The New York Times has sunk to a new low in their consistent attacks on anyone who dares to talk about what vaccines are doing to our children. The Times has just released a review of the new movie, The Greater Good and reporter Jeannette Catsoulis didn’t like what she saw. Her review was short and damning.
Personally, having seen “The Greater Good,” I find it hard to dismiss anything it brings up regarding vaccine damage. The review featured a photo of Gabi Swank but not a word is said about her in the story. Nothing about her being a varsity and competitive All-Star cheerleader, gymnast, Honor Roll student involved in leadership at her high school—until she was vaccinated. The National Vaccine Information Center told us what happened to Gabi as a result of the Gardasil vaccine. It’s clear her health was destroyed, something her doctor also talked about on the film.
The stories of damage and even death from vaccinations shown on this film don’t seem to bother Catsoulis. Instead she concentrated on her definition of the term “greater good.”
Catsoulis wrote, “As this emotionally manipulative, heavily partial look at the purported link between autism and childhood immunization would much rather wallow in the distress of specific families than engage with the needs of the population at large.”
“[A] cost-benefit analysis is completely ignored. Also elided are the mostly forgotten horrors of measles, mumps, chickenpox and polio: instead of lingering at a graveside with grieving parents who believe vaccines killed their baby girl, perhaps the filmmakers could have unearthed some footage of children encased in iron lungs.”
Regarding autism, Catsoulis wrote, “But while the film acknowledges that science has so far been consistent in its refutation of a vaccine-autism link, it fails to point out that even were such a link proved definitively, all that matters is that its victims number significantly fewer than those of the diseases vaccinations are designed to prevent.”
Phrases like, “needs of the population at large,” “cost-benefits analysis,” and “all that matters is that its victims number significantly fewer than those of the diseases vaccinations are designed to prevent” are really frightening to me. It makes me think of things like “peripheral damage” and “acceptable loss.” Catsoulis isn’t troubled by the fact that there’s no way to tell WHOSE CHILD IS VULNERABLE. It’s just the chance we all have to take---for the good of the herd I guess.
It makes me afraid that in the end, when “a link [is] proved definitively,” to use the author’s words, we’ll be told that what happened to our kids is justified by the claim that vaccines prevented lots of other kids from getting sick.
Anne Dachel is Media Editor of Age of Autism