Narrative Inquiry in Bioethics: “Families are Under No Obligation to Put Their Children at Risk By Participating in the Corrupt Current US National Immunization Program”
7 Minutes on CDC

Dachel Wake Up: Dr. Ari Zaretsky to Debate Andrew Wakefield's Research with Journalist Lawrence Solomon

By Anne Dachel

January 31, 2017, Canadian journalist to debate Andrew Wakefield's research with Toronto psychiatrist, Dr. Ari Zaretsky

Back on Jan 11, reporter Lawrence Solomon wrote a story for The Financial SolomonPost entitled, “How vaccine safety turned into one of Trump’s first presidential priorities.”

It was a detailed description of Donald Trump's views when it comes to vaccine safety issue and why it's a cause for concern.

He ended the piece with this: "Trump believes his presidency places him at the head of an historic movement, 'a beautiful movement. We are going to make America safe and great again.' Making America safe doesn’t just involve building a wall to keep out criminals and terrorists, he believes. To Trump, it also includes making sure that there’s safety in America’s vaccines."

At the end of the piece, Solomon announced that he was going to debate the controversy surrounding Dr. Andrew Wakefield's research linking the MMR vaccine to autism with a prominent physician in Toronto on January 31, 2017.

This, of course, is incredible news for parents in the autism community​, as well as for the general public.​

 Ari Zaretsky

Dr. Zaretsky, in addition to being a professor at the University of Toronto and chief psychiatrist  at oneZaretsky of Canada's leading hospitals,  will also be furthering his mandate as Vice President, Education. The public can only benefit by hearing informed views that will, hopefully, dispel myths that harm our children.

 I thank both Dr. Zaretsky and Lawrence Solomon for having this credible conversation. 

Lawrence Solomon

Lawrence Solomon is a columnist with Financial Post (Canada) and the executive director of Energy Probe.

The debate will be free for those who want to attend. 

Solomon has written some in-depth articles about the vaccine safety and about the controversial link to autism.

Links to some of his stories can be found here.


Jill in MI

Does anyone have any information at what happened at this debate? Is there anything on YouTube? Thank you for any information you can send.

Hans Litten

Why does this persons opinion matter please ?
Toronto psychiatrist, Dr. Ari Zaretsky

Can someone tell me ?
Is he a toxicologist ?
Is he a Aluminium toxicity specialist ?
Is he a mercury toxicity specialist ?
Is he an autism specialist ?
Who is this guy ? Senior physician (I couldn't care less what he thinks quite frankly)

Aren't many people saying psychiatry is basically a fraud anyway ?

Autism has nothing to do with psychiatry !

Don Baker

I hope it is a real debate, not the usual regurgitation from two pro-vaccine opinions. I wonder why they don't debate Andrew Wakefield himself? I'll bet he would participate if invited.

Karen Selick

Will this be recorded for later online viewing, I hope?


I don't think any of this pro-vaccine crowd is ever going to be convinced. They are just throwing their credentials around. If only we could get the whistleblowers to the fore front, then it isn't just one person's credentials against another's but the whole story will come out. The whole story of the fraud at the CDC needs to come out in a concrete way so that Congress will be able to consider rescinding the 1986 Compensation Law. I am convinced that once doctors, hospitals, and vaccine manufacturers can be sued the reality is going to change. Right now they don't care what science says because they can't be sued, and once they can be sued... We need to get rid of that law.


But is this a set-up like those we've seen before with Arthur Caplan, where doctors on both "sides" were actually pro-vaccine, and one side only pretended to take the "anti-vaccine" side, spouting exaggerated and inaccurate "anti-vax" rhetoric instead of the real science showing harm?

Ted Fogarty, MD

Toxic synovitis in children certianly could have a relationship to vaccines and rubella would be a great thing to pull out of the synovial fluid upon testing.

How about this $18,000 flu shot:

Can't wait to see Solomon debate the shrink.


I agree with Linda. Also, I can't understand the reason for discussing "the Wakefield vaccine scandal" when we know a lot more about vaccines now than we did twenty years ago, and so does Dr Wakefield. It's not just the live viruses that are problematic but also the mercury and aluminum in the other vaccines.

And Dr Zaretsky, a psychotherapist, appears to have specialised in bi-polar and depression, not autism:

A teen or adult who withdraws into himself because of depression is not the same as vaccine- triggered regression in a baby or young child.


The journalist will be arguing Wakefield's side of the debate against a doctor ?
This journalist has written some very good articles about Vaccines , this is one from the Huffington Post.


Ideally, Dr. Wakefield would be there as well.

Tom Petrie

See how the distortion begins? The Doctor is announced as a "prominent physician," and then later on as a "chief psychiatrist at one of Canada's Leading Hospitals." Trump is NOT referred to as President-elect Trump or President Trump, but just "Trump." And then Lawrence Solomon goes on to say: "The public can only benefit by hearing informed views that will, hopefully, dispel myths that harm our children."

So Journalist Solomon has already concluded that one of the debators (Dr. Zaretsky) is going to "dispel myths that harm our children." So he's already made a conclusion of which myths will be dispelled? So right away, we can infer that by "myths" we're talking about the "myth" that vaccines can or do harm our children. This is NOT professional journalism, as far as I can read, but maybe I'm mistaken.

So as Solomon refers to Dr. Wakefield, he leaves out any accolades. He's the author of a book entitled "Callous Disregard," a fact that could have been mentioned, as long as he's adding value to the name of Dr, Zaretsky...I mean what's "balanced" is balanced!

Now he didn't distort what Andrew Wakefield's research indicated, but it wasn't as accurate as it could be: Dr. Wakefield is a GASTROENTEROLOGIST--a fact that Solomon could have mentioned and his research showed GASTROINTESTINAL DISTURBANCES in children receiving the MMR vaccine. As long as Solomon is adding credibility to Dr. Zaretsky--a PSYCHIATRIST, mind you, he might as well do the same thing for Dr. Wakefield who has been put through the "ringer" for telling the truth.

Now what makes a Psychiatrist automatically "informed" about vaccines? I suppose the debate will shed light on this topic, but the "slant" of Journalist Lawrence Solomon is obvious and this is not the way to have an interview when the moderator takes a biased stance from the get-go. If words matter, it's not only important what words ARE used, but which ones are left out!

Bob Moffit

Anne .. this is very encouraging news .. coming on the heels of rumors that President Trump is considering creating a "Commission to study vaccine safety and scientific integrity";

Recently .. at 77 years of age .. heard of a "new childhood disease .. toxic synotis" .. which arose in a three year old .. causing her great hip discomfort while walking. The good news is the condition is reported to be .. in a majority of the cases .. cleared within a few weeks.

From what I have read .. the MMR vaccine has been suspected of "causing" toxic synotis .. specifically the Rubella virus .. with further suspicions that Rubella virus may be a contributing factor to the development of juvenile rheumatoid arthritis .. also reported to be on the rise in today's generation of children .. consider the following:

"There is a substantial body of evidence, both from controlled and noncontrolled studies in humans, relating rubella vaccine to acute arthropathy and arthritis. The earliest evidence derives from noncontrolled retrospective and prospective studies conducted in the late 1960s and early 1970s, the former generally designed to test the efficacy of various rubella vaccine strains, rather than their side effects, and the latter as part of the routine administration of the vaccine in population-based immunization campaigns"

As I understand it .. there are TWO Merck "whistleblowers" .. have alleged that Merck .. has for years .. falsified their research to indicate the Rubella strain in Merck's MMR is highly effective .. when they know for certain it is far from effective .. and .. if the above is true .. potentially dangerous. Yet .. Merck has successfully avoided appearing in ANY court to answer these extremely disturbing whistleblower accusations.

Why is that? How is that possible?

Hopefully Lawrence Soloman can find the answers to those two questions?

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)