At issue here, to start with, is the idea, and reality, of powerful people treating the mass of us like sheep, to be sheared at will. It's the herd mentality of the likes of the medical-pharmaceutical complex (or more correctly, the medical-pharmaceutical-government complex). Take their vaccines. These medical products have cut the incidences of the childhood diseases. So far so good. But at what cost? I've gone into this before, so I won't belabor the point; just to point out the notion, that we are considered like a herd to them; not individuals. Or take other drug company products: the drug cos. have pushed drugs that main and kill people - and sometimes get taken off the market, when the results get too blatant. Has it been because of an honest mistake in the development process?
Maybe sometimes. But let's look at that process. In the video 'Money Talks', an expose of the drug industry, wherein some honest souls blow the whistle on their peers, it is pointed out that in the deregulation spirit engendered in the Reagan era, much research was moved out of universities into the hands of for-profit organisations, where control over the terms of the research was moved to - the drug companies. Or they would just give big financial grants to the universities, and buy some influence.
It's like the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) being responsible for both the implementation of the vaccine schedule and their safety. (Go figure.)
Terrible stuff; right? Right.
It just shows that man is inherently bad ('fallen'), and if left to his own devices, will automatically revert to selfishness and egotism; right?
Er - not necessarily. It just shows that, in a phrase: Without a vision, the people perish.
And another clue to what I am getting at is in the title of the video mentioned above.
Money. And the effects on humans thereof.
Not just the 'the love of money is the root of all evil' observation. But the basic premise of the profit motive. Which automatically pits one against another.
I'm not talking 'communism' here; which is just another form of control, of some over others. Power over, rather than power with. Which is, in a word, love.
Growing out of the awareness that we are one another.
Over and over. Playing parts. 'The play's the thing, wherein to catch the conscience of ' - the players.
To grow. And to grow one another.
The man had it right: We are spiritual beings having a human experience.
And before we are going to be able to leave our lovely nest, of Mother Earth, and go exploring the physical universe, we will need to get our act together.
With 'together' being the operative word, and concept.
Not pitted against one another, in the drama of human existence. But leaving our kindergarten stage behind, and graduating to the next level.
(Remember the book title, 'Everything I Know I Learned in Kindergarten'? The author had a good point. And if we stay at that stage of development, we will continue to play out those experiences, and lessons.)
I am saying: It's time, to move up a notch. The circumstances have been set for us ('God moves in mysterious ways'?) to leave the western monetary system behind - as it creaks and groans and nears collapse - and enter into a new covenant with one another; one which recognises that We Are All One. And that we have one destiny.
In the words of the motto of the old Planetary Citizens NGO that I worked for many years ago:
One Planet. One Humanity. One Destiny.
The New World Order?
Oh no. Oh my, no.
That's of the old.
I'm talking about the new.
Which recognises that a major change has taken place, in our earthly experience, and which now allows us to be AS One.
The change, of communications technology - which allows us to connect with one another, and with information, in unprecedented ways - and with other technology, in many areas of endeavor, that can bring about abundance, and eliminate drudgery.
If we let it.
And realize that giving, not taking, is the key, with which to unlock this new era.
Go to venusproject.com and you'll see a good sampling of what I'm getting at. Which posits, and concludes, that we can be free if we work together.
A big 'if'?
Not if you believe in the ultimate, overriding nature of Man.
A nature just waiting for us to unfold into being.
The choice is ours.
And it IS a choice.
We can make it. Or blow it.
That's what the exercise is all about.
Graduation time, anyone?
Tuesday 3 March 2009
Privatisation & People Control
"If the truth be known..."
Carrying on from yesterday, particularly regarding the corporations perched on high in our world - that is to say, our current world of reality - I'd like to pull some further thoughts together on this subject.
Where to begin...ah. A good place, and person: George Monbiot's column in today's Guardian. He talks about the scam in both the US and the UK of prisons being turned over to private corporations, to be run for a profit; whereupon, it turns out, that a couple of judges in one of the American states have been caught out assigning youngsters to prison for a kickback. Because the corporation involved makes more money the more prisoners they are assigned. So we're talking corruption here. Yawn? So what's new? Well, for one thing, the way it is taking place: through what are known as PFIs, private finance initiatives (aka PPPs, or Private-Public Partnerships). To say: the government contracts out previous public-sector projects - hospitals, schools, etc. - to the private arena. The rationale is that they are more efficient, and other such euphemisms; the reality is that it is because (a) the government can then take such projects off their books, which look cleaner, then; and (b) powerful friends of their boyos in government can make a lot of money, some of which can - as we have seen above - find its way back into the pockets of said boyos. Everybody, then, benefiting - except the poor dumb taxpayer, who is now saddled with debts for 25-30-year contracts, whether or not the project is even fit for purpose by then. (Whereas if the government had borrowed the money to do the job in the first place, it could have borrowed it at lower rates of interest than can private contractors.)
But even this particular issue, of public facilities being used for private gain - which Monbiot rightly deplores - is not my main
point, and concern. That has to do with the uses which these scams can be put to.
Take the sale of water suppliers to private enterprisers, and therefore out of the (controlling) hands of the public. Problem? Besides the public's water supply now in private hands (think Ecuador, and the public's demonstration against such a setup, ultimately tossing the 'responsible' government out, and reclaiming their control over their fate), here is another little matter; as referred to in an article in the 27 February Guardian, headed: 'Plan may open fluoride floodgates'. Quote: "The [English] government changed the law in 2003 to enable health chiefs to order, rather then (sic) request, water companies to add fluoride." (Say Ahhh...)
The government, echoing its "health chiefs", "argues that the practice cuts tooth decay and that long-established schemes in both the US and England...have thrown up no evidence that it is harmful." I'll pause to throw up here, and then continue: "Opponents object to what they see as mass medication and say there are potential health risks, including lower IQ in children, bone cancer, and hip fractures in older people."
And that's not the half of it; but well done, Guardian, for being willing to mention at least part of the downside of this story. And if one digs a little deeper, one will find out that this is not just a matter of making a lot of money out of an industrial by-product - whereby the manufacturers (primarily the aluminium and artificial fertilizer industries) not only evade major charges for environmental pollution otherwise, but make money out of it as well; clever lads, these - but it is a matter of engaging in (and here it comes; put on your anti-conspiracy theory hat) people control.*
Why would the government be interested in people control?
If you had to ask that, you're not paying attention to what's going down these days. National ID cards; the surveillance society; the insidious erosion of civil liberties...One would think the government was preparing for rough times ahead.
And therefore that they know something that we, the people don't.
Or at least, not widely. Not widely enough, yet. To mount a sustained objection to. And pay sufficient attention to. Including the desired inclusion on centralized databases of everyone's medical records.
Why would the PTB want to have that info?
Well; it might be because of the cover story. Instant access to people's medical histories in case of car accidents, and such.
And then again, it might be because the surveillance society would like to know who has received what medication, and who has not.
Example of what this subject area might entail.
Some years ago, some citizens in a developing country in the Americas got suspicious about a vaccine that was being administered to young girls. They were told that it was a vaccine for tetanus. So why young girls?...an interesting story short: it was discovered that the vaccine contained an anti-fertility component. (And a footnote to the story is that a former CIA agent was interviewed for a documentary video, years later, and admitted on camera that they were behind it, 'for national security purposes'. To keep the US from being overwhelmed from the south by economic refugees. If the global economy tanked. But let's not go there right now. But: interesting, no? Since this was in the decade previous to the globalized economy beginning to show signs of collapse.)
I'll cut to the chase, of the truth in these matters. In short: People can be controlled - or sickened - by ingredients in vaccines.
Or even killed.
If you wanted to get rid of a lot of people fast - say, the "useless eaters" of Kissinger's Elite Team considerations - how would you go about it? You could explode a nuclear bomb; but that might affect you, too. So how could you do it in a more specific way? I got it: create a panic; say a panic about bird flu - and line everybody up for a jab. And if they don't want it, tough. Make them out to be a menace to their neighbors, and make it mandatory.
Like health chiefs ordering, rather than requesting, something to be put into the water supplies.
Like the UK government slowly creating the conditions for a move to make vaccines mandatory in this country, as they are in the US, for children to be able to enter the education system. (And along that line: I note that a Murdoch is now on the board of Glaxo-Smith-Kline (GSK), manufacturers of the MMR jab, which the Sunday Times -a Murdoch publication - has recently been in the business of pushing, by demonizing the gastroenterologist who voiced concerns about it, in regards to its possible association with gut damage to a subset of children who became autistic after its application.)
I am saying that the corporate elite, in cahoots with their placemen in government, are making a move for their vaunted New World Order, when the citizenry will be beholden to them, on pain of incarceration, or worse.
But that's only part of where I want to go with this thread of thought.
I want to get to the fundamental issue of human nature. And of human potential. For evil. And for good.
And how we are verging on the potential of going either way, at a major turning-point time for humanity.
Down. Or up. It's up to us.
To be continued...
* Fluoride has a tranquilizing effect. It also creates illness conditions, which the pharmaceutical industry can then make a lot of money from. But that's another part of the story.
Carrying on from yesterday, particularly regarding the corporations perched on high in our world - that is to say, our current world of reality - I'd like to pull some further thoughts together on this subject.
Where to begin...ah. A good place, and person: George Monbiot's column in today's Guardian. He talks about the scam in both the US and the UK of prisons being turned over to private corporations, to be run for a profit; whereupon, it turns out, that a couple of judges in one of the American states have been caught out assigning youngsters to prison for a kickback. Because the corporation involved makes more money the more prisoners they are assigned. So we're talking corruption here. Yawn? So what's new? Well, for one thing, the way it is taking place: through what are known as PFIs, private finance initiatives (aka PPPs, or Private-Public Partnerships). To say: the government contracts out previous public-sector projects - hospitals, schools, etc. - to the private arena. The rationale is that they are more efficient, and other such euphemisms; the reality is that it is because (a) the government can then take such projects off their books, which look cleaner, then; and (b) powerful friends of their boyos in government can make a lot of money, some of which can - as we have seen above - find its way back into the pockets of said boyos. Everybody, then, benefiting - except the poor dumb taxpayer, who is now saddled with debts for 25-30-year contracts, whether or not the project is even fit for purpose by then. (Whereas if the government had borrowed the money to do the job in the first place, it could have borrowed it at lower rates of interest than can private contractors.)
But even this particular issue, of public facilities being used for private gain - which Monbiot rightly deplores - is not my main
point, and concern. That has to do with the uses which these scams can be put to.
Take the sale of water suppliers to private enterprisers, and therefore out of the (controlling) hands of the public. Problem? Besides the public's water supply now in private hands (think Ecuador, and the public's demonstration against such a setup, ultimately tossing the 'responsible' government out, and reclaiming their control over their fate), here is another little matter; as referred to in an article in the 27 February Guardian, headed: 'Plan may open fluoride floodgates'. Quote: "The [English] government changed the law in 2003 to enable health chiefs to order, rather then (sic) request, water companies to add fluoride." (Say Ahhh...)
The government, echoing its "health chiefs", "argues that the practice cuts tooth decay and that long-established schemes in both the US and England...have thrown up no evidence that it is harmful." I'll pause to throw up here, and then continue: "Opponents object to what they see as mass medication and say there are potential health risks, including lower IQ in children, bone cancer, and hip fractures in older people."
And that's not the half of it; but well done, Guardian, for being willing to mention at least part of the downside of this story. And if one digs a little deeper, one will find out that this is not just a matter of making a lot of money out of an industrial by-product - whereby the manufacturers (primarily the aluminium and artificial fertilizer industries) not only evade major charges for environmental pollution otherwise, but make money out of it as well; clever lads, these - but it is a matter of engaging in (and here it comes; put on your anti-conspiracy theory hat) people control.*
Why would the government be interested in people control?
If you had to ask that, you're not paying attention to what's going down these days. National ID cards; the surveillance society; the insidious erosion of civil liberties...One would think the government was preparing for rough times ahead.
And therefore that they know something that we, the people don't.
Or at least, not widely. Not widely enough, yet. To mount a sustained objection to. And pay sufficient attention to. Including the desired inclusion on centralized databases of everyone's medical records.
Why would the PTB want to have that info?
Well; it might be because of the cover story. Instant access to people's medical histories in case of car accidents, and such.
And then again, it might be because the surveillance society would like to know who has received what medication, and who has not.
Example of what this subject area might entail.
Some years ago, some citizens in a developing country in the Americas got suspicious about a vaccine that was being administered to young girls. They were told that it was a vaccine for tetanus. So why young girls?...an interesting story short: it was discovered that the vaccine contained an anti-fertility component. (And a footnote to the story is that a former CIA agent was interviewed for a documentary video, years later, and admitted on camera that they were behind it, 'for national security purposes'. To keep the US from being overwhelmed from the south by economic refugees. If the global economy tanked. But let's not go there right now. But: interesting, no? Since this was in the decade previous to the globalized economy beginning to show signs of collapse.)
I'll cut to the chase, of the truth in these matters. In short: People can be controlled - or sickened - by ingredients in vaccines.
Or even killed.
If you wanted to get rid of a lot of people fast - say, the "useless eaters" of Kissinger's Elite Team considerations - how would you go about it? You could explode a nuclear bomb; but that might affect you, too. So how could you do it in a more specific way? I got it: create a panic; say a panic about bird flu - and line everybody up for a jab. And if they don't want it, tough. Make them out to be a menace to their neighbors, and make it mandatory.
Like health chiefs ordering, rather than requesting, something to be put into the water supplies.
Like the UK government slowly creating the conditions for a move to make vaccines mandatory in this country, as they are in the US, for children to be able to enter the education system. (And along that line: I note that a Murdoch is now on the board of Glaxo-Smith-Kline (GSK), manufacturers of the MMR jab, which the Sunday Times -a Murdoch publication - has recently been in the business of pushing, by demonizing the gastroenterologist who voiced concerns about it, in regards to its possible association with gut damage to a subset of children who became autistic after its application.)
I am saying that the corporate elite, in cahoots with their placemen in government, are making a move for their vaunted New World Order, when the citizenry will be beholden to them, on pain of incarceration, or worse.
But that's only part of where I want to go with this thread of thought.
I want to get to the fundamental issue of human nature. And of human potential. For evil. And for good.
And how we are verging on the potential of going either way, at a major turning-point time for humanity.
Down. Or up. It's up to us.
To be continued...
* Fluoride has a tranquilizing effect. It also creates illness conditions, which the pharmaceutical industry can then make a lot of money from. But that's another part of the story.
Sunday 1 March 2009
Anaphylaxis, Vaccines, & Truth-telling - or Not
"If the truth be known..."
As is not uncommon for me, I wrote a 'letter to the editor' of one of the newspapers we take here in my home base in life (a community setting), last week. It didn't get published; which is also not uncommon for me. (I can be very opinionated about issues that in the expression often seems to run against the grain of the established order of things. But then, maybe I wouldn't have bothered to write about it otherwise. Anyway: so much for a truthseeker's eye.) But what was decidedly uncommon about the matter was that I didn't receive the customary acknowledgment of receipt of my letter.
And therein lies a tale, I feel...
From the top, then. My letter was occasioned by a remark in her column in the (Scotland) Sunday Times of 22 February of one India Knight, a regular in its stable of such commentators on the human/political scene. Her main theme was on another subject in the news (since you asked: 'Men's lust, women's pride: twin forces of the vice divide', in comment on a recent Jesuit study; the article adorned with a decidedly eye-catching photo of Raquel Welch in her customary, but particularly fetching, state of dish-abille. Would my eye have been caught to this column otherwise? Pah. Is the Pope Catholic? Now where was I...Oh yes:), but she mused on a sub-theme, also in the news that week. Her comment opened thus:
"A preliminary clinical trial at Addenbrooke's hospital in Cambridge suggests it may be possible to modify an allergy by desensitising the sufferer. Researchers gave a group of children with severe peanut allergies a small daily amount of peanut flour over a six-month period. By the end of the trial, the children could eat up to 12 nuts a day without suffering anaphylaxis.
"This is great, obviously, but I wish somebody could explain where peanut allergy has come from and why. In my childhood it was unheard of; today you have to check that a cake doesn't contain even a whisper of nut before allowing your child to bring it to school..."
My letter to the editor in response:
"Dear Editor,
"India Knight wishes that 'somebody could explain where peanut allergy has come from and why' (Comment, 22 February). It's very simple, really.
"Such allergic reactions come either from the proteins that were in the infant's mother's milk when they were vaccinated - and thus sensitised to them as well in temporal association - or from the proteins that were used in the manufacture of the vaccines, which the body's immune system then recognises as foreign along with the other ingredients. These can the very proteins (eg, peanut oil has been used as an adjuvant in some vaccines), or similar proteins by molecular weight, in a process called molecular mimicry.
"How come all this isn't better known? Well; indeed.
Yours sincerely," etc.
Two comments. The first is simply in a generic way, as it were. The conversation that took place - if any - might have gone something like this:
'No. Don't print it.' [Or even acknowledge its receipt?] 'People might not let their kids get their jabs.'
[Continuing, hypothetically:] So...don't let them know the truth abut vaccines: that their side effects are far more extensive and severe than the medical profession lets on?
'No. Because the average person can be swayed emotionally, one, and two, doesn't know how to calculate the relative risks and benefits of them.'
So...you do? And when, for an example, the relative risk of getting type 1 diabetes from the application of the Hib vaccine is greater than the risk of serious damage from the microbe involved - what then, Lord Pooh-Bah?
'Look, layman. The doctors know what's best for the public. You don't.'
And the parents. They don't?
' - Right. Actually. They don't have all the facts at hand.'
And you do? When many doctors don't know the extensive literature on this subject, are not fully aware of the facts?
'That's it. Conversation over.'
My mind's made up, don't confuse me with the facts?
'What's your name?'
My name is Everyman. And I will be heard. No thanks to your (apparent) attempts at censorship. Where your attempts to control the conversation, and information available to the public, are as noxious as any dictatorship that ever came down the pike. So be warned, Overlord. And be afraid. Be very afraid, of the power of The People, once they get moving to knock you off your corporate perch. Perched up there on high, controlling the debate, from your economic and political control over the mass media.
Except for the internet.
So far.
The second comment is specific to the Sunday Times, and its (apparent) editorial inclinations.
A little history here. A Dr Andrew Wakefield and associates in the UK ran a study on the gut damage of a number of children whose parents felt that the MMR jab was involved in their subsequent slide into autism. Their results - as announced in 1998 - did not specifically blame the MMR jab, but Dr Wakefield opined in public that until further studies could be undertaken, it might be best for parents to consent to single vaccines. Bad career move; occasioning a move to the US to continue his research in the subject, of gut damage associated with autism and with in particular the measles component of the MMR jab. The US, because he was finished in the UK professionally.
How did it come about? Well, for one interesting thing, a head editor in the Sunday times Newsroom commissioned an investigative journalist - name of Brian Deer - to, er, investigate Dr Wakefield; the article - published in 2004 - not only finishing Dr Wakefield professionally in the UK, but occasioning an investigation by the General Medical Council of Dr Wakefield and 2 of his co-authors, who wouldn't recant (and which investigation is just concluding). The link? The commissioner, name of Paul Nuki, is the son of a Professor George Nuki, who sat on the committee oversighting the safety of GSK's MMR vaccine.
Any problem here? Not necessarily. Maybe the safety of the MMR vax is not an issue, and it is above reproach, and so are all those associated with it. But that would also include the boss of the editor of the medical journal involved - The Lancet - whose editor, Dr Richard Horton, decided to regret publishing the study after the article by Deer was published. His boss? One Sir Crispin Davis, who was appointed a non-executive director of MMR court defendant's GSK in the summer of 2003, only a few months before the Sunday Times article in February 2004 that accused Dr Wakefield of a conflict of interest (relating to the families of the damaged children). And lo and behold: the high court judge who dismissed the MMR-autism cases just a few days after Dr Horton's accusation of Dr Wakefield's irregularity was: Sir Crispin's younger brother, Nigel Davis.
All in the family...
Am I accusing anybody of anything? I am accusing the power elite of this country, in particular the medical-pharmaceutical-government complex, of being in cahoots financially to the detriment of Truth - the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, about vaccines.
Their benefits. And their risks. And let the chips fall where they may. Because nothing is more important than truth.
At least to this Everyman.
ADDENDUM - 9 March
To be fair, a followup report:
When my letter did not appear in the following week's edition, I decided to give the Sunday Times another chance to at least
acknowledge receipt of my letter - to be crystal clear on the matter, so as not to accuse them of anything improperly. So I resubmitted my letter, on 1 March, underneath a covering letter, stating:
"Dear Editor,
"Below is a copy of an e-letter that I sent to you on the date indicated [ie, 23 Feb].
"I never received your normal notification of receipt of a submission.
"Could you please do that this time, as I resubmit it for consideration?
"Thank you, [etc]"
Interestingly enough, I not only subsequently received their normal notification of receipt, from the Office Manager of the Sunday Times in their Glasgow office, but also an email from the Times's Letters Editor, stating:
"Dear Mr Stanfield,
"Thank you for your letter. I have ensured that the points you raised were drawn to the attention of India Knight and the Editor responsible.
"Yours sincerely, [etc]"
My letter was not printed in this past weekend's edition of the Times either. But at least India Knight will get an answer to her question. If no one else. Except you, dear reader, of this attempt at truth seeking, and telling.
As is not uncommon for me, I wrote a 'letter to the editor' of one of the newspapers we take here in my home base in life (a community setting), last week. It didn't get published; which is also not uncommon for me. (I can be very opinionated about issues that in the expression often seems to run against the grain of the established order of things. But then, maybe I wouldn't have bothered to write about it otherwise. Anyway: so much for a truthseeker's eye.) But what was decidedly uncommon about the matter was that I didn't receive the customary acknowledgment of receipt of my letter.
And therein lies a tale, I feel...
From the top, then. My letter was occasioned by a remark in her column in the (Scotland) Sunday Times of 22 February of one India Knight, a regular in its stable of such commentators on the human/political scene. Her main theme was on another subject in the news (since you asked: 'Men's lust, women's pride: twin forces of the vice divide', in comment on a recent Jesuit study; the article adorned with a decidedly eye-catching photo of Raquel Welch in her customary, but particularly fetching, state of dish-abille. Would my eye have been caught to this column otherwise? Pah. Is the Pope Catholic? Now where was I...Oh yes:), but she mused on a sub-theme, also in the news that week. Her comment opened thus:
"A preliminary clinical trial at Addenbrooke's hospital in Cambridge suggests it may be possible to modify an allergy by desensitising the sufferer. Researchers gave a group of children with severe peanut allergies a small daily amount of peanut flour over a six-month period. By the end of the trial, the children could eat up to 12 nuts a day without suffering anaphylaxis.
"This is great, obviously, but I wish somebody could explain where peanut allergy has come from and why. In my childhood it was unheard of; today you have to check that a cake doesn't contain even a whisper of nut before allowing your child to bring it to school..."
My letter to the editor in response:
"Dear Editor,
"India Knight wishes that 'somebody could explain where peanut allergy has come from and why' (Comment, 22 February). It's very simple, really.
"Such allergic reactions come either from the proteins that were in the infant's mother's milk when they were vaccinated - and thus sensitised to them as well in temporal association - or from the proteins that were used in the manufacture of the vaccines, which the body's immune system then recognises as foreign along with the other ingredients. These can the very proteins (eg, peanut oil has been used as an adjuvant in some vaccines), or similar proteins by molecular weight, in a process called molecular mimicry.
"How come all this isn't better known? Well; indeed.
Yours sincerely," etc.
Two comments. The first is simply in a generic way, as it were. The conversation that took place - if any - might have gone something like this:
'No. Don't print it.' [Or even acknowledge its receipt?] 'People might not let their kids get their jabs.'
[Continuing, hypothetically:] So...don't let them know the truth abut vaccines: that their side effects are far more extensive and severe than the medical profession lets on?
'No. Because the average person can be swayed emotionally, one, and two, doesn't know how to calculate the relative risks and benefits of them.'
So...you do? And when, for an example, the relative risk of getting type 1 diabetes from the application of the Hib vaccine is greater than the risk of serious damage from the microbe involved - what then, Lord Pooh-Bah?
'Look, layman. The doctors know what's best for the public. You don't.'
And the parents. They don't?
' - Right. Actually. They don't have all the facts at hand.'
And you do? When many doctors don't know the extensive literature on this subject, are not fully aware of the facts?
'That's it. Conversation over.'
My mind's made up, don't confuse me with the facts?
'What's your name?'
My name is Everyman. And I will be heard. No thanks to your (apparent) attempts at censorship. Where your attempts to control the conversation, and information available to the public, are as noxious as any dictatorship that ever came down the pike. So be warned, Overlord. And be afraid. Be very afraid, of the power of The People, once they get moving to knock you off your corporate perch. Perched up there on high, controlling the debate, from your economic and political control over the mass media.
Except for the internet.
So far.
The second comment is specific to the Sunday Times, and its (apparent) editorial inclinations.
A little history here. A Dr Andrew Wakefield and associates in the UK ran a study on the gut damage of a number of children whose parents felt that the MMR jab was involved in their subsequent slide into autism. Their results - as announced in 1998 - did not specifically blame the MMR jab, but Dr Wakefield opined in public that until further studies could be undertaken, it might be best for parents to consent to single vaccines. Bad career move; occasioning a move to the US to continue his research in the subject, of gut damage associated with autism and with in particular the measles component of the MMR jab. The US, because he was finished in the UK professionally.
How did it come about? Well, for one interesting thing, a head editor in the Sunday times Newsroom commissioned an investigative journalist - name of Brian Deer - to, er, investigate Dr Wakefield; the article - published in 2004 - not only finishing Dr Wakefield professionally in the UK, but occasioning an investigation by the General Medical Council of Dr Wakefield and 2 of his co-authors, who wouldn't recant (and which investigation is just concluding). The link? The commissioner, name of Paul Nuki, is the son of a Professor George Nuki, who sat on the committee oversighting the safety of GSK's MMR vaccine.
Any problem here? Not necessarily. Maybe the safety of the MMR vax is not an issue, and it is above reproach, and so are all those associated with it. But that would also include the boss of the editor of the medical journal involved - The Lancet - whose editor, Dr Richard Horton, decided to regret publishing the study after the article by Deer was published. His boss? One Sir Crispin Davis, who was appointed a non-executive director of MMR court defendant's GSK in the summer of 2003, only a few months before the Sunday Times article in February 2004 that accused Dr Wakefield of a conflict of interest (relating to the families of the damaged children). And lo and behold: the high court judge who dismissed the MMR-autism cases just a few days after Dr Horton's accusation of Dr Wakefield's irregularity was: Sir Crispin's younger brother, Nigel Davis.
All in the family...
Am I accusing anybody of anything? I am accusing the power elite of this country, in particular the medical-pharmaceutical-government complex, of being in cahoots financially to the detriment of Truth - the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, about vaccines.
Their benefits. And their risks. And let the chips fall where they may. Because nothing is more important than truth.
At least to this Everyman.
ADDENDUM - 9 March
To be fair, a followup report:
When my letter did not appear in the following week's edition, I decided to give the Sunday Times another chance to at least
acknowledge receipt of my letter - to be crystal clear on the matter, so as not to accuse them of anything improperly. So I resubmitted my letter, on 1 March, underneath a covering letter, stating:
"Dear Editor,
"Below is a copy of an e-letter that I sent to you on the date indicated [ie, 23 Feb].
"I never received your normal notification of receipt of a submission.
"Could you please do that this time, as I resubmit it for consideration?
"Thank you, [etc]"
Interestingly enough, I not only subsequently received their normal notification of receipt, from the Office Manager of the Sunday Times in their Glasgow office, but also an email from the Times's Letters Editor, stating:
"Dear Mr Stanfield,
"Thank you for your letter. I have ensured that the points you raised were drawn to the attention of India Knight and the Editor responsible.
"Yours sincerely, [etc]"
My letter was not printed in this past weekend's edition of the Times either. But at least India Knight will get an answer to her question. If no one else. Except you, dear reader, of this attempt at truth seeking, and telling.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)