What the Anti-Vax Movefment Doesn't Tell You About Measles
http://m.thenation.com/article/198609-what-anti-vax-movement-doesnt-tell-you-about-measles
Annie Sparrow on February 19, 2015 - 6:08PM ET
Mennonite girls gather at the health and safety clinic in Ohio (AP/Tom E. Puskar)
In the previous 2 sections, this article introduced basic information on The Nation itself and on those concerned about vaccines, and began an analysis of The Nation article by responding to its assertions by presenting other material through links to immunology and epidemiology studies and to vaccine history.
Through out there is an effort not to guide your thinking by using emotion or sarcasm but to offer as many quality links as possible, to encourage you to learn as much as possible yourself and to research things for yourself. This involves your life, not just the lives of infants and school childrren, because the proposed mandates will include you and everyone you know. The Nation article provides no references at all, so there is an attempt to fill in many blanks here by bringing The Nation readers a much broader view of vaccines and of the global controversy surrounding them, than you may have had.
We pick up where we left off:
Yes, more and more parents distrust the MMR having learned out it, and some distrust other vaccines as well.
TN: That misguided movement began with the unconscionable malpractice of Andrew Wakefield.
Parents - what The Nation article would call "that misguided movement" - say they came to Wakefield, not he to them. He was a doctor who had been entirely uninvolved in autism or vaccines before they asked his help - about their children's gut problems. They say they went to him because he was a well-respected gastroenterologist.
But let those parents speak for themselves. Progressives can do their own comparison between wht is said by them and by The Nation.
This parent whose children were part of Wakefield's study addresses accusations against Wakefield that have been made since the beginning by corporate media. Since they are the same accusations being made by The Nation article, she is responding in a sense to the article here, so progressives have an opportunity to learn more, including from her direct experience.
Dr Andrew Wakefield, The Lancet Study and My Two Boys – Isabella Thomas
http://healthimpactnews.com/2013/parent-of-two-children-in-dr-andrew-wakefield-lancet-study-speaks-out/
from missecoglam.com
I, as a parent of two children in the Lancet study, have had to speak out about the vicious attacks on Dr. Andrew Wakefield by his own government, the US government and the media blaming him for the measles outbreak in Wales.
The Lancet study was not paid for by the Legal Services Commission and our children were referred to the Royal Free Hospital because they were very sick and would still have had investigations done even if they were not part of the Lancet research as many more children have done after the Lancet study by other consultants at the Royal Free and other hospitals in London.
Dr. Andrew Wakefield listened to the concerns of many parents about their sick children suffering with bowel conditions and a form of Autism, a bowel condition and brain damage that was ignored by other professionals. These parents were demonstrably ‘black listed’ for saying their children became ill after the MMR vaccine.
Parents were speaking about this situation years before Dr. Wakefield came on the scene and our government also knew about these concerns years before the Lancet study yet they did nothing to investigate, leaving hundreds of other children at risk of side effects. Our government did not listen to parents but accused them of making the symptoms up and threatening to take their children away if they did not stop making a connection with MMR vaccine. As a result, these children and young adults live in a great deal of pain to this day (one doctor saying to my son ‘we believe you believe you are in pain’).
There is much more I could say about the experience of my family and others but I want to make it clear that the children’s claims in relation to MMR were supported by many other experts in several disciplines all of whom provided reports for the court. I attach a list of them. These experts would all have given evidence at the Royal Courts of Justice on behalf of hundreds of children we claim were damaged by the MMR vaccine had the cases been allowed to continue. In addition the solicitors representing the claimants were in touch with and drawing on the expertise from many more than these, but many did not want to be formal experts. I don’t know how much the experts listed were paid, but they were all paid fees just as Dr. Wakefield was in the normal way that experts are paid in litigation cases (and probably much less than the defendants’ experts were paid!).
MMR Claimant Experts (who produced reports that were served)
Professor M B Abou- Donia
professor of Pharmacology and Cancer Biology and a professor of Neurobiology Duke University medical centre
Pharmacology and neurobiology
Dr Kenneth Aitken
K.Aitken Consultancy, Independent Consultant
Child Clinical Neuropsychologist,
Professor William Banks Professor in the Department of Pharmacology & Physiology, both departments at Saint Louis University School of Medicine
Pharmacology and Physiology
Dr. Edward Bilsky Associate Professor of Pharmacology University of New England College of Medicine
Pharmacology
James Jeffrey Bradstreet, MD, Fellow, AAFP
International Child Development Resource Center Adjunct Professor of Neurosciences Department of Psychology Stetson University Celebration, Florida
Child development
And many more ....
http://healthimpactnews.com/2013/parent-of-two-children-in-dr-andrew-wakefield-lancet-study-speaks-out/#sthash.6IvHooEp.g3On6Bey.dpuf
TN: A doctor who has since lost his license, he and his coauthors of a 1998 article in The Lancet made up a syndrome consisting of diarrhea and developmental disorder ("regressive autism") that he tried to link to the MMR vaccine for the sole purpose of financial gain. He was not at the time a practicing doctor, and had no expertise with autism, but he manipulated parental fears and an editor's penchant for controversial papers to secure publication in The Lancet, a respected medical journal. Extraordinarily, despite his financial conflict of interest, despite having fabricated the syndrome and falsified the data to "fit" his criteria, his paper passed peer review.
The Nation author's attack on Wakefield starts with an issue of timing - did Wakefield start a movement or was he approached by people who were seeking help for their autistic kids (see letter above). Were they an already existing "movement" of parents of autistic children concerned about vaccines?
The Nation's accusations continue. The reader could get mired in a "He did it" versus "No, he didn't" situation, so The Nation readers are encouraged to consider themselves an open source investigation into this since the mandating of a corporate product - vaccines - that can injure and kill people, including progressives and members of their own families - is on the table.
Needless to say, with the The Nation article and the mother's letter and the video of Wakefield, The Nation's readers are faced with two entirely conflicting reports of what happened. So it might be even more useful to take a step back from the fray and emotion, and look at who the players are and what is at stake, what is occurring structurally, and apply your political senses..
On one side, you have Andrew Wakefield, until the attack on him, a highly respected UK gastro-enterologist (which was why mothers went to him about their autistic children's gut issues). Everything he wrote on the association between autism and bowel issues has been supported in multiple other papers. He did not oppose vaccination but was concerned about the MMR (measles, mumps, rubella together) and suggested that parents use the single measles vaccine instead until the MMR could be researched further. He lost his job and license and left the UK and moved to the US where he began doing research, applying the CDC vaccine schedule, starting with infant monkeys and following them through as they got older . He filed libel suit against those who were attacking him. What it contains as evidence and where it is now in the courts is something others can research for themselves. He is likely getting donations from families for his monkey research with vaccines. Whether either of those is unethical profit seeking is up the the readers here to decide for themselves..
On the other side, there are people on the boards of or heavily invested in two of the largest vaccine corporations in the world, GSK and Merck - which both make the MMR vaccine. These people own global media empires - including Fox News, the WSJ, Reuters, News of the World and more - are partners with the Rockefellers, were involved in taking private corporate control over the Human Genome Project, and have influence over the Lancet which pulled Wakefield's article . For more read Murdoch and Vaccines
http://salem-news.com/articles/july172011/murdoch-vaccines-wn.php
Here is a snapshot of just some of those involved who would be familiar to progressive readers of The Nation readers: Rupert and James Murdoch, David Rockefeller, George Soros, the CEO of Reuters, Goldman Sachs, and more - they're all close partners with a heavy stake in recombinant DNA (GMO) vaccines.
This little chart shows the vaccine industry on one side and Wakefield on the other and the connection between those behind the inquiry and behind the Lancet. For progressives it might give a fuller idea of the forces at play around the vaccines. Wakefield's single study (confirmed by many other peer reviewed studies) stepped on some "important" toes. They certainly tried to crush him using their global media.
From Adventures in Autism: Anatomy of a Witch Hunt
http://adventuresinautism.blogspot.com/2010/02/anatomy-of-witch-hunt.html
Wakefield being attacked here by The Nation seems very odd, since The Nation should obviously - based on progressive politics - be exposing the corporate interests and especially Murdoch's involvement, rather than attacking an individual and bizarrely claiming he alone is responsible for an grassroots movement. This becomes an even odder accusation since that amorphous "movement" of parents of vaccine-injured children existed long before a few UK mothers came to Wakefield for help.
But Progressives have been so flooded by so many media articles excoriating Wakefiend, including from the NY Times, and now again here, that they may be triggered just by Wakefield's name, as though he were the personification of evil and is some great danger, some charlatan and scam artist.
Somehow Wakefield went from a respected MD to all that is unethical - medically, academically, financially - based on his one paper. Though progressives see Murdoch as dangerous politically and abhor Fox News he owns, when they hear about a individual doctor named Wakefield being attacked by Murdoch's media and almost all the rest of western media, and all at the same time, it's strange they do not ask whether something corporate is afoot or notice that "progressive media" has not only not weighing in on behalf of ordinary people whose children have been vaccine-injured (and which there is evidence since the government's vaccine compensation program has ordered payment to parents for their children's autism caused by vaccines), but progressive media has done no research whatever.
Progressive media has not investigated vaccines
Why has progressive media not exposed the immense financial interests at stake or the tremendous corruption of the pharmaceutical/vaccine industry? Instead, as in this Nation article, parents seeking help are set apart as part of a "misguided movement" and the doctor who did a paper asking questions about one vaccine, is roundly demonized.
In this way, progressives have ended up knowing nothing real about Wakefield, about vaccines, about immunology, about the vaccine experiments at Auschwitz by the pharmaceutical industry that put Hitler into office, about the history of the Rockefeller control over of all of medicine - medical schools, research institutes, medical journals, the WHO, the CDC, etc.. But progressives have learned a great deal that isn't true by it being trumpeted over and over and over again by mainstream media and echoed by "progressive" media."
Corruption of the pharmaceutical/vaccine industry
The corruption of the pharmaceutical industry is so rampant, warnings have gone out from everywhere - from the WHO, from Harvard, from insiders, from Croatia, from China, from a Cancer site reporting on work out of UC San Diego, from Forbes, etc. These are but a few examples.
Why hasn't Amy Goodman covered any of this? Why is she not reporting on the outrage over vaccine mandates in NY, occurring right under her nose? Could it be because she is funded by Soros who is invested in vaccines?
Progressive media did not cover the food safety bills, covertly written by Monsanto
The same thing occurred around the food safety bills, which put the entire food supply under corporate control, Monsanto control.
The Nation and progressive media provided no investigations or education to its readers of the corrupt history of "food safety" in the US, including what Bill Clinton did to food safety, both in Arkansas and then as president, nationally and globally, or that Hillary Clinton was supported by Monsanto and pushed for the corporate centralization of the food supply. Progressives relying on the The Nation didn't know the bills were written by Monsanto's VP, Michael Taylor.
The Nation playing on negative emotions, encouraged its progressive readers to go against their own interests and support Monsanto's take over of all food in the US
Instead, The Nation encouraged its readers to support the final bill by using antipathy for conservatives, suggesting anything the GOP opposes must be good":
What Makes President Obama Think He Can Work With GOP Leaders Who Are Opposed Even to Food Safety?
"Even" food safety. The terrible and even stupid GOP are so bad, they "even" oppose safe food. That is a message for progressives to support "food safety" - though they were given none of the details in the bills or of the Democratic Party's involvement in making food considerably more unsafe on behalf of corporate interests. The message for The Nation readers is to push Obama to get "food safety" passed.
What Makes President Obama Think He Can Work With GOP Leaders Who Are Opposed Even to Food Safety?
What the Anti-Vax Movement Doesn't Tell You About Measles
The 2009 Food 'Safety' Bills Harmonize Agribusiness Practices in Service of Corporate Global Governance
Food “Safety” Reform and the Covert Continuation of the Enclosure Movement
What does food safety have to do with Wakefield and vaccines? Actually, quite a bit.
"If you examine NSAC’s membership list, you’ll find that among its participating members is the Wallace Center at Winrock International.[63] Winrock International was founded by Winthrop Rockefeller and counts in the long list of its funding partners numerous foundations, government agencies, international agencies, private sector groups and more, all of whom are aligned with vested interests that want international standards harmonized in order to eliminate barriers to international trade. Winrock International receives financial support from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, the Rockefeller Foundation, the DOE, USAID, the US Department of State, the USDA, the World Bank, the FAO, SYSCO and the Tides Foundation.[64] Winrock International also has long-standing ties with Monsanto, which has benefited from Winrock’s help in introducing its products to farmers in developing nations around the world. It’s hard to image that any organization advocating for the grassroots could be in partnership with a group funded by the likes of these powerful vested interests and not be subject to their influence or control.
What does this have to do with Wakefield and vaccines?
Wakefield is the media boogie man. And The Nation's is using him in that way as well so progressives will emotionally reject him and whatever he has to say, so they will automatically and intensely reject hims, someone concerned about vaccines, and thus progressives will reject all concern about vaccines.
Why Wakefield?
From Age of Autism http://www.ageofautism.com/dr-andrew-wakefield/
"All the present hullaballoo is not really about what Wakefield did. It is simply a ploy by a weak government and even weaker mainstream media to distract from the ever growing problem of vaccine damage and the expectation that the “CDC Whistleblower” William Thompson will ultimately give evidence before Congress that the CDC have known all along that MMR can cause autism (which is what Wakefield feared in 1998).
Others believe there is a massive attack on Wakefield because of the monkey study he has been working on since he left the UK a few years ago.
From Andrew Wakefield, Scientific Censorship, and Fourteen Monkeys
http://www.naturalnews.com/028109_Andrew_Wakefield_Jenny_McCarthy.html#ixzz3Syktj8Dj
"The first phase of this monkey study was published three months ago in the prestigious medical journal Neurotoxicology, and focused on the first two weeks of life when the vaccinated monkeys received a single vaccine for Hepatitis B, mimicking the U.S. vaccine schedule. The results, which you can read for yourself here (http://fourteenstudies.org/pdf/primates_hep_...), were disturbing. Vaccinated monkeys, unlike their unvaccinated peers, suffered the loss of many reflexes that are critical for survival.
Dr. Wakefield and his scientific colleagues are on the brink of publishing their entire study, which followed the monkeys through the U.S. childhood vaccine schedule over a multi-year period. It is our understanding that the difference in outcome for the vaccinated monkeys versus the unvaccinated controls is both stark and devastating.
There is no question that the publication of the monkey study will lend substantial credibility to the theory that over-vaccination of young children is leading to neurological damage, including autism. ....
"Members of this group, along with George Soros-directed assets, virtually monopolized the genetics industry during the 1990s, culminating in the corporate privatization of the Human Genome Project.
(Merck’s) Pneumovax vaccine, is broadening markets as [that is, because] the main ingredient --laboratory engineered H1N1 virus-- mutates, as in the Ukraine, becoming more deadly.
These people are making large profit on the MMR and can expect to make billions more globally if vaccine mandates can be put in place. It is their global media empire which attacked Wakefield. Why? He simply wrote about gut issues in his paper and suggested that use of the single measles vaccine, rather than a trivalent vaccine (measles, mumps, and rubella combined) might be advisable until there were more research on the MMR.
Go to 1:37 in the video to hear about Wakefield's recommendation of the single measles vaccine because it had been more adequately tested for safety and the response he got, before it was actually removed from the market altogether.
Why does this matter, one vaccine versus another?
That's a show stopper.
Back to The Nation article:
TN: [Wakefield's] paper was then used to support litigation against three companies that produced the MMR vaccine, and to lobby for use of Wakefield's own measles-only vaccine. Wakefield went on to make more than more $600,000 in the process of the lawsuit alone.
Though The Nation is a political magazine that excoriates Murdoch, claiming to "Take on Rupert Murdoch", http://www.thenation.com/article/161984/nation-takes-rupert-murdoch# and though it was Murdoch papers that began and led the attack on Wakefield, and though Murdoch is connected to the GSK that produces the MMR (the measles vaccine that Wakefield questioned), The Nation article oddly doesn't mention Murdoch once. This is despite of the fact that what Murdoch did deeply affects The Nation readers personally, and in fact is a matter of life or death (so say all camps concerned about vaccines.)
TN: In his 1998 paper, Wakefield alleged that eight children developed autism six days after receiving the MMR vaccine. I remember the paper well, because I was a pediatric fellow in London at the time. I and every other pediatrician were immediately besieged by parents demanding measles-only vaccines. We were staggered by Wakefield's ridiculously small, uncontrolled and clearly biased study about a syndrome that none of us had heard of, even though the MMR vaccine had been widely used since 1968. But it was also hard to imagine that The Lancet would publish something with such obvious global ramifications unless there was irrefutable scientific evidence uncontaminated by financial interest.
Not a word from The Nation that the CEO of Reuters who is on the board of Merck which makes the MMR and is involved with Elsevier Publishers that puts out the Lancet that removed Wakefield's peer reviewed article.
TN: It took six years for The Lancet to admit Wakefield's financial conflict of interest
From Lancet Boss Failed to Disclose Own Conflicts to Parliament While Denouncing Wakefield
http://www.ageofautism.com/2010/03/lancet-boss-failed-to-disclosed-own-conflicts-to-parliament-while-denouncing-wakefield.html
"Sir Crispin Davis, until recently chief executive of Reed Elsevier which owns the Lancet, failed to disclose his own conflicts while denouncing Andrew Wakefield to the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee in March 2004. Sir Crispin failed to disclose either that he was a non-executive director of MMR defendants, GlaxoSmithKline, or that it was his own brother Sir Nigel Davis who had endorsed the Legal Services Commission’s decision to pull the plug on the funding of the case in the High Court 3 days before ((HERE).
"This was barely more than a week after allegations had been levelled against Wakefield by Lancet editor Richard Horton, and Sunday Times journalist Brian Deer. Nor do Davis’s conflicts ever seem to have been mentioned by Horton.
"Remarkably, these relationships had been mentioned in Sunday Times article about Sir Crispin, just weeks earlier ...
TN: but it did not retract the paper until 2010. Meanwhile, the rise of measles in the United Kingdom and United States reflects the damage done, and the consequences extend well beyond the West.
Part 4 will continue the analysis.
Comments