CBC launched an all-out attack on the vaccine risk aware in February with an aired program that attacked my character and my integrity under the auspices of a “journalism”. I present the latest in three parts – my reply to their reply, and then a response from CBC forwarded by a concerned citizen with no ties or affiliation with me or IPAK. CBC has now doubled-down on their defamatory attack on me, and I would encourage everyone to write to CBC specifically bringing the matter to the attention of their President. Catherine Tait (email catherine.tait [at] cbc.ca).
Part I. Dr. Jack Brings CBC To School on Objective Journalistic Integrity – Again
I am utterly confused by your response. First, I think you should know there is no need for you to “regret” my positions on my behalf, which is done twice in this non-apology. I will speak for myself, thank you. If you meant to say that you regret that your organization's behavior led me to those positions, then I could understand, and I would then reply “I’m sure you do”.
You should certainly regret that CBC was so callous toward parents of vaccine injured children that they have failed to perform due diligence on the reality of risks associated with vaccines. The actual risk/benefit ratio of any vaccine schedule is unknown until a randomized, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial is conducted comparing the long-term health outcomes of that schedule to a completely unvaccinated group - and only then if the placebo used is truly inert – such as saline. When confronted with this fact, the proponents of current vaccines and the current vaccine schedule claim that it would be unethical to conduct a vaccinated vs. unvaccinated randomized trial – presuming the net benefit ratio – and that is not Science.
Second, your statement on the risks of vaccines relative to the risk of the infections they are supposed to prevent is mystifying, given all of the material that I sent, and that I know others have sent to you.
I want to thank you for admitting in part the wrong doing in the misrepresentation of events around who said what. It is important that I clarify, however:
- I’m not an “anti-vaxxer”. I’m for safer vaccines. Your inclusion of me whatsoever in your piece or your report is defamatory.
Even with the correction you made, the video still implies I’m doing something wrong or unethical. Does your definition of “journalistic integrity” include the narrating reporter stating that it is “creative” of me to request donations w/registration to a Science Day? Why? I see research organizations charging fees for conferences all of the time. What exactly was I “working around”? Why would the undercover reporter even mention “quid pro quo” – there was no discussion of me talking to legislators; he mentioned no bill; he mentioned no meeting with legislators; what was the exact potential but non-extistent quid pro quo? Insinuations of this form are covert accusations. During the entire interaction, your reporter presumed that he was speaking with me in manner in which what I do – research on vaccine safety and the link between genetics, environment and neurodevelopmental and immunological disorders – is wrong. Your reporter came up with a purely fictitious 400 people – lying to my assistant, and to me, about a purely fictitious event – and his math is also therefore a fiction. Why 400? Why not 4,000? This is not a proud day for CBC.
Even if there was real event, sometimes when I travel I also educate legislators, and sometimes I do not. Big deal – a research institute running a conference is hardly material for an undercover reporter. When I do testify, there is never any understanding in any way that my testimonies to committees or to legislative bodies are in return for any donations related to another event as compensation to me; the funds go to IPAK via online registration, and are used to conduct scientific research. No one influences my words, or my terms in any manner. I choose my own position and topic, which points I make, which scientific studies I reference and which events I attend. I recently testified in CT and there was no financial or material transfer, none expected, and no IPAK Science Day. The public understands that I stand for objectivity in Science; your reporter and the resulting report, and your reply still leads to insinuations that in some way my participating in society’s attempts to formulate public health policy as a Scientist is wrong. The “report” and the video your team published is a pack of lies and harmful to society deriving evidence-based public health practices based on the full balance of the available science.
- There remains the issue of the purpose of the timing of the cut-away to the production studio, the existence of two edits of the words on the screen with the same video, all pointing to this particular segment being highly edited. The “public” cannot “decide for themselves” because, as your reporter boasted to me, you broadcast from coast to coast. Posting a video online is insufficient and will not reach the public you misinformed. Media professionals with years of studio production experience have informed me that it’s clear and obvious what’s happened to the video; what your team did was highly unethical. Your review of the matter is still misleading. You should retract the story and the video and issue an apology to the public.
- Your review of the matter not only also leaves open the impression that in some way I needed a work-around – it also implies that I need to distinguish myself from activists at the event. That concept is, similarly, a construct in the mind of your reporter and it appears to be the product of speculation on your part. I would expect an organization like yours to offer substantive reactions, not idle speculation of my motive as defense of your organizations’ bad behavior. I am free to travel and to conduct IPAK Science Days, seminars, participate in workshops, etc. without any restrictions either as an IPAK event – or as an invited speaker. Sometimes at conferences, etc. I AM personally compensated as a speaker via an honorarium, a standard practice in academic research, regardless of whether my lecture topic involves vaccines or not. Your reporters and the report slandered me – and still defames me – by insinuating that in some way I am trying to “get around” something. That construct is theirs; the reality is quite different. Your reply commits the same offense.
- If your reporters had wanted an honest piece, they would have identified themselves as reporters and asked those of us in attendance, including parents, of why they were there in first place. They would have collected vaccine injury stories, but mainstream press has left that job to Polly Tommey and the entire VAXXED and VAXXED II team. Your reporters participated in the current unethical practice of bullying, demeaning, and mischaracterizing people who put their children in harm’s way and paid the price for our fight against infectious disease. CHILDREN, Paul. Parents of dead children should be treated with respect and, frankly awe, for fighting back in such a civilized manner against oppressive government agencies run by for-profit corporations. These parents would have welcomed you with open arms. Your pieces characterize the parents of vaccine injured children as weak-minded, and they find that treatment inhumane, as do I.
Let me ask you – did CBC or Marketplace receive funds from vaccine manufacturers to run this hit piece? See, Paul, that’s how it’s done. I am coming to your organization directly and asking you point blank, in the open. Your company can deny it in your own terms. You of course have no obligation to respond, but please let me know if my question is ambiguous or hard to understand. True objective reporting would allow those being interviewed to speak for themselves. Instead, your team set up straw man after straw man and the only thing they exposed was their own ability to conduct yellow journalism. Read more here.