April Has 30 Days
University of Utah Ordered to Pay Additional $216K To Whistleblower Dr. Judith Zimmerman

Creeping On Facebook To Analyze "Anti-Vaxxers"

Facebook-spy-app2-738x277With Facebook facing a possible 5 billion-dollar slap on the wrist by the Federal Trade Commission for privacy violations, a study just came out and guess where the data is from?  Yes, Facebook!

So it seems that a few years back, a large pediatric office, Kids Plus Pediatrics of Pittsburgh, put up a video on their Facebook page encouraging families to vaccinate their children against human papillomavirus, or HPV.  There are two vaccines, Gardasil and Cervarix, and the safety of them is a big concern with many parents .  As a result, hundreds of parents apparently commented negatively about this video.

From The Washington Post :

First, someone posted the claim that “the vaccine kills.” Within minutes, more anti-vaccine comments came pouring in. ….

From CNN :

Perhaps most significant, doctors and experts said, is that Kids Plus was able to figure out the social media attack was directed from inside closed anti-vaccine Facebook groups, in which members have to be approved to join. Together with the researchers’ analysis, the information provides the first systematic analysis of how anti- vaccine activists coordinate a harmful social media campaign, experts said.“We know they’re all coordinated,” said Erica DeWald, director of advocacy for Vaccinate Your Family, the nation’s largest nonprofit dedicated to advocating for vaccinations. “But this is the actual research piece that proves that.”Many health-care professionals are afraid of the impact anti-vaxxers can have on their business, according to DeWald. The online attacks often result in negative ratings and reviews on sites such as Google and Yelp.

Let’s pause and look at some of this information.

Hundreds of parents, most likely parents of children who have been INJURED or DIED due to vaccination, left comments on this particular pediatric business (yes, this vaccine “advocate” is being clear that it is a BUSINESS and that “health-care professionals” were concerned about the impact on their reviews, not the health of any children).  Interestingly, in this same CNN article, we are told that Pennsylvania is also home to Dr. Paul Offit, a long-time champion of vaccines (and patent-holder on a vaccine in which he made an estimated total of over 10 million dollars - probably much more but he won’t say).  Offit also tweeted about this so-called “study” .  Age of Autism has posted much about him over the years, like this well-researched article: Counting Offit’s Millions: More on How Merck’s Rotateq Vaccine Made Paul Offit Wealthy

Offit is again attempting to use emotion and fear about the “anti-vaxxers.”  He has been building up that term since he introduced it years ago. His other target, Dr. Andrew Wakefield, he mentions often as Offit must keep the truth from surfacing, that increasing numbers of children are being harmed.  The brilliant and bullied Dr.Wakefield, has been eviscerated since 1998 for not being intimidated by Merck and its many attack dogs.  Here we hear Offit say Dr. Wakefield is responsible for the “anti-vaxx” movement.  If there were ever two men who were completely opposite it would be Offit and Wakefield.  This video demonstrates Offit’s theatrical performances that he has done for years.

He shares misinformation as well, blaming many outbreaks on unvaccinated children when in reality, Offit does not share this information,  studies that show it is vaccine failure often in these outbreaks:

measles outbreaks also occur even among highly vaccinated populations because of primary and secondary vaccine failure, which results in gradually larger pools of susceptible persons and outbreaks once measles is introduced [8]. This leads to a paradoxical situation whereby measles in highly immunized societies occurs primarily among those previously immunized…

Then there is MUMPS, also in that MMR vaccine:

Mumps Outbreaks in Vaccinated Populations: Are Available Mumps Vaccines Effective Enough to Prevent Outbreaks?

And then there is this one that Offit would never mention:

Despite high vaccination coverage, a resurgence of pertussis (whooping cough) has been observed during the past few decades.

Polio, a horrific disease, is more scary with vaccination now it appears:

Mutant Strains Of Polio Vaccine Now Cause More Paralysis Than Wild Polio https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2017/06/28/534403083/mutant-strains-of-polio-vaccine-now-cause-more-paralysis-than-wild-polio

Oral polio vaccine-associated paralysis in a child despite previous immunization with inactivated virus  http://www.virology.ws/2014/10/08/oral-polio-vaccine-associated-paralysis-in-a-child-despite-previous-immunization-with-inactivated-virus/

Vaccines are not the perfect product and the business of vaccination is dependent on a public in fear but also increasingly forced to get vaccines.  The  “anti-vaxxers” have become the target, the scapegoat.  Now the vaccine companies pay (contribute loads of cash) to politicians to do their dirty work and make laws so choice is gone.  We are talking about forcing a medical procedure on children now and eventually all of us.  Your social security check may be dependent on you getting your annual flu shot.  Your son may be unable to get his driver’s license, go to college, get married, get on a plane, etc etc.  People should be thanking the “anti-vaxxers,” as they are trying to expose this injustice as well as the many negative and often, life-threatening consequences of today’s vaccines. Where there is risk, there must be choice.  Offit’s use of “anti-vaxx,” is a derogatory name for parents who supported and DID vaccinate their children, but injury or death occurred.  Offit will tell you, “it was a coincidence,” but thousands of parents, brave researchers and doctors are not making it up.  They have nothing to gain except trying to prevent that heartbreak in another family. 

Most of the parents are EX-VAXXERS but Offit and his troupe of VACCINE INJURY DENIERS will not use that term as it shows these parents saw their babies, toddlers and teens injured or dead after vaccines.  The parents are dedicated to the truth, are smart, and have complete, robust rationale for questioning the safety of vaccines.

So let’s get back to this study, just freshly out from Vaccine, with this cutesy title - It’s not all about autism: The emerging landscape of anti-vaccination sentiment on Facebook

As there is so much in the news about privacy issues on Facebook, the mining of this data is concerning:

the Internet, and specifically social media, may be facilitating the spread of anti-vaccination misinformation [7], [8]. Unsubstantiated safety concerns presented as scientific information are readily available on the Internet [9]. Previous research suggests that viewing a website providing vaccine-critical information for just 5 to 10 min decreases intention to vaccinate, and that false information appears to spread more rapidly than truth on social media [7], [10].   

This sure looks like a poor attempt to shut up the truth. Very interesting about, “vaccine-critical information for just 5 to 10 min decreases intention to vaccinate.”

the purpose of this study was to systematically assess individuals known to express anti-vaccination sentiment on Facebook. We (1) coded sociodemographic characteristics of individuals and the anti-vaccination information they convey, (2) conducted social network analysis to examine the connections between these individuals and anti-vaccination topics, and (3) performed in-depth qualitative analysis to identify related themes in these individuals’ public posts.

Sounds like a bunch of mumbo-jumbo to say they took information from Facebook members by friending them as how else can you see their posts?  This would involve lies and infiltrating groups, kind of like a spy? They then gathered characteristics, coded information, and analyzed it all.  Creepy, and is it legal as well as ethical? 

NEVER once did the study include that the children of these parents were injured or died as a result of vaccination, a significant “sociodemographic characteristic.”

All study procedures were approved by the University of Pittsburgh Institutional Review Board (PRO17120151). Our data set consisted of 197 individuals on Facebook who posted anti-vaccination comments on a local paediatric clinic’s Facebook page.

Hard to believe a university could approve of infiltrating and gathering information without these 197 people giving their approval.  Is that honest and appropriate behavior?

Social network analysis found that topics and people tended to cluster into 4 distinct sub-groups (differentiated by colour in Fig. 1). The “trust” sub-group emphasized mistrust of the scientific community and concerns about personal liberty. The “alternatives” sub-group focused on chemicals in vaccines and the use of homeopathic remedies as an alternative to vaccination. The “safety” sub-group focused on perceived risks and concerns about vaccination being immoral. The “conspiracy” sub-group suggested that the government and other entities hide certain beliefs this sub-group believes to be facts, including that the polio virus does not exist.

Those seem like topics that show smart and invested people.  Also, it is not conspiracy thinking when Merck comes right out and says this:

Merck emails from 1999 showed company execs complaining about doctors who disliked using Vioxx. One email said:

We may need to seek them out and destroy them where they live ..  

What do you think they are saying behind closed doors about parents who witnessed vaccine injury or death?  Those savvy moms and dads who want to help spread correct information so that their neighbors, relatives, co-workers, friends, even members on Facebook, know that there is risk, increasing risk with more vaccines. What they are most likely saying is that they need to make them look crazy, emotional, uneducated or too educated, privileged, and selfish ---- yes, so selfish for wanting to prevent another child and family from the horror that has happened to their own child.

This “research” paper is ridiculous and does not a thing except try to again make parents look irrational when in reality, they are highly rational people living in an irrational situation.  Watching your child suffer daily or die from vaccination, is not something one will ever just simply get over, especially if is is denied by those who sold it and administered it.  The use of personal information and demographic data here gives us many glimpses of the desperation and confabulation used to try and fool a nation that is “VACCINE HESITANT” and with much good reason. This crafted study also reflects that the “need to seek them out and destroy them where they live” includes Facebook.  It also shows us that the methods being used to paint an ugly picture of so many parents on Facebook, may not be honest, may not be legal, and may not be ethical.  It also continues to show how too many of these Vaccine Injury Deniers and organizations show a lack of knowledge about both the science and humanity of vaccine injury and death.



susan welch

Pft. Wait no longer! Saturday's issue of the UK Daily Mail has a half page spread with headline 'Kremlin accused of link to measles hysteria' First sentence reads 'Russia was accused last night of spreading vaccine scare stories' Apparently comes from a 'Whitehall source' and they (Parliament) do believe we are wary of vaccinations because of Russian propaganda!

The second half of the page is devoted to 'Not vaccinating your youngster is like child abuse' headline.

I haven't read either article in full because I'm not sure if I will end up laughing or crying!

It really is getting very silly but, sadly, people are buying into the hysteria/propaganda.


Still waiting for them to come out and say Russia is behind the anti-vaxxers.

People will believe anything with effective propaganda. No lie is too big. Bernay taught us that and those who have followed him have mastered the art.


Aimee--Many years ago, late 90's if my memory serves me right, a pro vaccine physician commented that if we screened for those who could react unfavorably to current vaccinations, there would be no mass vaccination program. That's why the one-size-fits-all is has gotten the herd to point that most of us don't to be in "THAT herd". There is the Tale of Two Herds that the corporate media will never acknowledge.

Cia--that was one of your best comments!!!!!!

cia parker


I was thinking about that a while ago. Their narrative holds that only a very few, who are genetically defective, react adversely to vaccines, and then only in "one in a million" cases. But vaccines are totally safe for the happy, healthy majority, who would certainly die if they didn't get all the proffered vaccines. So again, it's them and us. But I just put up a relevant comment here by Daniel Greenfield, on a slightly different topic which shows that social media is blowing their narrative to smithereens, letting everyone know that they are far from alone with the vaccine-injured members of their family, and that yes, it was the vaccines. Essentially, the pharma companies are our government, and this revolution is going to topple it.

Very few care about the idea of screening before giving vaccines: the medical cartel because it would be expensive for everyone, time-consuming, and it would be admitting that vaccines are the opposite of safe for many, making everyone nervous about getting them. And if you pass one screen, it doesn't mean that they even know all the screens that they should have to look for other problems. And the populace doesn't care because to care would be to admit that maybe they aren't really part of the happy, healthy herd, but possibly part of the outcast, reactive herd.

cia parker

From "The Media Cheers Government Censorship of the Internet," by Daniel Greenfield, in response to the Sri Lankan government shutting down social media until they get their official narrative straight:

"The military is blocking people from expressing their opinions until it finalizes its story and presents it officially to the public. And this is what our own media supports and wants to see in America.

The issue isn’t whether Facebook can be trusted. It’s whether the media trusts the people.

“Social media has blown the lids off controls that have kept society in check. These platforms give voice to everyone, but some of those voices are false or, worse, malevolent,” Swisher writes.

Giving voice to everyone is the essence of free speech. And that’s what the media opposes."

Aimee Doyle

Some questions I have...

I don't fully get why either print or media reporters (whether mainstream, conservative, independent, or alternative) never cover "vaccine court" - I mean - it seems like a big story that nearly $4 Billion has been paid out since the NCVIA was established in 1986. Why wouldn't we want to know what kinds of damage are caused by which vaccines? Maybe some are worse than others.

Also - why are so many people so complacent with vaccine injury? Are they okay with having children and adults severely injured or die as a result of vaccination? Are these individuals acceptable collateral damage in the war for public health? And if no, then why isn't there a clamor for screening to see who is susceptible to vaccine injury or damage? Are people really okay with rolling up their sleeves and rolling the dice?

Friends brush me off with "well, the risk is low. Injury and death rarely happen." Well, the risk is 100% if it happens to you or someone you love. Since so few cases end up in vaccine court, and almost no one knows how to report to VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System), do we really know how rare vaccine damage is?

cia parker

Well, they're trying to cut us out of the herd and make the rest of the herd believe that it is we who are crazy, gullible, paid to criticize vaccines. But everyone has seen autism now and has heard the parents tell them about what happened, what the vaccines did to their children. So they flatter the members of the big herd by telling them that THEY, unlike US, understand science, the nature of disease, and the concept of vaccines. THEY'RE the responsible, calm, intelligent, mature intellectuals. And everyone who spends much time on the Internet has learned about the dirty politics involved in many onscreen issues.

So, sure, let them knock themselves out. They're fighting to the death with reality, and, as many have said, reality always wins. What they're doing is grasping to get the last nickels they can before reality collapses the roof on them. The truth is obvious to those willing to look at it. And as to those who think that it's TOTALLY safe to give their kids 70 plus doses of vaccines by the age of 18, well, what can I say? Many have already learned otherwise, and the rest will.

Todd Wolynn has a major conflict of interest

Fun fact: Todd Wolynn, one of the co- authors, is listed by Dollars for Docs as having been on the payroll for vaccine manufacturers, receiving over $79,000 since 2013, and having accepted over $79,000 related to various vaccines.

He also has an appearance this week on Sirius Radio's "Doctor Radio" channel, in a half-hour interview devoted to measles, and telling interviewer Ira Breite how to deal with vaccine-hesitant parents.

It's worth paying attention to his suggested tactics so you know what your doctor is doing, so you can protect yourself from manipulative, dishonest doctors.



Don't we pretty much know that corporations pay public relations firms, journalists, "independent" scientists, and front groups to shove their corporate message about vaccines in front of the public? That's coordinated and sinister, isn't it?

Do we think pharmaceutical companies are more wholesome, straightforward and honest than the agrichemical industry?



'We know they’re all coordinated,” said Erica DeWald, director of advocacy for Vaccinate Your Family, the nation’s largest nonprofit dedicated to advocating for vaccinations. “But this is the actual research piece that proves that."

Maybe someone should go ahead and point out all the coordinated attacks conducted on sites like this (hence moderation, I presume) that originate from orgs like ECBT and the ASF. That would certainly make for an awkward moment as a counter-point to that claim. At least until they made their utilitarian arguments that it's "for the greater good."

Bob Moffit

The standard operational procedure when a main-stream "reporter" is assigned a story on "measles outbreak" is to interview a politician … for example .. Mayor De Blasio in NYC and the "expert" public health administrator at his elbow .. and during that "interview" the 'reporter" asks the politician and public health official "why" people refuse to vaccinate their children. The immediate well rehearsed response is to "demonize" those people as "anti-vaxxers" who are horribly misinformed, mostly due to false information on the internet or people like Jenny McCarthy .. that think autism is caused by vaccines. That issue began when Dr Wakefield .. in a study that was retracted by the Lancet magazine which first published it. Numerous studies since then have concluded the study was bogus and all studies since have proven any link between autism and vaccines is false. The science is settled .. period.

At this point … both politician and public health official describe how dangerous measles is .. some babies are so young they can't be vaccinated and others have compromised immune systems ..so it is imperative to protect everyone by getting your child vaccinated .. to protect these high risk children from dying.

It does not matter where this "report' originates .. on television, radio, newspapers, whatever .. the script is ALWAYS THE SAME … NEVER ASK THE PARENTS THEMSELVES WHY THEY ARE RELUCTANT TO VACCINATE THEIR CHILD … ONLY ASK THE POLITICIAN AND PUBLIC HEALTH OFFICIAL.

Having a Constitutionally guaranteed 'free press' is meaningless when the media itself is no longer interested in allowing some voices to be heard.

Angus Files

The Phace of Pharma the one stop shop,lie the local drug dealer selling everything and where you can get it all ---as Dan points out so brilliantly..

"If Offit had chosen to reap the benefits of his invention privately, there would be little public interest in publication of his stake in Merck’s Rotateq® revenues: inventors have every right to profit from their inventions and companies have every right to fund the commercialization of innovative new products. But Offit’s ambitions are larger than Rotateq®; he has thrust himself into the spotlight as both a vaccine safety authority and an autism expert, spokesman roles that have little to do with his work on Rotateq®. In these dual roles, he has worked aggressively to diminish public concerns over rising autism rates while deriding those who express concerns over vaccine safety. In effect, he has moved beyond his original rotavirus expertise and taken on a new career as a booster of the American medical industry, writing books on autism and vaccines (with another on what he calls the history of the “anti-vaccine” movement on the way), participating in highly publicized conflicts with several of the world’s leading autism charities and eagerly providing talking points for numerous media articles and books."

Pharma For Prison


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.)