Updated: Jan 30
Chapter 8: Article 2
Drug safety and effectiveness is a measurable thing that can be tested in a clinical setting. But, a drug’s use, its overuse or improper use, THAT sometimes results from its accepted-ness within society. Accepted-ness also plays a role in safety. A drug’s use and accepted-ness is affected by the following influences:
media opinion and reporting
government influence and legislation
Recognizing that, these next articles will be providing information related to this more obscure and immeasurable area of safety.
In the previous article, I highlighted a comparison of two researchers who have each experienced a very different reality when it comes to how their research / life circumstance are reported. But even if you look very critically there, at what has happened in the reporting of Poul Thorsen and Andrew Wakefield, the reality is that a significant part of this story (the part that has affected these men) still needs explaining. If you are going to fully believe the possibility that there is legitimate and incredible bias occurring in media coverage, and if you are going to believe the extent by which this bias is occurring, then you also have to understand WHY and HOW this is happening. Without understanding whyand how, then all of this just seems impossible.
So first, to explain WHY – WHY is there such bias in vaccine reporting? That answer has at least three parts.
The first reason was explained in Ch2: Article 3, you learned that the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), instructed in their June 1, 1984 meeting that:
…any possible doubts, whether or not well founded, about the safety of the vaccine cannot be allowed to exist in view of the need to assure that the vaccine will continue to be used to the maximum extent consistent with the nation’s public health objectives….
HHS is the highest level of USA government, overseeing the FDA, CDC, NIH, etc. If they say something has to happen, their subordinate agencies have to make it happen. In that June 1 meeting, they publicly declare that censorship and propaganda must be used, to "educate" the public. As I've said before, if well founded vaccine safety issues cannot be allowed to exit, what do you think our doctors are taught, during their medical educations. Do you think the lesson plans and text books they learn from are propaganda free?
26 years later in 2010, that same HHS instruction was stated again in a slightly different way, by Kathleen Sebelius, the then Secretary of HHS (she served from 2009-2014). In an interview she gave to Reader's Digest, she explained that equal weight must not be given to vaccine critics. To quote her (emphasis mine):
There are groups out there that insist that vaccines are responsible for a variety of problems despite all scientific evidence to the contrary. We [HHS] have reached out to media outlets, to try and get them to not give the views of THESE PEOPLE equal weight in their reporting to what SCIENCE has shown and continues to show, about the safety of vaccines…
Kathleen wants the public to believe that people who question vaccines have rejected "all"science, thus making them both anti-science and unintelligent. She explains that "these people" must not be given "equal weight in [media] reporting." One way to do this is to refuse to give vaccine critics air-time - that's censorship. Another way to do this is by providing unequally weighted reporting.
Obviously you can make something appear worse or better than it is, by selectively choosing what to cover, which facts to discuss, how much time to devote to both sides of a story, and which "experts" to interview. For example, a journalist could prepare a story and interview a doctor at length. The journalist could also show a brief rebuttal by a parent who speaks in opposition to the doctor. That would be unequally weighted reporting. For the reporting to be equal, the story would need to showcase two doctors who disagree with each other's viewpoints, each being given equal air time to present the evidence they relied upon in arriving at their professional medical opinion.
If unequally weighted reporting is done consistently by both government and media, on an ongoing basis, well then that becomes propaganda.
Kathleen's statement implies that the only reason why HHS has asked the media for help with their censorship and propaganda campaign, is because unintelligent people are a threat to public health.
Take a moment to really evaluate such a suggestion. Can you imagine if unintelligent Forrest Gump, with his one-liner brilliance, proclaimed on a news broadcast that "Vaccines are dan-ger-ous!" Do you think that upon airing that, the public would stop dead in their tracks and say, "Oh my gosh, he just might be right. I think I better stop vaccinating!"
If people are going to be swayed into changing their strongly held long-term opinions and practices, first they'd expect to hear some pretty intelligent discussion about how vaccines might NOT be as beneficial as originally thought. And further to that, they'd require seeing some pretty incredible scientific evidence to support such an assertion. Stupid statements made by stupid people who had zero scientific evidence to back up what they were saying wouldn't sway anyone. And because of THAT, there'd be no harm in giving those people "equal weight" in any media reporting.
And therefore, the second reason that answers, "Why is vaccine reporting is so biased?" is because there are many highly intelligent people, doctors, who are opposed to vaccination. Equal weighted reporting cannot be allowed, because those doctors would be an incredible threat to the vacine program.
This reality is subtly acknowledged in mainstream reporting. Though media usually paints anti-vaxxers as idiots, the reporters have to use different tactics (white privilege and cognitive dissonance) when discussing the anti-vax population who are the highly educated, intelligent and wealthy. In that stupid "anti-vax" population, it seems that no matter what punitive measures are implemented, the group still refuses to comply. A CNN article states, "In California, the kindergarten students most likely to be exempt from mandatory vaccinations based on their parent's personal beliefs are white and wealthy, according to a recent study." Many of those parents refusing to vaccinate their children are doctors. This CNN article quoted a doctor at the end, the article states:
But some vaccine refusers remain unswayed. In February, Dr. Jack Wolfson, an Arizona cardiologist, told CNN he did not vaccinate his two sons and that he could live with himself if his unvaccinated child got another child gravely ill."It's an unfortunate thing that people die, but people die. I'm not going to put my child at risk to save another child," Wolfson said.
Three more examples were reported Article, Video and Article, and the last link actually says, "[the data] suggests an incursion of anti-science, anti-vaccine thinking in one of the smartest regions on Earth."
Recognizing that mainstream vaccine reporting is almost always vaccine supportive, it's obvious this official request to censor has been acted upon. Recently, media outlets are now acting as the "censorship police," taking it upon themselves to attack companies for not censoring. As a consequence of the attack, some books and documentaries are no longer available on Amazon. It seems a modern day book burning has begun. A CNN article states:
Amazon has apparently started removing anti-vaccine documentaries from its Amazon Prime Video streaming service. The move came days after a CNN Business report highlighted the anti-vaccine comment available on the site, and hours after Rep. Adam Schiff wrote an open letter to Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, saying he is concerned “that Amazon is surfacing and recommending” anti-vaccination books and movies.
Anti-vaccine movies that were previously available free for Prime subscribers, like “We Don’t Vaccinate!,” “Shoot ‘Em Up: The Truth About Vaccines,” and “Vaxxed: From Cover-Up to Catastrophe,” are now “currently unavailable.”
And it's not just Amazon, Pinterest is deleting anti-vax accounts, Etsy is refusing to sell products of anti-vaxxers, Google, Bing, and Yahoo are reindexing search results so that you only see pro-vaccine options, Instagram is banning anti-vax accounts and hashtags, YouTube is demonetizing anti-vax videos, GoFundMe is refusing anti-vax groups to raise funds. This is likely just the beginning.
So, how does media present such a biased view, without that view appearing inappropriately biased. Ultimately, if the presentation of that bias appeared inappropriate, people would begin to question it. So HOW - how has happened? This answer has at least two parts.
FIRSTLY, it’s happened because rarely is a doctor who is informed about vaccine safety issues, given a public platform through mainstream sources. There are so many doctors speaking out, but because of censorship, these doctors have had to turn to the internet to get their messages to us. If you do not seek out these contrary medical opinions through alternative sources via the dreaded internet, you will NEVER hear about these issues.
SECONDLY, when media does present a vaccine cautious interview, the discussion panel usually only includes a parent (usually the mom) of a vaccine injured child, debating against a pro-vaccine doctor.
Reporters dismiss everything the parent says, usually without even listening. Their only response is to repeatedly state there is NO scientific data supporting any notion that vaccines cause harm. When the parent refers to specific research the reporter or doctor ignores that. These segments teach the public how to be dismissive when confronted with an oppositional view. The reporter often suggests the parent is struggling emotionally from caring for a special needs child, implying the parent's logic has been overpowered by their intense emotion.
A perfect example of these tactics can be seen Here in an interview with father JB Handley.
As I said at the beginning of this article, all of this relates back to safety. A drug's accepted-ness within society influences its use, its overuse or improper use. As a result of bias in vaccine reporting, safety is now severely compromised.
Reflect on HHS' instruction, their statements made in both 1984 and 2010, and then reflect on the following words, spoken by John F. Kennedy on February 26, 1962:
In 1946 the United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution reading in part, "freedom of information is a fundamental human right, and the touchstone of all the freedoms to which the United Nations is consecrated." This is our touchstone as well. This is the code of the Voice of America. We welcome the view of others. We seek a free flow of information across national boundaries and oceans, across iron curtains and stone walls. We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people.
CONTINUE to next article Ch8: Article 3
A lecture given by Dr. Suzanne Humphries, about how vaccine information is presented to the public. Manufactured Consent – Part 1 Here
Instruction in 1984 by the DHHS that well founded vaccine safety concerns cannot be allowed to exist Here
Kathleen Sebelius', Secretary at the DHHS - quote appearing in Reader's Digest February 2010 Here
British Health Secretary - Antivaxxers are "campaigning against science" Here
CNN attacks Amazon for selling "anti-vaccine" products Here
GoFundMe will no longer allow "anti-vax" groups to raise funds Here
Amazon is no longer selling some products as a result of the CNN attack Here
Rex Murphy - Anti-vaxxers have the intellectual power of a dead tree stump Here
JFK - A nation afraid of its people Here
Media reporting on Vaccine Refusers
Boston Globe article that says Anti-vaxxers should be hung Here
Teachers are refusing to teach unvaccinated children Here
BC nurses seek out children at school, children whose parents have purposefully not vaccinated them, which amounts to purposefully vaccinating children against the parent's wishes Here
Australia Government is refusing to provide financial support to qualifying citizens, if those citizens refuse to vaccinate their children Here
Germany fines parents who refuse to vaccinate Here