UK Guardian Suggests We Accept Corruption
By Anne Dachel
The UK Guardian says it's time to accept corruption
It seems that the UK Guardian has their own Emily Willingham (Forbes). Tracey Brown is advocating for acceptance of corporations doing their own safety research, specifically, the vaccine makers.
Instead of calling for honest, unbiased, consumer-centered studies, Brown tells us to get used to industry doing the science. What she's really calling for is out and out fascism--corporate control of government. If that's inevitable, then let's abolish the CDC/FDA and let their employees go directly to work for the industries they regulate. Let's stop the pretense. It would save taxpayers a lot of money.
We all know the term "tobacco science"
Tobacco Science: "A generic term for biased reporting of scientific data, especially which favors a particular industry’s agenda."
I think it's time we all coined the phrase "vaccine science," I.e. easily flawed and manipulated population studies specifically designed to cover up evidence of vaccine side effects. Since we know the legitimate research that officials refuse to call for, all we're really left with is the junk stuff.
May 14, 2016, It’s silly to assume all research funded by corporations is bent, By Tracey Brown
Corporate funding of multiple vaccine research was “exposed” again recently. This time it was in the latest round of MMR-causes-autism allegations, which we exported to the US....
It’s important we talk about this because in the media and the public consciousness, corporate funding has become shorthand for bad. Crooked deals (you write this, I’ll pay for your holiday) are presented as on a par with well-structured research agreements (we need vaccines to test vaccines, so the pharma company provides them gratis, no results guaranteed). Researchers are being hung out to dry because their institutes take corporate funding, even while government is pressuring them to do so. Meanwhile, terrible problems of bias, such as the failure to publish all clinical trial results, attract far too little attention.
What’s especially annoying is that the “who funded it?” question – often by people with axes to grind – overrides the inquiries that the public rightly ask. “What do we actually know?” “Do scientists agree on this?” “Is this a proper study and how can I tell?” These are good questions that show us whether the research is actually biased and what we should trust.
We need to get used to asking them, because corporate funding accounts for more than half of our research base. In some areas, including areas of engineering that are no less matters of public safety, there is hardly any public funding....
These were the comments I posted that were immediately removed.
The real problem here, at least in the U.S., is that PARENTS TRUST that safety studies are done by totally unbiased groups of people. That's why we spend billions on our regulatory agencies.
If we continue to allow the vaccine makers to conduct these studies, what good is the FDA/CDC? For years the tobacco industry did their own science that showed smoking wasn't a health risk.
If the FDA simply accepts pharma-funded safety claims, what good are they?
Let's shut down these expensive agencies and put pharma in charge.
Anne Dachel, Media editor: Age of Autism
What Tracey Brown is advocating here is the complete corporate takeover of the already industry controlled regulatory process of vaccines.
It isn't enough that a revolving door exists between the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention/Food and Drug Administration and the corporations they oversee, Brown sees no problem with the established practice of allowing the vaccine makers to do their own safety studies.
Brown's promotion may sound good, but she's left out a number of serious points.
VACCINE MAKERS HAVE NO LIABILITY FOR THE PRODUCTS THEY MAKE.
Back in 1986 the U.S. Congress indemnified the vaccine makers against suits for damage caused by their products. There is very little incentive to produce a truly safe vaccines. This troubling reality is never mentioned in the endless news reports where the public is told "studies show no link." After the industry was given liability protection the number of vaccines more than tripled and hundreds of additional vaccines are in the testing stages.
Anne Dachel, Media editor: Age of Autism
Brown writes for "Sense about Science."
"Sense About Science works with scientists and members of the public to change public debates and to equip people to make sense of science and evidence."
Let me help make some sense here about vaccine safety.
First of all, pharma has a vast web of money ties to the agency that runs the vaccine program. For instance, hundreds of CDC employees have conflict of interest waivers because of direct financial connections to the vaccine industry. The last head of the CDC, Dr. Julie Gerberding, a long-time denier of any serious side effects from vaccines, went on to head the vaccine division at Merck.
So what we have is liability-free product that is mandated on every child in America in order to attend school. It's a vaccine maker's dream.
For years we've been told, "Studies show no link between vaccines and autism." (Or any other serious side effect like diabetes, bowel disease, asthma, allergies, and seizure disorder.)
PHONY SCIENCE PASSES FOR GOOD.
It should be noted that these "studies" are epidemiological ones. These are done simply by looking at a certain population and trying to discern a problem. This is the weakest kind of science and isn't used for causal evidence. It's easy to construct such a study to hide serious side effects.
Anne Dachel, Media editor: Age of Autism
Here's what truly informed people know about vaccine safety:
Vaccines are tested individually, yet a child receives multiple vaccinations in a single doctor's visit, often 5, 6, or 7.
There has never been a study done on the cumulative effects of the one-size-fits-every-child vaccine schedule in the U.S. What other medical product or procedure could possible be considered safe for every child? Parents are truly playing "vaccine roulette" when they take their infants in to be vaccinated.
The U.S. government's compensation program has paid out billions for vaccine injuries, including over 80 cases where the injured party became autistic as a result of vaccination.
There has been no toxicity testing on either the mercury or aluminum additive used in vaccines. Eli Lilly, back in 1930, tested their mercury-based vaccine preservative, thimerosal, on 22 patients who all died of meningitis by the end of the study. Regardless Eli Lilly said it was safe and after the creation of the FDA, its use was grandfathered in. It is truly frightening to consider that much of the flu vaccine every year is made with thimerosal, and that this vaccine is recommended for pregnant women at all stages of pregnancy (and they receive the adult dose of mercury) and babies as young as six months. (There are no restrictions on mercury-containing vaccines exported to third world countries. The poorest children receive the most mercury in their shots because it's the cheapest way to make their vaccines.)
The U.S. government makes absolutely no effort to determine which children may be at risk for a vaccine reaction before injecting a battery of shots into a child at a typical well-baby visit.
In 2008 the public learned that medical experts at HHS had conceded the claim of vaccine-induced autism in the case of Hannah Poling, a young Georgia girl who regressed into autism directly after receiving nine vaccines at one time. Hannah had a mitochondrial disorder that made her susceptible to injury from vaccination. No effort has been made to determine what other children have the same vulnerability.
In 2008, the late Dr. Bernadine, former head of NIH, was on CBS News and she said that we can't dismiss a link between vaccines and autism because we have never studied the children who were fine and who suddenly lost learned skills and regressed into autism following vaccination.
Anne McElroy Dachel, Age of Autism
This is right up there with later CBS journo Morley Safer in Vietnam being told by a U.S. government official: "If reporters believe what the government tells them, they are 'Stupid.'"
Amazing. But not surprising.
Posted by: James Grundvig | May 21, 2016 at 02:50 PM
By the way:
what is the difference between middle class and poverty in this country?
The answer is mental health.
Why are people with a good government job, working to protect the environment; that they probably really believe in - making such poor decisions of watching porn and smoking pot while on the job? The answer is obvious - it involves mental health.
That leads us back to vaccinating them all heavily as children and continuing to do so in adulthood - The DPT in It's many forms for tetanus is common.
That leads us as always the root of all ills - to the NIH and the CDC.
I do hope the EPA and the ethics committee goes easy on them.
The ones changing and manipulating temperature data - and really in less trouble - they are the real bad guys here.
IF only the ethics subcommittee could really see that.
Just like what Dr. William Thompson at the CDC said they did - Oh, it deserves 1000s of life terms in prison.
Posted by: Benedetta | May 19, 2016 at 10:27 AM
duk;
I think we are prepared for propaganda from cola companies, we are still however some what blinded by big pharma - we know- but we are sick and desperate.
BUT when it comes to government agencies, agencies set aside to protect certain things - the public, well we have been just left totally blind. We were depending on the as a compass in science, and they have failed us big time.
EPA was on the news, yesterday. It was - one of them- THERE - Congress ethical sub committees with Elijah Cummins on the TV dressing down EPA on why they had not fired anyone but let them all retire instead. The EPA have 60 employees in trouble and 90 more that are going to be in trouble, for watching sex clips on the internet while on the job, while smoking pot while on the job (not they failed a drug test), for stealing 1000s of dollars of federal equipment.
EPA - very involved in global climate change and changing and manipulating temperature data all so some powerful people can drain some more tax dollars off of the American people through cap and trade.
Meanwhile: The people of West Virginia and Eastern Kentucky-- and Kentucky's western coal fields are very upset with Hillary, although Bernie has said it too - but in a nicer way about shutting down jobs and an industry -- an industry -- why not such down some federal agencies?
But the mean to open up tax paid for solar panel factories into the area. IS this the same factories that where in California that went totally bust in spite of Obama putting tons of tax dollars into solar panels? I am not sure on that detail.
.
Posted by: Benedetta | May 19, 2016 at 09:46 AM
Some of many lies that Sense for $cience and the $cience Media Centre are pushing: (Just look at their websites and articles)
-Nuclear energy is safe.Illness after nuclear plant accidents are mostly psychological and due to hysteria.
-Sugar in Soft Drinks isn't causing an obesity epidemic
- We need more vaccines to protect us.
- Vaccines are perfecly safe
- Vaccines don't cause Autism
- Autism isn't more common than it used to.
- The Zika virus threatens mankind and vaccines are of course the answer
- Herbicides and pesticides are perfectly safe.
- Neonicotinoids don't kill bees.
- Glyphosate doesn't cause cancer.
- GMO food is perfectly safe
- Very few people have food allergies.
- Chronic fatigue that is increasingly more common is purely psychological
- Science is independent and can not be bought.
- Experimentation on animals isn't cruel
- If there is a scientific controversy corporate science is always on the right side.
So if you want to know what big business does not want you to know consult these two organizations and read between the lines and you will know what industry is trying to cover up.
Very useful sources.
Posted by: duk | May 19, 2016 at 08:59 AM
One of the pioneers of PR was Edward Bernays, he wrote the book 'Propaganda'. PR=Propaganda not just Public Relations
Brown is a PR(Propaganda) specialist working or having worked for large corporations.
As is Fiona Fox of the UK Science Media Centre.
As people are increasingly become skeptical of corporate propaganda, that is what tobacco science is not more not less, Brown wants us to trust and not question their propaganda work.
The public is overly trusting of everything that has the word "science" or "scientific" attached to it that is why all these 'non-profits' have the word science in their name.
People need to believe that $cience=Truth=Objectivity because $cience can be bought and thus public opinion can be bought. As long as people don't question $cience you can influence public opinion.
It turns out that, probably because of decades of abusing science and because of the internet, these strategies don't work as well as they used to. That is why the $cience Media Centre and Sense for $cience exist. To make sure that corporate $cience is taken seriously.
One of the strategies they use is to switch the roles of the victim and the perpetrator. Science is under attack they will claim. Of course it is and it has been corrupted for a long time. By commercial interests.
As they switch the roles anyone who questions or disapproves of that corruption is said to attack and even threaten science and the victims are of course, you have guessed it, poor innocent corporations and their mankind-bettering tobacco research.
Posted by: duk | May 19, 2016 at 04:45 AM
Hans
The Guardian blog is entitled "Comment is Free" from Scott's motto "Facts are sacred, comment is free" but we have long ago found out otherwise. Historically they have been very dependent on monopoly advertising for public appointments.
Posted by: John Stone | May 19, 2016 at 04:22 AM
Try not to laugh , if you can but this is the Guardian proclamation :
no investors
no hidden influences
no agenda
The Guardian: independence matters
Independence means we can pursue a story without fear of where it might take us. We can expose corruption or foul play wherever we find it
ndependence matters. It means that we can pursue a story without fear of where it might take us. We can expose corruption or foul play wherever we find it. No shareholders, advertisers or billionaire owners can tell us to censor, edit or drop a story. Our unique ownership structure ensures this. The Scott Trust, set up in 1936, is our sole shareholder, safeguarding our financial and editorial independence, and liberal values, in perpetuity. All profits of the organisation are re-invested in journalism and the constitution of The Scott Trust Limited contains provisions to ensure that no shareholder can benefit financially.
EXCEPT VACCINES (and when Bill Gates comes to visit)
Guardian - scoundrels
Posted by: Hans Litten | May 19, 2016 at 04:08 AM
To REbecca Lee, Thankyou very much. I think it is important that we cut to the truth more and more, eliminating the medical euphemisms that obscure the truth.
Posted by: Cherry Misra | May 19, 2016 at 03:50 AM
Generations of babies have been poisoned by vaccines. And parents are just standing around accepting it, because the poisoners funded studies that simply tell us we didn't see... what we all know we saw.
Society has been accepting corruption for decades now.
Posted by: Barry | May 18, 2016 at 09:22 PM
Well said Tracey..
Corporate control of the government: hence the rise of Trump and Bernie. My theory is that people aren't loving this whole roll over and die, slow kill vaccine program. On with the revolution!
... and
WAR is when the government tell you who your enemy is.,.
REVOLUTION is when you figure it out for yourself.
Posted by: go Trump | May 18, 2016 at 06:59 PM
John Stone mentions: “shallow, deceitful and manipulative”, in an effort no doublt to be brief. What about superficial charm, a grandiose notion of self-worth, the need for stimulation and impulsiveness, pathological lying, the ability to manipulate others and a lack of remorse and empathy.
A newspaper did an article a while back:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3379996/How-spot-psychopath-Expert-reveals-traits-look-charm-eccentricity-manipulation.html
Seems to list the traits we see in the movers-and-shakers- both in Pharma, CDC, GMC and a few others.
Should the CDC and Pharma etc., be forced by government into adopting contract employment laws that many high-tech industries have, of not allowing previous key employees jumping ship to their competitors, the revolving-door problem, where these sly Foxes vacillate between CDC and industry and back again, may be solved. But that seems like too sensible a solution which the lobbyists will fight tooth and nail against.
Posted by: Paul Champion | May 18, 2016 at 02:19 PM
@Bill Hutchinson Yes, organic tobacco is less harmful. But the primary toxicity from cigarettes is the methanol (methyl alcohol) in the smoke, which will be pretty much the same regardless of other toxins.
Suggest you read Woodrow Monte's book, While Science Sleeps -- he's found the cause for a big part of our modern health problems, and the book is enjoyable too. Critical information for good health.
Posted by: Tim Lundeen | May 18, 2016 at 12:24 PM
Are they actually doing safety studies? Maybe they do studies, but they don't have to be done for safety. The manufacturers are protected from liability, and since when has any corporate entity gone out of their way to do expensive work when it doesn't have to be done.
After all they have never been compelled to study Thimerosal. There is no need to study mercury because mercury is already by decree a "safe" substance. The law makers have gotten around the problem of mercury by calling all vaccines "unavoidably unsafe" not because of ancillary items such as aluminum and formaldehyde and mercury, but instead, just because of the disease causing factors which are the live viruses or dead metabolites or whatever.
That means that the other things such as useful or useless adjuvants and preservatives didn't have to be mentioned at all in any decision by the Supreme Court. I don't even believe that the lawyer for Wyeth in Brueswitz v. Wyeth actually know how unethical a lawyer she is. I don't know if she knows the science.
Do we have Congressmen who are independent enough and also have the intelligence to question the other horrible ingredients in vaccines? I don't believe we do, especially since apparently corruption is an "unavoidable" evil.
Posted by: Birgit Calhoun | May 18, 2016 at 11:32 AM
Tracey has got a problem - she is a PR person. If they look around they feel stupid. She has been in this game a lot longer than Willingham. A lot of commenters in the Guardian thought this was stupid. We saw last week some senior professor in PR attack Vaxxed on Sharyl Attkisson: they are there to be shallow, deceitful and manipulative. Once you make the point that this is what they really are there isn't anywhere for them to go. Of course, they can organise and create the message for professionals who ought to be able to stand up for themselves.
Posted by: John Stone | May 18, 2016 at 11:11 AM
Brown has her own entry at sourcewatch.org:
"Before becoming the director of Sense about Science, Brown was a senior analyst in the 'Risk Analysis Unit' of the PR company, Regester Larkin. 'Tracey is responsible for developing tailored forecasting and risk issue analysis for our clients,' her biographical note at the PR firm stated. Regester Larkin specialises in 'reputation risk management' and crisis management, including countering campaigns by environmental, health and development NGOs. Regester Larkin's clients are nearly all pharmaceutical, oil, or biotechnology companies, including BioIndustry Association, Shell Chemicals, TOTAL, Bayer, Pfizer, Aventis CropScience, and gas company BG Group. On her Sense About Science biographical note, Brown's stint with Regester Larkin is cryptically referred to as being a year in a more commercial environment to set up a risk research unit....'"
Posted by: Carol | May 18, 2016 at 10:28 AM
Corporate control of the government: hence the rise of Trump and Bernie. My theory is that people aren't loving this whole roll over and die, slow kill vaccine program. On with the revolution!
Posted by: @Tracey Brown | May 18, 2016 at 10:22 AM
George Monbiot's exposé of these people in the Guardian in December 2003 was about the last we heard.
http://www.theguardian.com/education/2003/dec/09/highereducation.uk2
Monbiot shut up and the Guardian shut up - it must have been about the same day that that Goldacre launched his first vicious attack on Wakefield from the same columns and promptly won a science journalism medal funded by GSK. It is likely that this group of supposed fun loving revolutionaries (which also include Fiona Fox, latterly of Science Media Centre) was a Britsh Government plant.
http://www.ageofautism.com/2016/05/best-of-watch-dog-boss-martin-moore-sat-on-uk-government-panel-with-editor-who-hired-brian-deer.html
Posted by: John Stone | May 18, 2016 at 10:00 AM
Anne .. the educated comments you submitted .. which were then deleted so readers would not have access to them .. is a prime example of the unwarranted influence that entire industries exercise over "reporters" .. such as .. Tracy Brown .. who by her own comments has revealed herself to be nothing more than a "shill for hire" .. masquerading as a supposedly independently thinking "journalist".
If Ms. Brown were truly invested in her own opinions as she expressed them .. she would have WELCOMED your comments as an opportunity to "educate" both .. you and her readers. That the comments were deleted without any attempt to contradict what you wrote .. is evidence of a profound lack of her own personal conviction in all she wrote.
Posted by: bob moffit | May 18, 2016 at 09:33 AM
@Hans Litten: I hadn't seen "tobacco science" used as a distinct, unique phrase before, until now, so it had less impact & effect on me. Yes, I did "grok" exactly and at once the intended meaning. But that begs a LARGER question. ALL "tobacco studies" were NOT done using organically-grown tobacco in additive-free cigarettes. Isn't it true that ALL so-called "tobacco studies" were in fact done using CORPORATE-MANUFACTURED cigarettes, using tobacco grown with God-only-knows what and how much toxic AG chemicals, using flue-cured tobacco, (giant oil & gas-fired space heaters spew hydrocarbon combustion byproducts on the drying tobacco), and then manufactured into synthetic chemical-laced cigarettes? My point is that natural tobacco is LESS DANGEROUS than corporate-manufactured cigs. The idea of challenging the human immunity system with dead viruses is somewhat logical, but the use of mercury, thimerosol, etc., is much LESS logical, and LESS clinically defensible....
So, I think your suggestion of trying to combine "tobacco & vaccine science" is not such a good idea as you first thought. Re-think?....
(c)2016, Tom Clancy, Jr., *NON-fiction
Posted by: Bill Hutchinson | May 18, 2016 at 09:11 AM
the guardian has become a corporate mouthpiece tabloid.
Posted by: sabelmouse | May 18, 2016 at 09:07 AM
Mitochondrial disorder IS mercury poisoning. Hannah Poling didn't have a preexisting condition, she got mercury poisoning from too many vaccines.
Posted by: Rebecca Lee | May 18, 2016 at 07:33 AM
Perhaps couple the two phrases together
"tobacco & vaccine science"
Posted by: Hans Litten | May 18, 2016 at 06:49 AM