Print

Print


The "Unscientific" Scientific American

Richard Gale and Gary Null PhD
Progressive Radio Network, July 19, 2019

"A democracy depends on the individuals making an 
intelligent and rational choice in what he 
regards as enlightened self-interest in any given 
circumstance. But...  the purposes of selling 
goods and the dictatorial propaganda is to try to 
bypass the rational side of man and to appeal 
directly to the unconscious forces below the 
surface so that you are in a way making nonsense 
of the whole democratic procedure which is based 
on a conscious choice on rational grounds."
- Aldous Huxley (Interviewed by Mike Wallace, 1958)

Many professionals and well-educated people read 
publications such as The New Yorker, The 
Atlantic, Forbes, Mother Jones, and leading 
newspapers such as the New York Times, Washington 
Post and Wall Street Journal, with the assumption 
that their chief editors hold a high standard of 
journalistic integrity and objectivity. We assume 
these publications are not compromised by 
conflicts of interest and institutional 
indoctrination. It was in the lead up to the 
invasion of Iraq that New York Times writer 
Judith Miller promoted the falsehood of Sadaam 
Hussein's possession of weapons of mass 
destruction (WMD). Readers believed that if such 
a story appeared in the Times, it must be 
credible. In effect, Miller became a principal 
opinion leader for the Washington establishment 
and the neocons to push forward with regime 
change. The media would play the role in 
convincing the public in the righteousness of 
this effort. Although the lie about Iraq's WMDs 
was fabricated by Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld 
and other leading neocons behind closed doors and 
subsequently leaked to the Times, the Bush 
administration was able to viably state, "see, 
even the New York Times has reported on Hussein's 
nuclear capabilities. Believe us, we are correct."

But there were many credible and independent 
voices, such as former New York Times bureau 
chief in Cairo Chris Hedges, Robert Parry, Sy 
Hersh, Professors Michel Chossudovsky in Canada 
and Noam Chomsky, and many more who had conducted 
in depth and unbiased research to question the 
White House's and Miller's WMD claims. But their 
voices could never reach the mainstream media 
which was at least in principle "commissioned" to 
promulgate the government's lies.

This is how circular self-serving propaganda 
operates between official authorities and the 
media. Today we are witnessing this same strategy 
being used  on a national scale for the roll out 
of 5G wireless technology, genetically modified 
foods, and the push for national and state 
vaccination mandates.  In every case the message 
is highly biased, compromised by ulterior 
motives, and intentionally ignores volumes of 
sound scientific literature and analysis that 
undermine their falsehoods. With respect to 
advancing vaccination mandates, the mainstream 
magazines and newspapers use similar talking 
points to reinterpret and/or misrepresent facts 
to strengthen the agendas of private interests at 
the expense of bolstering public knowledge that 
might make society more immune to propaganda 
serving private commercial interests. Lie 
repeatedly enough to readers and you will win their allegiance.

The circular reasoning of vaccination policy 
begins with the government health agencies 
announcing there is no connection whatsoever 
between vaccines and autism or other neurological 
disorders.  The science we are told is 
conclusive. All vaccines are thereby rubber 
stamped as safe and this is the fundamental 
message in the CDC's educational campaign to 
journalists and health reporters.  Anyone who 
questions this commandment is mistaken; and 
anyone who actively disseminates information to 
the contrary is an enemy to public 
health.  Dutifully, the media chants the CDC's 
screed.  Health officials and private vaccine 
makers' public relations efforts then reference 
the media to further validate their 
disinformation campaign.   The CDC and FDA decide 
who are the acceptable spokespersons, such as 
Paul Offit and law professor Dorit Reiss, to be 
invited onto the mainstream media to warn the 
public about the dangers of vaccine opponents. 
There is no debate. Overarching ambiguous 
pronouncements are made about so-called 
"scientific consensus" about vaccine safety, and 
rarely is any substantial scientific research 
referenced.  We are not told that over $4 billion 
dollars have been awarded to victims of vaccine 
injuries and deaths, including neurological 
disorders such as autism. This reveals the 
influential power that the federal health 
agencies have in collusion with the 
pharmaceutical industry's financial interests to silence opposition.

This is the same strategy that got us into war with Iraq.

The most common repeated mantra is that vaccines 
are safe and do not cause harm.  In 2000, the 
CDC's Verstraetan study concluded a relationship 
between the mercury preservative thimerosal used 
in most vaccines at the time with the onset of 
autistic disorders. CDC officials along with 
pharmaceutical executives and representatives 
from the World Health Organization and British 
health ministry secretly convened at the 
Simpsonwood retreat center near CDC headquarters 
in Atlanta to devise a scheme to respond to 
Verstraetan's disturbing findings. It was only 
after civil rights attorney Robert Kennedy Jr 
made public the Simpsonwood transcripts after 
filing a Freedom of Information request that we 
can now acknowledge the CDC acted with criminal intent.

Years later, a senior scientist at the CDC, Dr. 
William Thompson, admitted to an independent 
biology professor with a vaccine-injured son, 
Prof. Brian Hooker, that the federal agency had 
been engaging in an egregious cover-up of medical 
evidence that the measles-mumps-rubella or MMR 
vaccine contributed to a higher rate of autism in 
African American boys and that the 
thimerosal-laced flu vaccine was associated with 
a higher incidence in neurological tics, 
involuntary twitches and spasms that are a 
defining symptom in Tourette's syndrome. Several 
published studies, including one authored by Dr. 
Thompson himself and published in a 2007 issue of 
the New England Journal of Medicine have shown 
this relationship. A subsequent 2012 study 
confirming the same was published in the journal Pediatric Psychology in 2012.

Both of these revelations about the measles and 
flu vaccines were devastating enough to prompt 
CDC officials to gather all the scientific data 
for destruction. Professor Hooker notes, "Dr. 
Thompson attempted to warn the CDC Director at 
the time, Dr. Julie Gerberding, regarding this 
relationship, prior to a February 2004 Institute 
of Medicine meeting on vaccines and autism. 
Rather than allowing Dr. Thompson to present the 
information at this meeting, Dr. Gerberding 
replaced him as a speaker with Dr. Frank 
DeStefano, current director of the CDC's 
Immunization Safety Office, where he presented 
fraudulent results regarding the MMR vaccine and 
autism. Dr. Thompson was put on administrative 
leave and was threatened that he would be fired due to "insubordination."

Dr. Thompson withheld copies of the incriminating 
documents, which were later provided to Prof. 
Hooker and Representative Bill Posey who has 
championed the cause of freedom for medical 
choice regarding vaccination. It is estimated 
that Thompson released 10,000 documents.  Despite 
efforts to have Dr. Thompson to testify before 
Congress, all attempts have been thwarted by the 
CDC.  The myth of vaccine safety today clearly 
trumps the health of the nation, and in the 
meantime serious childhood neurological disorders 
increase dramatically, and our federal officials 
scramble to find answers everywhere other than 50 
vaccine doses children receive before the age of six.

Certainly, all of these immunizations, which 
contain genetically altered live or inactivated 
bacteria and viruses, toxic chemicals such as 
formaldehyde, preservatives, heavy metals like 
aluminum, antibiotics and human, animal and 
insect DNA and RNA cannot be injected into a 
child without medical risks, either known and 
unknown. Frankly it is ethically irresponsible to 
blindly believe such a toxic stew is completely 
safe to inject into a young developing child. Our 
federal health agencies have yet to conduct or 
fund definitive studies with legitimate 
methodology to determine once and for all 
individual vaccine safety and whether or not 
vaccines as exogenous factors are contributing to 
the onslaught of illnesses ravishing the nation's 
children. Worse, history of the pharmaceutical 
industry's vaccine clinical trials is 
non-existent of viable gold-standard double-blind 
studies with a legitimate inert placebo.

Yet this is exactly what a recent editorial in 
Scientific American's June 24th issue wants 
readers to believe.  The article, "The US Needs 
to Tighten Vaccination Mandates," states, 
"[T]here isn’t an iota of doubt that vaccines 
are a safe and effective way to prevent many 
diseases."  No scientific evidence whatsoever to 
raise doubt? Despite a Supreme Court ruling that 
vaccines are "unavoidably unsafe?"  Perhaps more 
disconcerting is that the essay was written by 
the magazine's "Editors," meaning this is now 
Scientific American's official policy statement 
regarding vaccination rather than being the 
opinion of a single author. In effect, the 
magazine is telling its readers that it stands 
firmly behind the CDC propaganda machine and we 
should never expect to see any scientific 
evidence that challenges the magazine's vaccine 
dogma within its pages. This is one example for 
why on certain subjects Scientific American has 
become less scientific in recent years.

The effort to silence all vaccine criticism, 
including attacking reputable scientists, 
physicians, and attorneys such as Kennedy who 
defend the rights of vaccine-injured children has 
been full throttle on Google, Facebook, Twitter and Wikipedia.

The article repeats many of the CDC's lead 
talking points to promote a medical regime that 
will eventually enforce mandatory vaccination 
upon the nation, thereby making state laws 
ineffective.  The magazine editors' key points are:

    *  Unvaccinated children and their parents 
are to be blamed for recent infectious disease 
epidemics, notably the 2019 measles outbreaks;
    *  Unvaccinated persons and those who oppose 
vaccine mandates are a national threat to public health;
    *  The nation must achieve herd immunity in 
order to once and for all eradicate infectious diseases;
    *  Herd immunity can only be reached by full 
compliance to the CDC's vaccination schedule and 
religious and philosophical exemptions are an obstacle for reaching this goal;
    *  The internet is the main source for the 
proliferation of information that questions vaccine efficacy and safety;
    *  Dr. Andrew Wakefield, a former 
gastroenterological researcher at the Royal 
Hospital in London, is largely to be blamed for 
the increase in vaccine hesitancy.

Behind these messages, the Scientific American is 
softly advocating widespread censorship of 
information that questions vaccine safety. This 
would have to include numerous 
peer-reviewed  studies and analyses that show 
vaccines in fact cause a large variety of mental 
and physical adverse effects, and the biological 
pathways behind the cause of these injuries are 
known. If vaccine opponents can be silenced or 
blacklisted from search engines and social media, 
then the public would never know about the 
scientific literature that exposes vaccines' 
flaws and a mythic herd immunity can be reached 
unimpeded. The medical and immunological research 
that uncovers vaccine injury causation would be 
buried in obscurity because no pro-vaccine 
advocate who agrees with the Scientific 
American's official policy would ever reference 
them.  It is therefore inconceivable that the 
Scientific American and numerous other popular 
publications and the major media networks that 
are fully beholden to the CDC and the drug 
industry would print new research challenging 
politically correct claims about vaccine safety. 
This is one reason why the anti-vaccination 
community is so essential at this time to keep 
the public debate on vaccine efficacy and safety 
alive and to prevent a national vaccination 
mandate being implemented and based upon biased 
and unsound scientific findings. It has only been 
through the diligent motivations of vaccine truth 
seekers, who perform exhaustive research in the 
scientific literature, that an alternative 
vaccine story reaches public light.

Readers are encouraged to visit any of the 
leading anti-vaccine websites and read the 
articles in the archives that consistently 
analyze, and reference very specific 
peer-reviewed studies buried in the esoteric 
world of medical literature that raises serious 
concerns about the medical establishment's 
vaccination rhetoric. You will never learn about 
these studies by reading mainstream journals, 
such as Scientific American, and major news sources.

The editorial revisits the old yarn to condemn 
Dr. Andrew Wakefield in the typical fashion of 
misrepresenting the facts of both the court case 
and his research in the medical journal The 
Lancet. On no occasion during the lead up to his 
being discredited by the British court did Dr. 
Wakefield make the claim that the measles vaccine 
caused autism in any of the children enrolled in 
his research. His Lancet paper focused on 
gastrointestinal inflammation that is not an 
uncommon condition in autistic children. 
Wakefield's study reported on the presence of 
MMR's viral component embedded in the children's 
gut. His conclusion was that this may be the 
causal factor for the GI disorders in certain 
children on the autism spectrum scale.  However, 
today, with the US' latest autism rate at roughly 
1 in 40 children (the state of New Jersey having 
the high of 1 in 34), parents of vaccine injured 
children are increasing dramatically. And they 
will seek out answers to understand why their 
children are damaged. This is a crisis our 
federal health agencies are criminally ignoring. 
However, any qualified reporter or journal editor 
could have determined that Dr. Wakefield was only 
one among a team of scientists, and none had 
stated the MMR caused autism but recommended 
further research be performed. Collectively, The 
Lancet paper's authors had published numerous 
papers earlier and were all vaccine advocates.

The paper was retracted and the two lead authors, 
Dr. Wakefield and his superior Dr. John Walker 
Smith, were subsequently charged with scientific 
fraud and had their medical licenses revoked. Dr. 
Walker-Smith appealed, and the highest British 
court exonerated him and stated its disapproval 
the British medical board's behavior and the 
court ruling. The court's ruling in effect said 
that the entire case against Wakefield was 
unfounded. And yet today, Scientific American clearly did not get the message.

The irony is that Dr. Wakefield's research is 
rarely mentioned or referenced any longer within 
the anti-vaccination community. That was an 
earlier generation. Yet the corporate friendly 
media continues to highlight it repeatedly as 
central to its arsenal of propagandist fodder. 
The new generation of parents with 
vaccine-injured children is far savvier and more 
educated; they mine the body of scientific 
literature incessantly. They know far more about 
vaccine ingredients and their toxicological 
properties than their pediatricians and primary 
doctors. If an honest public debate on vaccine 
safety were to be held, many of these parents 
would turn the Scientific American's pro-vaccine 
editors into biased amateurs. They have 
independent science, uncontaminated with 
conflicts of interest, on their side.  If the CDC 
and other federal agencies want to know why 
anti-vaccine sentiments continue to grow and are 
unswerving, here is the answer. There is a large 
body of science that validates their early 
experiences and suspicions after their healthy 
child changed for the worse after receiving a 
vaccine or multiple vaccines.  This is a reason 
why you will rarely, if ever, see or hear a 
leading pro-vaccine advocate such as Dr Paul 
Offit at Children’s' Hospital of Philadelphia 
participate in an honest public debate about the 
pros and cons found in the scientific literature. 
Pro-vaccine advocates are strongest and most 
effective while tucked away in their 
institutional and media citadels that remove them 
from the pubic commons.  Their primary strategy 
is denialism. In short, pro-vaccine advocacy is a 
culture of unscientific cowardice and breeds the 
same. And Scientific American's editors should be 
shamed for its irrational treatment of the subject.

It  may also be noted that the Scientific 
American's Chief Editor Mariette DiChristina has 
some relationships that raise serious questions 
about her scientific objectivity. She has been 
lauded praise by the small medical cult of 
radicalized, militant Skeptics in the Science 
Based Medicine group for promptly taking charge 
to discredit a story in the magazine's Brazilian 
issue that was favorable towards agricultural 
homeopathy.  As the magazine's Chief Editor, she 
is on record for stating that homeopathy is a 
"pseudoscience", a common term used by followers 
of Skeptical medical materialism to denounce 
non-conventional medical theories and therapeutic 
practices. She is also favorable towards the 
Gates Foundation, the world's wealthiest and most 
aggressive philanthropic funder of vaccine 
research and development and for founding 
vaccination programs in developing countries. 
This year DiChristina attended the World Economic 
Forum in Davos and interviewed the Foundation's 
president of global health, Trevor Mundel, about 
the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness 
Innovations (CEPI), the largest international 
endeavor of its kind to create vaccine platforms 
for rapid responses to infectious disease 
outbreaks.  Another managing editor for the 
magazine, Curtis Brainard, has written articles 
to demonize Dr. Wakefield for spearheading anti-MMR frenzy.

If we were to peak into the minds of Scientific 
American's editors, we might discover a dangerous 
world view that embraces scientific materialism, 
and the ideology that humans are nothing but 
machines. Human society is no different than a 
corral of cattle, all undergoing the same 
medication regime before going to slaughter. The 
editors write, "we need to consider the needs of 
the herd over the individual." We believe this 
statement would find a home in fascism, and it 
hearkens to Nobel Prize winner Bertrand Russell's 
warnings about scientific materialism's threats to civilization and democracy.

By suppressing the scientific data that warns us 
about vaccine risks, the magazine's editors are 
either intentionally or unknowingly supporting 
the creation a doctrinal medical regime that will 
deprive citizens of any right to medical 
interventions of their choice.  Later, if and 
when such a regime is nationally operative and 
enforced, it is predicable that the journal's 
editors may also advocate for fines for liability 
damages during infection outbreaks and even 
imprisonment. Similar recommendations have 
already been made by the pro-vaccine advocate 
Arthur Caplan, a professor of Medical Ethics at 
New York University's School of Medicine and an 
adviser to the US Defense Department's Advanced 
Research Projects Agency on synthetic biology. In 
a worse scenario, we could witness Gestapo-like 
forced vaccination of children at their homes or 
schools against their parents' will. Would the 
editors of Scientific American stand by and 
support such draconian measures? This is not a 
scientific question; it is a deeply moral one, 
especially when there are other viable 
preventative means to protect oneself from 
infectious diseases that do not require a 
vaccine. But for those who have buried their 
heads in the black hole of medical materialism 
they are unable to recognize nor evaluate the alternatives.