Richard Moore in The Lakeland Times: Correlations Point to Environmental, Vaccine Link to Autism
Please read the full article and comment over at The Lakeland Times.
By Richard Moore
For much of the past decade, as autism diagnoses have surged, there has been a broad effort by the mainstream media, the government and the scientific community to dispel any notion that autism might have some environmental connection or that childhood vaccines might trigger the disorder.
Along with an escalation of autism occurrences has come an escalation of studies and articles and pronouncements designed to disprove any environmental component, or to rationalize away any real increase. No fewer than 19 studies have brushed aside any vaccine link, for example, while the federal government, through the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), has expended great time and money to reassure the public that vaccines are safe.
The same for the national media. In 2008, for instance, Time Magazine ran a glowing piece on the "miracle marvel" of vaccinations and their benefits.
"CDC officials estimate that fully vaccinating all U.S. children born in a given year from birth to adolescence saves 33,000 lives, prevents 14 million infections and saves $10 billion in medical costs," the article by Alice Park stated. "Part of the reason is that the vaccinations protect not only the kids who receive the shots but also those who can't receive them-such as newborns and cancer patients with suppressed immune systems."
The New York Times, too, has acted as a vocal instrument of the pharmaceutical industry, as Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., pointed out last year on The Huffington Post, saying The Times acted as a "blind mouthpiece" for the government and a leading defender of vaccine safety.
Today, well into 2010, there's no question the academic, pharmaceutical and mainstream media bias toward vaccine safety still exists, but new studies are forcing at least some professionals to look again at toxicity as a real cause of autism...
Richard Moore can be reached at email@example.com. Please read the full article and comment over at The Lakeland Times.
I have several statistics courses in my c. v., but I cannot understand how scientists can exclude something when we do not know what to include. Someone please explain.
Posted by: Marvin Lewis | April 28, 2010 at 08:49 AM
Thank you Mr Moore. Local news is our only hope.
Posted by: julie | April 27, 2010 at 04:45 PM
Let's hope this horrible disease called journalistic integrity, spreads.
Y'know, newspapers everywhere are CRYING OUT in financial pain because nobody buys papers anymore.
To me, the most obvious way for them to return to their former glory would be to ACTUALLY DO SOME INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALISM!
Just imagine it, a newspaper that reports on things, rather than just rewording press releases. I'm trying hard, but outside of AOA I can't think of any examples from recent years, and AOA's not a real paper.
This could be a trend! Pretty soon they'll stop transcribing what comes out of the White House, and they'll start asking questions. Oh could it be?
Posted by: AL | April 27, 2010 at 04:14 PM
Wow, a journalist who took the time to read and understand the debate. He really did his homework. I'm thrilled that The Lakeland Times had the guts to print it.
Posted by: Harry H. | April 27, 2010 at 03:38 PM
"To be sure, by any objective analysis, the existing research points directly to a vaccine link, particularly when correlating data with other countries. Any objective review, had any major media conducted one, also would have exposed widespread conflicts of interest in pro-vaccine studies."
Thank you, Richard Moore! I had to read that twice to make sure it really said what it said, and that was only about 1/3 of the way into the article.
Much suffering, sickness, and needless injury (and in too many cases, loss of life) could have been adverted, if "mainstream" media had investigated with this necessary level of depth and honesty back in the late 90s and the following decade.
I'm sure this reporting will make a positive difference for those fortunate to read this and wise enough to pay attention and hopefully research further for themselves.
Posted by: JenB | April 27, 2010 at 03:34 PM
Awesome coverage. I hope lots of future parents read that paper and I look forward to his next article.
Posted by: Jenny | April 27, 2010 at 03:27 PM