Thank you for the additional info about the writer of that episode, Pete. Wonder what, if anything, could be accomplished by contacting him. Any thoughts?

Propublica gets Cochranized.
https://www.propublica.org/article/david-ayoub-an-anti-vaxxer-new-crusade
(and mischaracterizes Dr Yazbak, and attempts to add more hate to the field of science)
remember this?
https://projects.propublica.org/graphics/bigpharma

Pete,

Thank you for the additional links, which I just viewed.

I don't watch the Simpsons, so I am not sure how they typically tend to get their political points across, but the original link you sent sure seemed to point toward an anti-vaccine sentiment.

Yes Kristina, that's the panel. The link to the full clip is in the video's info below, but it takes a strong stomach to get through, and a bit of eye/brain bleach after.

Joy B: Last year on my trail hike I met a young Israeli family. Both parents post-doc biologists vacationing from an east coast university. I always try to steer conversations with people towards the evil of vaccines. He told me that in Israel physicians have the lowest uptake of the flu shot of any subgroup. They know.

To the degree that everybody in the ‘50’s had to declare that they were not communist, Laura Hayes is correct!

Our children and adults are suffering from a neurological immune system damage that was caused by over vaccinating an entire generation. There exist medications called immune modulators that would reverse the damage to our children. Our children are suffering from a medical pandemic that these immune modulators could reverse, correct, and CURE. The problem is that no one is attempting to do any clinical trial of these medications as the CDC and NIH are not interested in pursuing the trials or spending the 20 million needed to conduct them. What is needed is a pharmaceutical company and there are many of them who could raise this money and get started on the trials that should have occurred over 20 years ago. The technology is there, but the money needs to be acquired in order to do the clinical trials correctly so the FDA would approve their usage for our "autism" labeled children.

John,

It's just another aspect of the propaganda war. They pay hundreds of minions to attack vaccine critics on the blogs. But their war is fought on many fronts. I looked at DR's FB page the other day, and was a little surprised that she said that Gardasil has now been approved for women over the previous top age of 26. They USED to say that giving the HPV vaccine to people who have already been exposed to the virus, i.e., nearly everyone who had ever had sex, plus many who get it from nonsexual vectors, is very dangerous and INCREASES the incidence of dangerous lesions. NOW she says that everyone of any age can and should get it. She had her older son take a picture of her with her sleeve rolled up getting the injection. She said yes, she IS married and in a monogamous relationship, but who knows? She seemed to be saying that the vaccine would prevent future cancer from long-ago relationships, which is not the case, but of course it would sell vaccines to the unwary. Another devious strategy in the bigger war. I followed a link to an article on the FB page and commented there. Unleashed the whirlwind. The moderator said I know who YOU are, you're REALLY ciaparker2. Chris said Yes, I realized that too, that's why I didn't pull any punches with her. Chris said Measles deaths dropped in the '50s because of excellent improved allopathic care. I said There IS no allopathic care for measles absent the uncommon bacterial complication. She said Yes, that's why it's so important to VAX for it. And then to prevent the obvious response, they closed the article to further comments. Another strategy of theirs.

They're losing. They know it. They've called up their mercenaries to stab away one meme, one article, one photo, one law at a time. But they can't stand against the deluge of autism caused by vaccines, increasingly obvious to everyone. So we just have to do the same thing, bring one grain of truth at a time which is rapidly becoming a mountain.

That's just part of their strategy, to clog up the blog comments with insults and filth so that nice people are repelled and may stop reading. But a lot of formerly nice people are angry about what's happening, so many blatant lies, so much denial of the truth, and they keep reading and become the most stellar blog commenters.

There used to be anti-tobacco, anti-lead in gasoline, anti-thalidomide, anti-Vioxx, anti-dioxin, anti-DDT, anti-fluorocarbons,

We now know who was proven correct on those issues and it was NOT those who had all the money.

They only do it because they know that most people will just take it at face value so they don't have to think about it. That's why every totalitarian régime has propagandists in an exalted position. The best memes are distorted, but have a basis in reality. After all, how many of us are in favor of condemning children to die of contagious disease?

We should wear it with pride! Or, in my case, say Yes, I'm an anti-vaxxer, except that I think... Or say at every turn, Yes, I'm an anti-vaxxer! I'm totally against inflicting brain damage and autoimmune disease on babies! You're saying that you are in favor of them? Hmmm? It's just part of the battle. What else are they going to say?

Just when I was about to pull my hair out of my head over the idiotic response to Rossario's tweet, I found your delightful analysis, Kim.

Thank you. :)

I am the antivaxxer RN at work. They think I am an absolute Anti vaccine Nazi. Really, if I spoke my mind, which I would be fired for, I would be SO SO much worse. I think I can be more effective there on the down low. I wear my mask. I consider it a badge of honor. Co workers say,"How can you wear that?" I reply I would drag a ball and chain down the hospital halls rather than be vaccinated.

I agree with Laura Hayes that it is a mistake to respond in a defensive manner when one is labeled anti-vaccine or an anti-vaxxer.

Personally, though, I do not embrace that label, because it implicitly frames the issue as a technology problem, while I consider it to be primarily a political/economic problem.

If someone were to call me an anti-vaxxer, I would likely respond with something like the following:

I do not hold a favorable opinion of vaccines, but I am really more fundamentally opposed to the government vaccine program. The entire apparatus that centrally plans, approves, schedules, mandates, absolves from liability, and propagandizes for vaccines is destructive, tyrannical, and not suitable for a free society. Whether or not anyone uses vaccines, and to what extent, should be a strictly private matter. The government vaccine program should be abolished.

It doesn't make for a good sound bite, but I think that the government vaccine program is the proper target of our criticism.

Laura,

I think the issue is irrespective that the term is used in a derogatory and polarising way in order to rob people of status. I certainly feel that it is significant that “they” don’t see any place for compromise as they expand their demands on the community - indiscriminately any single criticism is classified as “antivax”. This shows that we are dealing with a lobby which is beyond reasonable discourse, an absolutist, totalitarian ideology so that even if any of it is based on science this has been left well behind.

Back in the last decade Paul Offit made the claim that it was safe to administer 10,000 or 100,000 vaccines to infant all in one go (irrespective apparently of disease or product) and no one took this apart like I did (it even became part of state ideology in the U.K. which is perhaps why I took special trouble) and even he became embarrassed by it, but now there is no theoretical basis (however flawed) and a rapacious lobby goes on saying it wants more and anyone who murmurs the slightest criticism is trash. That’s extreme.

Like Bob, I have no problem with the label anti-vaccine, and use it to label myself as an “anti-vaccine activist/advocate”.

Those in the know about the horrors of vaccines, and worse, about the horrors of mandating them, who have a problem with being labeled anti-vaccine, versus embracing it, triggered the title of my 2016 WAPF presentation: “Vaccines: What Is There to Be ‘Pro’ About?”

Brett Wilcox has posted an incredible list of synonyms for anti-vaccine here on AoA in the comments section in the past to point out just how accurate the label is for those who understand the dangers of, failures of, lack of need for, corruption underlying, and propaganda surrounding and artificially propping up vaccines.

As I commented here on AoA in response to Del Bigtree telling a reporter in Sacramento earlier this year that he wasn’t anti-vaccine, he was pro-science, I pointed out that if one is pro-science, one must be anti-vaccine, as there is no valid science to support their use, and much evidence, in addition to much science, to support immediately discontinuing their use. There is so much evidence and science to support discontinuing their use, in fact, that the title of my most-recent presentation in early November in Utah was titled “Why Is This Legal?” with regard to the use of vaccines and the mandating of them.

In the post above, the term “under- vaccinated” was used. In previous posts here on AoA, the term “over-vaccinated” has been used. I am opposed to the use of either, as they imply there is some scientifically-valid, acceptable level of vaccination, which there isn’t. The rhetoric we choose is of critical importance, and it is my firm belief that we should not use rhetoric which condones and perpetuates vaccine propaganda.

“Anti” means against or opposed to. I am against and opposed to vaccines, to the use of such unproven and dangerous products, to the mandating of them, to the devastation and death they cause, and to anyone who supports, condones, or legislates the mandating of them. Therefore, I am anti-vaccine, and I am also anti-vaccine mandates. If the definition fits, use it, and explain to others at every opportunity why it is accurate. By doing so, we will destigmatize it. By constantly denying it, we won’t, and worse, we will increase the power of its use by those who use it to demean and debase us. Let’s not permit that to happen. Own the label, explain the label, and turn it into the label of those in the know, of those who want no part in the continuance of the harming, disabling, making chronically ill, and killing via vaccination.

This Stanley Plotkin testimony is quite the best entertainment I have ever seen in my life.
This man is much worse than a common criminal. He knows exactly all the carnage he has been involved in his whole life. And this nonsense about not being interested in money at all.

He knows full well the devastation he has caused all around the world.
He knows it all and he "lies by omission" every second line he utters.

He read through various anti-vax websites (but only mentioned Vactruth.com).
I was praying he would give AoA a mention. haha

I hope you read this Stanley - for you are a scoundrel sir. I will never forgive you.
The same of your protégé Offit.

An aspect of this I noted last year was the call by Seth Berkley, Director of GAVI, in the once respectable Spectator to have “antivaxxer” comment excluded from the web. The point is it isn’t just these allegedly very defective people but any vaccine critical comment at all which is thereby excluded. The vaccine lobby can no longer cope with any reality check at all.

When I commented, of course, I was immediately surrounded by low grade abusive and libellous comments which made the blog comments impossible to read.

I am fairly sure the demonization isn't working very well - they are showing increasingly more desperation because the truth is very much available and out there now.

I love this by the way, does anyone else find this hilarious ?

The Washington Post - Democracy Dies in Darkness
(democracy is already dead, operation mockingbird, fluoride, corptocracy, one world govt etc)
And WAPO is one of the leaders of killing it.