Dachel Wake Up: Fox & Friends Fabricates Vaccination Story
By Anne Dachel
It is clear that the major networks will make up the facts in order to defend vaccines and criticize parents who question their safety. We’ve seen it for years, and that is exactly what they did on this report on Fox & Friends. We’re told three quarters of parents don’t believe kids need vaccines.
???
This is outright news fraud. It's the Fox News version of a recently announced survey of doctors that was actually done in 2013.
The Fox anchor is stunned. How could so many parents be so misinformed?
Actually, Fox has the story all wrong, and one has to ask if it was intentional.
This is what CBS News reported:
In the survey, conducted in 2013, about 87 percent of pediatricians said they had encountered vaccine refusals, an increase from the 75 percent who reported refusals during the last survey from 2006.
The most common reason, provided by three out of every four parents: Vaccines are unnecessary because the diseases they prevent have been wiped out in the United States.
Now, more parents are refusing the vaccine on the grounds that they are “unnecessary” — 73.1 percent in 2013 vs. 63.4 percent in 2006. Moreover, even parents who believe in vaccines appear to be delaying the shots that are supposed to be given on a strict schedule to maximize their effectiveness. Seventy-five percent of pediatricians said that parents asked for delays because of worries about their child's "discomfort" and 72.5 percent because of a concern "for immune system burden."
What Fox News did was to take the“three out of every four parents” who refused vaccines to mean three out of every four parents—ALL PARENTS of pediatric patients.
Study: Majority of parents think vaccines are unnecessary
Anchor Fox & Friends: “Shocking new survey finds seventy-three percent think vaccines aren’t necessary. Seventy-three percent. That as a mumps outbreak is growing on Long Island with at least thirty-six people infected right now. So where is the disconnect?
“We have a doctor here, Dr. Jennifer Caudle, and she joins is to answer all of our questions.”
Caudle: “We have to remember, vaccines save lives. …” Caudle went on to describe all the life-saving benefits of vaccination.
“Remember, vaccines are safe. They’re very effective. …
“The flu shot, we don’t give a young child until they’re six months and older. …”
Anchor: “Are you shocked by that number? Seventy-three percent of people don’t think that you should get vaccines?”
Caudle: “I am. I really am shocked. And this was a study, a survey of pediatricians. When asked why they thought their patients and their parents were not getting vaccinated, they felt overwhelmingly that most people felt that vaccines were unnecessary. …”
“Vaccines do not cause autism. That is very, very important. We need to be able to able to have that dialogue. …”
I have several questions for Dr. Caudle. How much informed consent do you give your patients? Since you stated, "The most common reactions are like local reactions. You might get a little sore arm. Maybe a low grade fever in some kids, some things like that. But most people do very fine with them." What about the kids who don't do "very fine"?
Do you go over the package insert on each vaccine given to children with the parents? Do you inform parents that neither you nor the vaccine maker has any liability for a vaccine reaction?
When you give the flu shot, do you use mercury-free ones? Do you vaccine pregnant women with the flu vaccine?
Are you aware of the growing CDC whistleblower scandal because one of the government's own scientists has said that his agency destroy documents showing research linking vaccines to autism, especially in African American boys?
Finally, Fox News should know that they are "the disconnect." It is more than a little disingenuous to imply that unvaccinated children are responsible for the mumps outbreak on Long Island.
August 30, 2016, Healio: Long Island mumps outbreak grows to 36 cases
“It’s not something we can predict,” [Mary Ellen Laurain, a DOH spokeswoman,] told Infectious Disease News. “The community isn’t as populated after summer, but it’s really hard to tell.”
According to Laurain, the average age of patients in the outbreak is 25 years. She described them as a “highly vaccinated” group and said the outbreak may be part of a nationwide increase in cases.
More likely than not, the media is now being used to present parents as COMPLACENT. They're not worried about their kids getting sick because vaccines have eradicated serious diseases, and if this laissez-faire attitude continues, sickness and death will happen as these diseases return. It's time to take choice away from the misinformed. And they'll use every opportunity to make the point--even so far as to phony up the statistics.
Anne Dachel is Media Editor for Age of Autism.
I understand. It seems that Wakefield, among other physicians, was a high-profile witness during the MMR litigation. This is where the figure of £435,000 came from; simple witness fees.
Some bloggers online would like people to think that Wakefield was paid or promised this sum by law firms before the original Lancet paper. This is a highly misleading and implies a conspiracy between Wakefield and certain unspecified barristers.
Posted by: Narad | September 02, 2016 at 08:50 PM
What you have to remember here is Fox and friends are no more your 'friends' than Hillary is about families and children (yes, that's what Hillary's daughter Chelsea claims). Hillary is for pharma. Forcing children and their parents to succumb to this vaccine-schedule-on-steroids is anything but kind to those she purports to support. In fact, it's really very twisted all this mandating when you consider that child health has never been worse. Even worse when you consider the COI's for the CDC.
Posted by: Memo to Hillary and Fox | September 02, 2016 at 04:35 PM
LOL! If it is 73 percent - that high! Then they have lost and a bunch had better start hoping that look good in orange.
This is great news!
Posted by: Benedetta | September 02, 2016 at 12:07 PM
Happened to view this particular segment on FOXNEWS .. and .. at the time I thought the supposedly "fair and balanced" network ... should have informed viewers they were watching a "paid advertisement for the pharmaceutical industry".
Anytime you see the supposed "interviewer" .. {in this case more sock-puppet or useful idiot) .. shaking her head in agreement at everything being said by the supposed "expert doctor" .. you know you are witnessing "propaganda" .. the complete opposite of what "fair and balanced" journalism should be.
Hey ... it pays their bills!!!!!!
Posted by: Bob Moffit | September 02, 2016 at 10:04 AM
What I find most interesting about the hoopla over this doctors' survey is that it was originally done in 2013. Where has it been for three whole years? Personally I figure they were hanging on to it, waiting for things to get more heated. Voila--new survery--Parents aren't really worried about side effects, they've gotten over that idea. Now it's just bad parenting. They don't think shots are necessary.
For years, whenever the controversy got a lot of attention in the press, Voila--new study would magically appear--No link between vaccines and autism. The survey is just a new spin on their old ploy.
Posted by: Anne McElroy Dachel | September 02, 2016 at 09:22 AM
With the ousting of Roger Ailes at Fox news the Murdoch boys James and Lachlan are in charge.
Fox had done some good stories on vaccines over the years. Especially when Alisyn Camerota was there. They even had Polly and Dr. Wakefield on more or less promoting Vaxxed.
Guess things are changing considering James relationship with GSK and the whole Brian Deer witch hunt of Wakefield that he set in motion.
Posted by: Andrea | September 02, 2016 at 08:52 AM
Narad
Of course, if you followed the logic no one could possibly sue anyone if it required expert work. In the UK now the big corporations are effectively off the hook anyhow because the LSC would not even support a case against Merck over Vioxx.
Posted by: John Stone | September 02, 2016 at 08:15 AM
If we lived in a healthy democracy (or if we lived in a democracy at all), the response to Vaxxed and questions from the medical community and parents about the safety, efficacy and need for vaccines, would be to report that there are questions and reports of fraud that are being investigated. The news reporting would be about the investigation. Reporters would be crawling all over Washington, DC, questioning Congress, Jason Chaffetz and others in both political parties, the attorney general, and the president, asking them all what they're doing about William Thompson's confession, the 10,000 documents, and to guarantee the integrity of vaccine research and recommendations. Reporters would be all over the CDC, NIH and FDA, asking hard questions about the involvement of those agencies in these allegations. The "CDC 5" (DeStefano, Boyle, Thompson, Bhasin, Yeargin-Allsopp) and AAP leadership, as well as community vaccine pushing pediatricians, family medicine practitioners and pharmacists across the country, would be confronted by reporters with the facts and hard questions and hounded for statements that would be later used by prosecutors. Reporters would be reporting to the public the content of the documents. Drs. Hooker and Wakefield would be interviewed on every network and the reporters would follow-up to do everything possible to make vaccinees safe worldwide.
Instead we have social engineering, the government and media equivalent of the cattle prod. That crimes have been committed and continue to be committed, that the official story is a lie and that citizens are demanding to know the truth, will not be officially acknowledged. Instead, in response to undesirable behavior, the propaganda machine is fired up to shove the herd back into the corral.
Posted by: Linda1 | September 02, 2016 at 07:45 AM
Narad
This is innuendo. There was a court case against the three manufacturers of MMR vaccine in the UK and Wakefield was paid as a witness (a fact which he never disguised) along with many others on both sides: the standard rate for such work was £150 an hour (about $240) which mounted up over several years (about eight), before the UK Legal Services Commission collapsed the case. I believe the amount he actually received was reduced by another court. Stephen Bustin, by comparison, who was acting as witness for the defending companies and probably put in a fraction of the hours that Wakefield did admitted to receiving $360,000 for his work for the British court in the case.
http://www.vaccinationnews.com/busting-rules-f-edward-yazbak-part-2-3
Also there is no question that the Lancet knew all along that Wakefield was acting for the court although they pretended otherwise.
http://www.ageofautism.com/2016/04/best-of-sir-crispin-davis-and-james-murdoch-leave-gsk-board.html
http://www.ageofautism.com/2008/12/smoke-and-mirrors-dr-richard-horton-and-the-wakefield-affair.html
So, Wakefield was paid - big deal. Of course, the defending companies knew, the Lancet knew, Sir Crispin Davis, proprietor of the Lancet, GSK director and brother of the judge, Sir Nigel Davis, who upheld the LSC decision to collapse the case claimed that it was revelation to a House of Common's committee (while not mentioning his GSK directorship which he presumably didn't know either). He seems he had forgotten he was brother of the judge as well.
Posted by: John Stone | September 02, 2016 at 06:55 AM
I was wondering is someone could shed light on the claim that Wakefield was paid $674,000 by a law firm to implicate the MMR vaccine? I have heard this claim many times by people online aiming at discrediting Wakefield. I never gave it much thought, but after reading the AoA article: Keeping Anderson Cooper Honest: Is Brain Deer the Fraud, I have become intrigued by the whole matter.
Posted by: Narad | September 02, 2016 at 06:16 AM
Hi Anne
Looks like elements of incompetence and cynicism - in the UK and perhaps elsewhere we used to call this "the silly season" with journalists just filling space. Besides which this is just the kind of error you expect tabloids at least to make. I wonder also whether the results of the survey haven't been influenced by the HPV vaccine refusal (the products were only introduced in 2006) and a lot of people have rejected it?
Posted by: John Stone | September 02, 2016 at 05:50 AM