An interruption yester-evening from a troll styling themselves Sam Spade set me ruminating: no doubt the thoughts are not very original but some of them may benefit from re-stating.
And so to Mr Spade and his brief response to Kent Heckenlively’s ‘A Break in the Wall’:
Bullshit. You people will murder a lot of children with this false story.
Perhaps the first thing to point out is that our ranks are almost entirely comprised of citizens who uncomplainingly did what was supposed to be the right thing in vaccinating their children: their views were not formed by ideology but by experience. The experience comprises not only the awful reality of what happened to their children after vaccinating but the way institutions deal with the issue. To even raise the issue of vaccine damage is also to raise the hostility and anger in every quarter.
This anger – Mr Spade’s anger – is not based on reason or knowledge. There is nothing inherently implausible in a pharmaceutical product injected into an infant or toddler causing damage: we have just been educated not to think that. Actually, a lot of even official literature acknowledges the possibility of damage it is just supposed to be vanishingly rare – unfortunately, the only thing that is guaranteed to make it rare is not good science but the waves of officially inspired hatred that will be triggered against anyone daring to stand up and say "This went wrong". The point about Mr Spade is that his rage is not determined by science but by institutions: institutions which are not happy to have their errors reported back to them, not happy if they fear that they can be detected. They will never find anything that they don’t want to, as Ed Yazbak pointed out years ago. It is not a question of whether we like the diseases, it is question of whether the products are as safe and effective as they should be, whether there are far too many of them etc.
The very thing that determines that the vaccine program is unsafe as well as unjust is this whipped up anger: we are not allowed to discuss the science – scientists who speak out must be shunned and persecuted, citizens who speak out must be declared intellectually incompetent. This anger constitutes social control not reasoned debate.
Actually, Bill Thompson or no Bill Thompson, the abysmal record of the CDC is there to be judged: they are corrupt; they are in bed with the manufacturers; they are hostile to anything which conflicts with their own policy; they are institutionally incapable of producing trustworthy science. They are there to be taken apart by any competent investigative journalist and any mainstream media outlet which has the will and the courage to do so. They would be finished in days. In the meantime - and I hope it won’t be very long now - everyone, including ‘Sam Spade’, will just have to go on putting up with us.
John Stone is UK Editor of Age of Autism.