Media Lockstep Crackdown on Any Vaccine Safety (Danger) Conversation Continues at Salon
And now another installment of the "NO NO YOU CAN'T TALK ABOUT VACCINES AS ANYTHING OTHER THAN LIFE SAVING FAIRY WATER" files.... Salon attacks a prestigious film festival for daring to include a film about vaccines. The censorship calls in the media toward the vaccine injured and their families and those who dare speak out is nothing short of North Korean in its approach. But Americans are wising up. Visit the National Coalition Against Censorship to learn more about the history of censorship in America. They need to do some updating...
By Anne Dachel
Mar 23, 2016, Salon: Anti-vaxxer’s Tribeca triumph: Discredited doctor’s documentary about “the long-debated link between autism and vaccines” doesn’t belong in respected festival
By Mary Elizabeth Williams
"There are not two sides to every story. Not every issue requires us to legitimize an opposing view. Like, for instance, when the other perspective is totally crackpot. For example, if you’re a disgraced fraud, maybe you’re really not the best source for information about vaccines."
If you look at Mary Elizabeth Williams's bio, you'll see she's written for the NY Times and the LA Times. And here in this Salon piece she epitomizes the attitude of the media when it comes to the vaccine controversy---THERE ISN'T ONE! ....Remember Nancy Snyderman telling Matt Lauer on NBC, it's "not controversial"?
NBC Oct 31, 2008 Dr. Nancy Snyderman
"Snyderman immediately shot back, 'Not controversial subject , Matt. ...It's time for kids to get vaccinated. The science is the science. It's not controversial.'"
Williams and Snyderman couldn't be more wrong. In fact what they've said is sheer nonsense.
Of course there are TWO SIDES and of course it's CONTROVERSIAL!
Why else would the claim that a one-size-fits-every-child vaccine schedule is safe be the the most challenged idea in pediatric medicine? Vast numbers of people, experts and parents, don't believe it!
What the media, namely Williams here, is trying to do is shut down the debate. BUT BY PRETENDING that all the science is in, everything is settled, they're making themselves completely irrelevant.
Where did Williams learn her craft? Was she taught, don't make waves, take the word of the powers that be, especially if it means staying on the good side of advertisers?
Attention Mary Elizabeth Williams, you are incredibly naïve if you think that the public is buying your spin. We have a lot of sick and disabled children today that the medical community and health officials haven't even noticed. We don't expect our kids to be healthy anymore, since half of all U.S. children have some chronic condition they're living with. Parents want answers. They don't believe things are fine.
Back in the late 1800s this kind of story would have been called "yellow journalism" because it has a flashy headline but little real substance. Yellow journalism was reporting with a lot of exaggeration. Congratulations Ms Williams, you and others like you reporting on the vaccine debate have set the news industry back more than a hundred years.
I've given up on reporters actually doing what we expect of them. We will never see a mainstream news person thoroughly and legitimately cover this subject.
How come members of the press never actually talk to Dr. Wakefield? What is wrong with allowing this controversial figure to defend himself?
Why doesn't anyone in the media interview the parents of the children in Wakefield's study? They've even appeared in videos backing Wakefield's work, yet they've been totally ignored by the press.
Williams names the World Health Organization, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and others in her defense of vaccines with no acknowledgement of the vast web of money ties between these groups and the vaccine makers.
All those reporters who complain that this debate doesn't go away need to realize that they're the main reason why. How many more years will news outlets ignore the victims, defend an unchecked, unsafe program, and pretend that the science is settled?
This is also about self-protection. Vast numbers of doctors and scientists, institutions and agencies have everything at stake in this. So do most people in the mainstream press. It just can't be true that an out-of-control vaccine schedule has damaged a generation of children.
The most telling comment by Williams was this: "Andrew Wakefield's 'Vaxxed: From Cover-Up to Controversy' will debut at one of our most prestigious fests."
"One of our most prestigious fests"?
It's a shock for all the deniers of a link to see that a "respected festival" would include this film. What does that say about the claim that vaccines carry inherent risk? What if parents do have reasons to be concerned?
Mary Elizabeth Williams needs to understand that her brand of reporting isn't journalism. It's a call for censorship, and that's not what the media is supposed to be about in America.
Anne Dachel is Media Editor for Age of Autism.
I am confused? Leonardo Dicaprio, I thought was putting support behind some film that was pro vaccine?
Posted by: Benedetta | March 25, 2016 at 11:06 AM
But actually even "where lives are a stake" we have a debate. Lives are at stake when in decisions are made to go to war but there is a debate. But with vaccines there is just prevailing propaganda which would never withstand scrutiny if mainstream debate is allowed.
Posted by: John Stone | March 25, 2016 at 07:31 AM
"People are saying “lives are at stake” over this film. I tend to agree. The CDC did cover up activity; that’s the fact. And that endangers us all. That’s too much power. We are fortunate enough to live in a society that allows art to regulate and check the mighty powers; we should embrace that, not attempt to knock it down. Wakefield’s film is important, even if you don’t agree with it. And Tribeca’s allowance of the film is even more extraordinary. Our freedom is at stake here. Yesterday, the LA Times wrote a scathing article over the Tribeca’s acceptance of the film. I ask you, how is choosing sides, particularly the side of censorship, the proper place for a major media outlet? It is only the place of the media outlet that’s incentivized financially to do so. Pharmaceutical ad revenue provides a final last stand for profit in a dying model. Desperation has set in. It is important to recognize that despair before it accidentally tricks you into thinking it is legitimate journalism. Remember; the LA Times wouldn’t even exist in a world of censorship."
Posted by: Linda1 | March 25, 2016 at 07:26 AM
"But in the ashes of mainstream nuclear headline attacks, we’ve found an interesting nugget buried deep beneath the simmering coals. Wakefield was an attendee and speaker on the Conspira Sea, a cruise hosting prominent anti-mainstream and anti-establishment Doctors, researchers and journalists (and apparently lurking Jezebel reporters).
It is alleged that Wakefield, during the screening on the cruise, noted his celebrity support. Remember; Tribeca accepted his film and Tribeca is largely supported by De Niro and most of Hollywood’s elite. The nugget, however, comes from Wakefield reportedly saying that Leonardo Dicaprio and Leo’s father are putting everything they have behind the film. When Jezebel later asked Wakefield and his PR firm about the allegation, both denied it was true. But it is important to understand the context of the situation: Jezebel is an extreme pro-vaccine source. They are more or less a liberal media, a government mouthpiece. It is unlikely that if the truth existed in the allegation that Wakefield or his PR firm would entertain the idea with Jezebel. Why give them the story to decimate?
Wakefield has resources, that’s fact, but Tribeca is a unique beast in the way that it requires some level of general Hollywood acceptance to get through the mighty gates. This is why I believe that there may well be truth in the DiCaprio claims..."
Posted by: Linda1 | March 25, 2016 at 07:20 AM
Hopefully, the more kicking and screaming they do, the more people will want to see the movie.
Posted by: Linda1 | March 25, 2016 at 04:54 AM
The "No known cause, No know cure" crowd is digging in its heels.
I sure hope (and thank profusely if) Tribeca holds stong.
I think this really is where "majority" media profit meets "minority" media science.
Thank You Dr. Wakefield! And thank You Ms. Dachel!!!
Posted by: Annie | March 24, 2016 at 11:14 PM
@BobMoffit Awesome comment about the astroturfing Ted Talk. Sharyl Attkisson just nails it with that one. My favorite part is when she says something about astroturfers flooding the reader with so much conflicting information that they are left to throw up their hands and disregard everything including the truth. So true. It is infuriating to witness this and know how true it really is.
Posted by: Jeff | March 24, 2016 at 10:33 PM
Thanks for the links to a few items I had not seen in a while...
The "Science is the Science" Dr. Nancy refers to is the Denmark "tobacco vaccine science" of the indicted Dr. Thorsen.
I would hope one part of the Vaxxed film covers the Geier's visit to the CDC in 2003, where they were provided DOS-based search software for the CDC vaccine database.
...Taking along a computer expert, and with some inside help they STILL FOUND Autism rates 27 time higher for those children given 3 mercury preserved DTaP shot compared to those given 3 doses of the mercury free version...
Posted by: go trump | March 24, 2016 at 08:27 PM
Oh, I'm so happy to see the word "astroturf" in this forum! Thank you,Bob Moffit -- and I bless you every day, Anne Dachel. Calling it a call for censorship is being very kind. Being "a" American, who prizes free speech, I'll call it as I see it: the media is already censored, even scripted.
Posted by: Denise Anderstrom Douglass | March 24, 2016 at 08:02 PM
Ronald Kostoff: I agree that it is beyond repair. As the print media bleeds subscribers, and the broadcast media bleeds viewers, they're all bleeding red ink, and their lifeboat is their advertisers, primarily the medical industry. I couldn't say what impact online media has, but what Mary Elizabeth Williams and the rest of them fail to realize is that most people are neither as stupid nor as credible as they think. I've spoken to many people in the general public about vaccination, and only a small percentage have truly drunk the Kool-Aid. Most are open to dialog. Certainly the trust many of us had in our public institutions forty or fifty years ago is largely gone.
Posted by: Gary Ogden | March 24, 2016 at 07:37 PM
Lol Salon and the pharmaceutical goons. Their days are numbered as the sheeple awaken.
Posted by: CZ | March 24, 2016 at 01:26 PM
" We don't have to yell anymore... The message is getting through"
That's not clear at all. I inserted 'vaxxed' into Google. All the hits relevant to the documentary came up on page 1. Every single one was completely negative! Thus, the majority of the readers, who will never see the film, will come away with a completely negative impression.
The mainstream and semi-mainstream media are basket cases; it is getting worse and, I believe, beyond repair. Any messaging attempts to present the facts about industry-sensitive or government-sensitive foundational causes of disease (including vaccines) to the public through the mainstream media will be spun beyond recognition.
In order to get the laws to change, the politicians need to change. The only way they will change is if their constituents force them to change. And, the only way for their constituents to act properly is for them to be informed about the facts. To avoid the mainstream media spin, the constituents have to be informed directly. Some of the politicians have recognized this fact. Trump, and others, are making extensive use of Twitter, which allows them to bypass Salon, HuffPo, NYT, and WaPo. These mainstream media outlets once performed a useful service. They no longer do on many of the issues that really matter, and they are getting worse by the day. The faster they can be made to fade into oblivion, the better off the world will be.
Posted by: Ronald Kostoff | March 24, 2016 at 10:55 AM
I want to thank my kindergarten teacher and those media outlets that are attacking Tribeka for showing Wakefield's film for giving us so much attention. What better way to advertise for free? Thanks Annie too.
Posted by: Maurine Meleck | March 24, 2016 at 10:46 AM
We don't have to yell anymore... The message is getting through Meditate Breathe Reflect on this share this, today "I call him Doctor" http://youtu.be/K6qoRQ3s3ho #VaxXed will see the light of day.
Posted by: TannersDad Tim Welsh | March 24, 2016 at 10:19 AM
She cites the CDC in her defense of vaccines? Did she not notice that the film in question is about a whistleblower at the CDC? You'd think she'd explore that a bit.
Salon used to be good, but it's been circling the drain for years.
Posted by: Carol | March 24, 2016 at 08:25 AM
Here's my take on Mary Elizabeth Williams. She was diagnosed with Stage 4 cancer a few years ago. She had surgery, then entered a Phase 1 immunotherapy clinical trial at Memorial Sloan-Kettering. In her words, she had a "complete response". She stated: "It helps when your doctors are a bunch of geniuses" (http://www.maryelizabethwilliams.net/8201.html).
So, her continuing admiration for the medical community is understandable, based on her own positive experience so far. She has taken a hard line on the need for vaccinations for years, based, I assume, on her perception that the medical doctors can do no wrong. If the 'leading' pediatricians and immunologists support vaccination, it must be good!
On the other hand, I have seen close relatives and friends who have had the opposite experience with cancer and other chronic diseases. They have tried the orthodox medical approaches, and suffered extensively until the end. So, I am far more cautious in my praise for the medical community. The research I have done for the past two decades has convinced me that orthodox medical treatment for severe chronic diseases leaves much to be desired, and the medical literature that serves as the intellectual basis for these 'treatments' and their effects is highly flawed. My more recent forays into the vaccine literature have convinced me that the potentially adverse effects of vaccines, especially in combination with other vaccines and with other toxic stimuli, are vastly under-reported, and completely unknown for the long-term.
Posted by: Ronald Kostoff | March 24, 2016 at 07:21 AM
Reposting from yesterday.
Seems to be a concerted attack on 'anti-vaxxers'. Today's Salon (http://www.salon.com/2016/03/23/anti_vaxxers_tribeca_triumph_discredited_doctors_documentary_about_the_long_debated_link_between_autism_and_vaccines_doesnt_belong_in_respected_festival/)
and HuffPo (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/anti-vaxxers-rise-in-measles-whooping-cough_us_56f2b133e4b04c4c3760abab) had two particularly vicious articles on people who do not support vaccinations.
Posted by: Ronald Kostoff | March 24, 2016 at 06:59 AM
"Mary Elizabeth Williams needs to understand that her brand of reporting isn't journalism. It's a call for censorship, and that's not what the media is supposed to be about in America."
Actually .. Ms Williams "reporting" is just another example of what Sharyl Attkisson explains in her "ASTROTURF" TED TALK .. about 15 minutes .. well worth viewing ..at:
Sharyl explains Astroturf:
"The whole point of astroturf is to try to convince you there’s widespread support for or against an agenda when there’s not.
The language of astroturfers and propagandists includes trademark inflammatory terms such as: anti, nutty, quack, crank, pseudo-science, debunking, conspiracy theory, deniers and junk science. Sometimes astroturfers claim to “debunk myths” that aren’t myths at all. They declare debates over that aren’t over. They claim that “everybody agrees” when everyone doesn’t agree. They aim to make you think you’re an outlier when you’re not.
Astroturfers and propagandists tend to attack and controversialize the news organizations, personalities and people surrounding an issue rather than sticking to the facts. They try to censor and silence topics and speakers rather than engage them. And most of all, they reserve all their expressed skepticism for those who expose wrongdoing rather than the wrongdoers. In other words, instead of questioning authority, they question those who question authority.
Sharyl's list of the TOP 10 ASTROTURFERS
1. Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America and Everytown
2. Media Matters for America
3. University of California Hastings Professor Dorit Rubenstein Reiss and Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia’s Dr. Paul Offit
4. “Science” Blogs such as: Skeptic.com, Skepchick.org, Scienceblogs.com (Respectful Insolence), Popsci.com and SkepticalRaptors.com
5. Mother Jones
6. Salon.com and Vox.com
7. White House press briefings and press secretary Josh Earnest
8. Daily Kos and The Huffington Post
9. CNN, NBC, New York Times, Politico and Talking Points Memo (TPM)
10. MSNBC, Slate.com, Los Angeles Times and Michael Hiltzik of the Los Angeles Times, MSNBC and Jon Stewart.
As you will note .. Sharyl lists Salon (Ms Williams)among her top ten list of astroturfers
Posted by: Bob Moffit | March 24, 2016 at 06:15 AM