Orac), Skeptical Raptor (Michael Simpson, a marketer/ salesman of medical products.) Prof. Dorit Reiss is a frequent contributor to Skeptical Raptor and RedWine and AppleSauce. The Vaccine Confidence Project (Funded by the Gates Foundation & the WHO. Its Director is Dr. Heidi Larson who serves on Merck’s Vaccine Strategic Advisory Board)
Australian Skeptics, Friends of Science in Medicine (FSM), Stop the Australian Vaccine Network (SAVN), John Cunningham and David Hawkes), Brian Deer, Seth Mnookin, Harpocrates Speaks, Snopes (Alex Kasprak), Skepticblog, Skeptics.com, ScienceBlogs (owned by National Geogrphic), NeuroSkeptic, LizDitz, Crooksand Liars, Wired, The Science Post, ThePoxblog, Minitab blog, Just the Vax (“Science-Based Vaccine Information from Catherina and Science Mom”)… See, annotated list of numerous so-called skeptics organizations by The Association for Skeptical Investigation, Skeptical about Skeptics
[xxvi] Among the targeted scientists: Dr. Christopher Shaw, Dr. Lucijla Tomljenovic, Dr. Suzanne Humphries, Dr. Dianne Harper, Dr. Sin Hang Lee, Dr. Anthony Mawson, Dr. Yehuda Shoenfeld, Dr. Christopher Exley, Dr. Jacob Puliyel, Dr. Mark Geier, Dr. Brian Hooker, Dr. Jacob Puliyel, Dr. Sherri Tenpenny… The institutions they are affiliated include: Boston Children’s Hospital, Yale University Child Center, Horizon Molecular Medicine at Georgia State University, University of British Columbia, Columbia University, NYS University at Stony Brook Medical Center, University of Northern Iowa, University of Michigan, Pennsylvania State University, Wake Forrest University, University of Arkansas Medical Sciences, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Utah State University, Jackson State University of Mississippi, University of Seattle Washington, Keele University (UK), University Hospital Uppsula (Sweden), Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel-Aviv University, Israel, National Council of Research , Institute for Science and Technology (Italy), Kinki University (Japan), Swinburne University of Technology (Australia), International teams of researchers from Israel, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, Institute of Psychiatry and Neurology (Poland), Department of Child Health Care, Children’s Hospital of Fudan University (China), Al Azhar University of Cairo (Egypt), and many more.
[xxvii] An example is the infamous editorial penned by BMJ’s editor-in-chief Dr. Fiona Godlee who declared – without a shred of evidence: “Clear evidence of falsification should now close the door on this damaging vaccine scare.” See, L’Affaire Wakefield: Shades of Dreyfus
[xxix] Autism Science Foundation’s Alison Singer: In Her Own Words, JB Handley, Age of Autism, 2010
[xxxi] Eric Schmidt — a billionaire whom Forbes ranked as 119th richest person in the world, with an estimated wealth of $11 billion — is the Executive Chairman of Google’s parent company, Alphabet Inc. Schmidt is an insider of the secretive Bilderberg Group whose annual meeting attendees are heads of Google, AT&T, Bayer, Airbus, Deutsche Bank, Ryanir, Fiat Chrysler, the Frankfurt Stock Exchange – all of who promote the globalist agenda. (Read: Bilderberg: The World’s Most Secretive Conference is as Out of Touch as Ever, Charlie Skelton, The Guardian, June 2017) Schmidt is a member of the Trilateral Commission and the International Advisory Board at the Blavatnick School of Government, Oxford University. In 2013, Google was accused of being “calculated and unethical” over its use of artificial distinctions to avoid paying billions of pounds in Corporation tax owed by its UK operations. Schmidt stated that he was “very proud of” tax avoidance, calling it “capitalism”. [Wikipedia]
[xxxii] Is the Timing of Recommended Childhood Vaccines Evidence-Based? BMJ, 2016. Of note, a Google search failed to retrieve this article; instead, Google retrieved an article by David Gorski in which he lambasted Andrew Wakefield (always dredging up the bogeyman) and accused Tom Jefferson of “methodolatry leading to bad arguments”
[xxxiii] Values and Vaccine Refusal: Hard Questions in Ethics, Epistemology, and Health Care, Mark Navin, 2016
[xxxiv] “in adults between the ages of 18 and 64 years of age, including those with at least one risk factor for complications, the rates have shown little improvement from a baseline rate in 1998 (32% in 2007 vs. 26% in 1998) as reported by Healthy People 2010; these rates are well below the targeted goal of 90% of the entire population (USDHHS, 2001). Only 42% of HCWs received the vaccine during the 2006-2007 flu season (CDC). Influenza Vaccination in Healthcare Workers: Should it be Mandatory? Paula Sullivan, Online Journal of Issues in Nursing, 2010; “In the early phase of 2009, 77% of doctors and 60% of nurses chose to be vaccinated with the H1NI1 flu vaccine; by summer’s end, only 58% of doctors and 46% of nurses chose to be vaccinated. And as of January 2010, only 37% of U.S. healthcare workers were vaccinated.” Attitudes toward and Uptake of H1N1 Vaccine among Health Care Workers during the 2009 H1N1 Pandemic, Joan M. Henriksen Hellyer, Aaron S. DeVries, Sarah M. Jenkins, Kandace A. Lackore, Katherine M. James , Jeanette Y. Ziegenfuss, Gregory A. Poland, Jon C. Tilburt, PLoS One, 2011; In Australia the percentage was even smaller: in a poll of 1,079 hospital healthcare workers found that only 22% chose to be vaccinated against the flu. The lowest vaccination rate was among the medical staff (29%) followed by the nursing staff (35%).[xxxiv] [The flu vaccination rate in Hong Kong (13%), Singapore (36.2%), France (36.5%), the UK (42%) Attitudes Amongst Australian Hospital Healthcare Workers Towards Seasonal Influenza and Vaccination, Holly Seale, Julie Leask, C. Raina MacIntyre, Influenza and Other Respiratory Viruses, 2009
[xxxv] Values and Vaccine Refusal: Hard Questions in Ethics, Epistemology, and Health Care, Mark Navin, 2016
[xxxvi] “in adults between the ages of 18 and 64 years of age, including those with at least one risk factor for complications, the rates have shown little improvement from a baseline rate in 1998 (32% in 2007 vs. 26% in 1998) as reported by Healthy People 2010; these rates are well below the targeted goal of 90% of the entire population (USDHHS, 2001). Only 42% of HCWs received the vaccine during the 2006-2007 flu season (CDC). Influenza Vaccination in Healthcare Workers: Should it be Mandatory? Paula Sullivan, Online Journal of Issues in Nursing, 2010; “In the early phase of 2009, 77% of doctors and 60% of nurses chose to be vaccinated with the H1NI1 flu vaccine; by summer’s end, only 58% of doctors and 46% of nurses chose to be vaccinated. And as of January 2010, only 37% of U.S. healthcare workers were vaccinated.” Attitudes toward and Uptake of H1N1 Vaccine among Health Care Workers during the 2009 H1N1 Pandemic, Joan M. Henriksen Hellyer, Aaron S. DeVries, Sarah M. Jenkins, Kandace A. Lackore, Katherine M. James , Jeanette Y. Ziegenfuss, Gregory A. Poland, Jon C. Tilburt, PLoS One, 2011; In Australia the percentage was even smaller: in a poll of 1,079 hospital healthcare workers found that only 22% chose to be vaccinated against the flu. The lowest vaccination rate was among the medical staff (29%) followed by the nursing staff (35%).[xxxvi] [The flu vaccination rate in Hong Kong (13%), Singapore (36.2%), France (36.5%), the UK (42%) Attitudes Amongst Australian Hospital Healthcare Workers Towards Seasonal Influenza and Vaccination, Holly Seale, Julie Leask, C. Raina MacIntyre, Influenza and Other Respiratory Viruses, 2009
[xxxvii] Wave Of Vaccine Resistance Building Around The Globe As Call For Civil Disobedience Goes Viral Among Health Care Workers, by Lance D Johnson, VaccineInjuryNews, Nov. 30, 2017
[xxxviii] This telecast was a high pitch corporate promotional event focused on “Advancing the New Era of Vaccines Produced by our underwriter PhRMA”, and “The Case for Global Public Health” was the CEO of the Bill & Melinda Gates Medical Research Institute. In addition to Dr. Offit, the speakers represented Merck Global Vaccines, CDC, Pfizer, Sabin Vaccine Institute, The Human Vaccines Project, Wistar Institute, and others. Vaccines + Immunity: Examining Modern Medicine, The Atlantic, Nov. 9, 2017
[xxxix] Tom Jefferson: The UK Turns to Witty, Vallance, and Van Tam for Leadership: Revolving Doors? BMJ, Dec. 2017
[xl] “Why do hospitals that espouse evidence-based medical care operate alternative medicine institutes that offer treatments with little foundation in science?’ Anti-Vaccine Rant Exposes Conflict Over Hospitals’ Embrace of Alternative Medicine, Casey Ross and Eric Boodman, STAT News, 2017
[xli] “The fallout from the social media firestorm from the antivaccine rant [sic] has abated but far from faded away. The offending physician, Dr. Daniel Neides, was forced to issue an apology, which was one of the least convincing apologies I’ve ever seen. The Cleveland Clinic issued a statement announcing its commitment to vaccines and that Dr. Niedes would suffer some as yet undetermined “disciplinary action.” A Cleveland Clinic Doctor’s Antivaccine Rant: Facilitated by a Culture of Pseudoscience… Orac (David Gorski) Respectful Insolence, 2017
[xlii] “Why is the column staying on the site even though the Clinic has disavowed it and Neides apologized for it?
This column has become the topic of a widespread conversation. At cleveland.com, we strive to be the center of conversation, so we are loath to remove something that has become central to a debate.” There were 527 comments published, most were supportive of Dr. Neides. See, Cleveland Clinic Doctor’s Anti-Vaccine Column: Q&A Explainer, Chris Quinn, President and Editor, Cleveland.com
[xliii] The Karmanos Cancer Institute was one of the cancer research centers at which Dr. Farid Fata, the most notorious criminal medical doctor, amassed a fortune by misdiagnosing patients and subjecting them to massive toxic “cancer treatments” that caused irreversible harm. His criminal conduct continued for almost a decade until a whistleblower rang the alarm. “Farid Fata, Doctor Who Gave Chemo to Healthy Patients, Faces Sentencing, Anna Schechter, Kathryn Nathanson, Tracy Connor, NBC News, 2015; “A Michigan doctor who misdiagnosed patients with cancer and then bombarded them with unnecessary treatments will have to face his victims — who lost their health, savings and trust” “Massive cancer fraudster and criminal Dr. Farid Fata once presided over the clinic at Karmonos (Crittenton) Cancer Center in Michigan… whose practice stretched through seven different cities and served over 15,000 patients in about 9 years, since 2005, was sentenced to 45 years in prison for healthcare fraud, money laundering and conspiracy to pay and receive kickbacks.” TruthWiki; Whistle-Blower: How Doctor Uncovered Nightmare, Detroit News, 2015
[xliv] Review of the Use of the Glutamate Antagonist Riluzole in Psychiatric Disorders and a Description of Recent Use in Childhood Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder, Paul Grant, Jane Song, Susan Swedo, Journal of Child & Adolescent Psychopharmacology, 2010
[xlv] David Gorski’s Financial Pharma Ties: What He Didn’t Tell You, Jake Crosby, Age of Autism, 2010; Pro-vaccine shill Dr. David Gorski, linked to cancer Natural News, 2016
[xlvi] Dr. Deisher has held positions as principal scientist in commercial biotechnology for more than 20 years. She is President and CEO of AVM Biotech and President of sound Choice Pharmaceutical Institute, and has testified about the use of aborted fetal cell lines for vaccine production which she attributed to the autism epidemic. See Curriculum vita
[xlix] The Australian Health Minister’s announcement reported by ABC Australia, August 2017.eerily echoes Merck’s intimidation tactic which included a “hit list” of doctors who criticized Vioxx: “We may need to seek them out and destroy them where they live…”