 | Censorship by U.S. media is more common than you realize. Why do you suppose the medical news site, Statnews.com. wouldn't allow me to comment on this article? I waited several days after submitting my comment and then edited it slightly for clarity and resubmitted it a second time. The page just tells me it is, "awaiting moderation." What do you think might be the reason they won't post my comment? |
Here is a cut and pasted copy of the comment I tried to post on Statnews --
on the page with the above article:
This article missed a growing reason why adults are not getting vaccines -- it's CENSORSHIP on vaccine information or any science that challenges the pro-pharma narrative dominating the media. This in turn is fueling vaccine skepticism!
Articles by Helen Branswell exemplify this problem. Branswell has superb credentials, but her writing is PR for pharma thinly disguised as "health reporting."
Articles by Helen Branswell exemplify this problem. Branswell has superb credentials, but her writing is PR for pharma thinly disguised as "health reporting."
Closing the comments on her articles (i.e. the Chickenpox vaccine) or simply not allowing them, (her measles article) undermines credibility of Branswell and Stat, and her recent article:
https://www.statnews.com/2019/11/21/measles-immunity-passed-mother-to-baby-erosion/
frames the evidence to circumvent critical thinking in a way that helps pharma's profits and deprives citizens of true informed consent. I wanted to add omitted science as a comment below her article -- but comments weren't enabled. More censorship?
Educated people are asking -- what is the impact of vaccines over-all on long term health outcomes? In spite of spending more than most countries on health care, we have worse outcomes and an epidemic of chronic disease in children (allergies, anaphylaxis, asthma, autoimmunity, ADHD Autism...) An epidemic that has grown in parallel with the number of shots being given.
These chronic conditions are being linked with immune system dysfunction too. Vaccines ARE an intentional alteration of immune function. Yet we don't have a single long term study in a first world country showing better health outcomes for children who are highly vaccinated compared to those completely unvaccinated. But there is evidence suggesting the opposite:
https://www.oatext.com/pdf/JTS-3-186.pdf
https://www.scribd.com/doc/60166949/Roosendaal-study-of-vaccinated-vs-unvaccinated-children-in-the-Netherlands-Results-Survey
https://www.ebiomedicine.com/article/S2352-3964(17)30046-4/fulltext
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0027897
It is these facts and even more importantly -- the refusal of most public health officials and news organizations to openly discuss these facts that is growing vaccine skepticism. This matter is made worse by the media’s censorship: a single case of a child dying in the US from chickenpox makes headlines -- while a perfectly healthy child getting a fever and dying within 24 hours of a routine shot the media won't touch it with a ten foot pole.
Anyone who really believes the science is on their side should have no problem discussing it publicly -- attempts to prevent this are a red flag for those who are educated.
Here are just 2 points I would have liked to have made on Branswell's post about the new measles study but couldn't because comments were not allowed:
1) That study likely didn't include mothers of babies who were NOT vaccinated against measles – and had TRUE measles immunity from the disease itself. Previous studies have suggested that vaccinated mothers pass fewer antibodies on to their babies. This means that the intervention of widespread measles vaccine may have the unintended consequence of making those most vulnerable to measles deaths -- even more vulnerable!
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/epidemiology-and-infection/article/study-of-maternally-derived-measles-antibody-in-infants-born-to-naturally-infected-and-vaccinated-women/FBC941995D1938C4290AD1C293E54925
2) Also antibody titers are used as a proxy for immunity – but may not reflect cellular immunity which may be very important in protecting babies as well.
https://journals.plos.org/plospathogens/article?id=10.1371/journal.ppat.1007493
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/7de1/871458b83b208193ac3546ab0cde0d52e19f.pdf
If Stat is really interested in exploring and understanding the science and promoting public health, they will welcome discussion of these issues by EVERYONE including doctors and scientists instead of branding them with today's McCarthyism/Scarlet letter as "anti-vax" to dissuade people from considering the content of their ideas.
Anything less than this makes Stat a party to growing vaccine skepticism, and ultimately undermining public health.
https://www.statnews.com/2019/11/21/measles-immunity-passed-mother-to-baby-erosion/
frames the evidence to circumvent critical thinking in a way that helps pharma's profits and deprives citizens of true informed consent. I wanted to add omitted science as a comment below her article -- but comments weren't enabled. More censorship?
Educated people are asking -- what is the impact of vaccines over-all on long term health outcomes? In spite of spending more than most countries on health care, we have worse outcomes and an epidemic of chronic disease in children (allergies, anaphylaxis, asthma, autoimmunity, ADHD Autism...) An epidemic that has grown in parallel with the number of shots being given.
These chronic conditions are being linked with immune system dysfunction too. Vaccines ARE an intentional alteration of immune function. Yet we don't have a single long term study in a first world country showing better health outcomes for children who are highly vaccinated compared to those completely unvaccinated. But there is evidence suggesting the opposite:
https://www.oatext.com/pdf/JTS-3-186.pdf
https://www.scribd.com/doc/60166949/Roosendaal-study-of-vaccinated-vs-unvaccinated-children-in-the-Netherlands-Results-Survey
https://www.ebiomedicine.com/article/S2352-3964(17)30046-4/fulltext
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0027897
It is these facts and even more importantly -- the refusal of most public health officials and news organizations to openly discuss these facts that is growing vaccine skepticism. This matter is made worse by the media’s censorship: a single case of a child dying in the US from chickenpox makes headlines -- while a perfectly healthy child getting a fever and dying within 24 hours of a routine shot the media won't touch it with a ten foot pole.
Anyone who really believes the science is on their side should have no problem discussing it publicly -- attempts to prevent this are a red flag for those who are educated.
Here are just 2 points I would have liked to have made on Branswell's post about the new measles study but couldn't because comments were not allowed:
1) That study likely didn't include mothers of babies who were NOT vaccinated against measles – and had TRUE measles immunity from the disease itself. Previous studies have suggested that vaccinated mothers pass fewer antibodies on to their babies. This means that the intervention of widespread measles vaccine may have the unintended consequence of making those most vulnerable to measles deaths -- even more vulnerable!
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/epidemiology-and-infection/article/study-of-maternally-derived-measles-antibody-in-infants-born-to-naturally-infected-and-vaccinated-women/FBC941995D1938C4290AD1C293E54925
2) Also antibody titers are used as a proxy for immunity – but may not reflect cellular immunity which may be very important in protecting babies as well.
https://journals.plos.org/plospathogens/article?id=10.1371/journal.ppat.1007493
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/7de1/871458b83b208193ac3546ab0cde0d52e19f.pdf
If Stat is really interested in exploring and understanding the science and promoting public health, they will welcome discussion of these issues by EVERYONE including doctors and scientists instead of branding them with today's McCarthyism/Scarlet letter as "anti-vax" to dissuade people from considering the content of their ideas.
Anything less than this makes Stat a party to growing vaccine skepticism, and ultimately undermining public health.
