By Dan Ollmsted
Anne Dachel does a great job of bringing the latest outrages of the mainstream media to our humble blog -- she reads it so you don't have to, it might be said. But one item this week really caught my attention and bears repeating: Nathan Crabbe at the Gainesville Florida Times watched Vaxxed but never mentions William Thompson, the subject of the documentary!
Instead he says: "For a moment I thought the film might actually be an evenhanded documentary, but that thought was dispelled once Andrew Wakefield appeared on the screen. Wakefield, the film's director, also happens to be the author of a discredited study published in the British medical journal The Lancet in 1998 linking the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine to autism...."
This is the stuff of madness. No one questions -- or in fact mentions -- what Thompson, a senior scientist at the CDC, says about MMR fraud. Instead it's guilt by association. Wakefield. Wakefield. Wakefield.
This is not unusual, based on reading Anne's reports. Many news outlets never mention Thompson, but they cheer the fact the movie has been kicked out of film festivals because "repeated studies have found no connection between vaccines and autism." Yeah, repeated studies like the fraudulent one not mentioned here.
This is lousy, rotten, no good reporting. People who subscribe to the Gainesville paper are paying money to find out what a movie is about.
I'd like to throw an idea in the hopper. When I worked on a daily newspaper, we took our readers very seriously (at AOA we do, too). If a reader had a factual or fairness complaint, he or she could get a serious hearing not just from the reporter but from the editor.
I would like to see some parents who believe their children were vaccine-damaged get together after the next outrage by their local paper or TV station and politely request a meeting with the editor. Go as readers with experiences to share, not as a pressure group. If you don't get satisfaction, stand out front of the paper and hand out leaflets asking people with similar experiences to call the same editor. (Bring the pamphlets with you and leave one on the way out if you're dissatisfied.)
I'd ask the Gainesville editor to do a follow-up story describing what the movie is about. They can slam it all they want, but to hide the subject matter is poor reader service. And poor journalism.
Don't cancel your subscription! Start a Reader Revolt. My guess is they'll pay attention.
This week Mark Blaxill passed along an interesting Viewpoint article from the Journal of the American Medical Association, of all places. I couldn't get the abstract, but the note summarizing it said:
What Happens When Underperforming Big Ideas in Research Become Entrenched?
Joyner MJ, Paneth N, Ioannidis JP.
JAMA. 2016 Oct 4;316(13):1355-1356.
In this Viewpoint, John Ioannidis and colleagues review how rarely gene therapy and genomic medicine have led to breakthroughs for patients and call on the NIH to defund preclinical research that fails to deliver on its initial promise.
For several decades now the biomedical research community has pursued a narrative positing that a combination of ever-deeper knowledge of subcellular biology, especially genetics, coupled with information technology will lead to transformative improvements in health care and human health. In this Viewpoint, we provide evidence for the extraordinary dominance of this narrative in biomedical funding and journal publications; discuss several prominent themes embedded in the narrative to show that this approach has largely failed; and propose a wholesale reevaluation of the way forward in biomedical research.
Doesn't the NIH drive you crazy? It must stand for Not Interested in Health or No Imagination Here, or some such thing. The idiotic slow-motion response to the AIDS epidemic has played out again with the idiotic slow-motion Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee, which is also gene-centric. Whatever the NIH is up to we can be almost sure it adds up to Nothing Interesting Here.
Back in October of 2014 I wrote about the competing threats of EV-D68 and a new wave of paralysis in children compared to the then extant-threat of Ebola."
"Right now the media is fixated on the first case of Ebola to reach U.S. shores … Dr. Thomas Frieden, CDC director, says the disease will be stopped in its tracks, and for once I believe him. This is what the CDC does well -- track an outbreak in real time, find contacts, quarantine if necessary, and put an end to it.
“Enterovirus 68, I'm afraid, may be another story. This prospect is outside the CDC's wheelhouse because it does not follow the straight lines of germ theory - one microbe, one disease. It's another paradigm altogether -- a possible microbe-toxin interaction, the kind we've written about many times. And it comes uncomfortably close to interactions (MMR and thimerosal, another microbe and metal combination) they have already rejected as impossible.
“I'm afraid they feel much more at home waging war on Ebola.
“Which story is bigger? I vote for the enterovirus.
"If EV-D68 follows the polio trajectory, it will be back in bigger numbers, following a jagged course of dips and spikes that no on can make sense of until, one day, it explodes."
Now it's b-a-a-a-a-c-c-c-k, as we've reported. Even People is on the case: "Polio-like disease is on the rise in the U.S., causing paralysis in children."
As many of you know I've been writing recently -- and Mark and I have been collaborating for a long time -- on the real history of polio and its relation to toxic co-factors. Everything old is new again.
Just because I want to, I'm going to say I think opening Prince's house as a tourist attraction so soon after his death is some kind of record for instant kitsch. Yes, I know the lack of air conditioning means the items could not be kept around, etcetera etcetera. But please. The man died of an overdose of a prescription drug that is part of a class of drugs that has been hawked, like so many other medical intervention, way out of proportion to its usefulness.
Here's a memorial to Prince -- take drug ads off TV.
Dan Olmsted is Editor of Age of Autism.