General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsVaccines and the Liberal Mind
by Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
Late last year, Slate published an investigative report detailing how pharmaceutical giant, Merck, used flawed and unreliable pre-licensing safety studies to push through approval of its multi-billion-dollar bonanza, the HPV vaccine. For veteran safe vaccine advocates, like myself, the most shocking aspect of the expose was that Slate published it at all. Slate and other liberal online publications including Salon, Huffington Post and The Daily Beast customarily block articles that critique vaccine safety in order, they argue, to encourage vaccination and protect public health. Motivated by this noble purpose, the liberal mediathe supposed antidote to corporate and government powerhas helped insulate from scrutiny the burgeoning vaccine industry and its two regulators, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Both agencies have pervasive and potentially corrupting financial entanglements with the vaccine manufacturers, according to extensive congressional investigations.
Ironically, liberals routinely lambaste Pharma, and its FDA enablers for putting profits over people. Recent examples include Vioxx (100,000 injuredMerck paid more than $5 billion in fines and settlements), Abilify (Bristol Meyers Squibb paid $515 million for marketing the drug to nursing homes, knowing it can be fatal to seniors), Celebrex and Bextra (Pfizer paid $894 million for bribing public officials and false advertising about safety and effectiveness) and, of course, the opioid crisis, which in 2016 killed more Americans than the 20-year Vietnam War. What then, makes liberals think that these same companies are immune from similar temptations when it comes to vaccines? There is plenty of evidence that they are not. Merck, the worlds largest vaccine maker, is currently fighting multiple lawsuits, brought by its own scientists, claiming that the company forced them to falsify efficacy data for its MMR vaccine.
"The absence of critical attention to this exploding industry by liberal online sites is particularly troubling since pharma, using strategic investments, has effectively sidelined, not just Congress, lawyers and courts, but virtually all of our democracys usual public health sentinels."
The Slate article nowhere discloses that FDA licenses virtually all vaccines using the same mawing safety science deficiencies that brought us Gardasil. FDA claims that vaccines undergo rigorous safety testing to determine their safety. But thats not true. FDAs choice to classify vaccine makers as biologics rather than drugs opened a regulatory loophole that allows vaccines to evade any meaningful safety testing. Instead of the multi-year double-blind inert placebo studiesthe gold standard of safety sciencethat the FDA requires prior to licensing other medications, most vaccines now on the CDCs recommended childhood vaccine schedule were safety tested for only a few days or weeks. For example, the manufacturers package insert discloses that Mercks Hep B vaccine (almost every American infant receives a Hep B shot on the day of birth) underwent, not five years, but a mere five days of safety testing. If the babies in these studies had a seizureor diedon day six, Merck was under no obligation to disclose those facts.
Furthermore, many vaccines contain dangerous amounts of known neurotoxins like mercury and aluminum and carcinogens like formaldehyde, that are associated with neurodevelopmental disorders, autoimmune problems, food allergies and cancers that might not be diagnosed for many years. A five-day study has no way of spotting such associations. Equally shocking, FDA does not require vaccine manufacturers to measure proposed vaccines against true inert placebos, further obscuring researchers capacity to see adverse health effects and virtually guaranteeing that more subtle injuries, such as impaired immune response, loss of IQ or depression, will never be detectedno matter how widespread. Furthermore, the CDC has never studied the impacts on childrens health of combining 50 plus vaccines.
The King of the Anti-Vax loons is at it again. His scare-mongering, in the face of established science, does nothing but drive down vaccination rates in populations who believe everything they read on Facebook. Thankfully, many of the "liberal online publications" do an admirable job of filtering out the quackery, so that fucknuts like Kennedy are reduced to spewing their crankery at moonbat publications like commondream and consortiumnews.
Sid
Archae
(46,379 posts)Yup, just because he's "liberal" means Kennedy can spout all the BS he wants and not be called out on it.
Bradshaw3
(7,554 posts)There may be points to some of his claims but it is hard to take him seriously when he has never, as far as I know, attacked the anti-vaxxers who have driven up rates of formelry controlled diseases thanks to their junk science as he does the drug companies.
underpants
(183,070 posts)Celebrities and high profile conventionally lib types are the ones that we see a lot from but the right has been on craziness like this going back to anti-fluoride in the water campaigns back in the 50's -- COMMIES!!
The home schooling for religious reasons or to exclude them from "the others" crowd appear to me to be the mass that actually does this.
Bradshaw3
(7,554 posts)Including home schoolers who don't want their children to become part of the "system." So I disagree with that and the fact that a liberal like RFK Jr. is a leader shows that it does come usually from the left.
Yes, RWs and evangelicals do engage in more of the anti-science and conspiracies but my point that - on some topics like this one and the 9-11 truthers there are some on the left that do too - stands.
Devil Child
(2,728 posts)rainin
(3,011 posts)much of his article. His position is thoughtful and compelling. Thanks for posting, anyway. Perhaps a few will reflect on their blind trust of big pharma where vaccines are concerned.
GulfCoast66
(11,949 posts)And mentally damaged when their mothers got mumps while pregnant or dying from whooping cough or scarlet fever.
But anti vaccination idiots find way to change the subject when that comes up.
Mariana
(14,863 posts)Fortunately, his brain wasn't affected.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)He's complaining because "respectable" liberal publications know his schtick and won't publish him anymore.
That's why his screed appears on commondreams.
Sid
RandomAccess
(5,210 posts)I've looked into it quite a bit and I know where I stand. I'm not anti-vaxx per se (nor is Kennedy, btw), but I know for sure I'll never have another vaccination in MY life, and whenever the subject comes up, I'm always grateful there are no kids in my family for whom I'd need to be concerned. Those vaccine injuries are real (just ask the vaccine court!).
"Science" as we know it vis a vis the drug industry has a lot to account for, and vaccinations are just one problem area, though a major one. Worse, "Science" as we know it for vaccinations and several other areas of inquiry has become something with which to cajole, pressure, browbeat and ultimately threaten others in order to protect and enforce a certain dogma -- a pharma-supporting dogma, at that. That is to my mind the very antithesis of the scientific method since it excludes all the "thoughtful and compelling" (and educated) arguments, and also all the reconsiderations of previous thought and dogma that ought to be the very hallmark of the scientific method.
This thread -- and pretty much any other on the subject here at DU -- is a perfect example.
rainin
(3,011 posts)on this topic, on DU, because it's always futile. Sad really, that propaganda works so effectively that asking for SAFE vaccines triggers the same worn responses. And, from liberals is even more discouraging. One would think that liberals could be a little skeptical of big pharma.
RandomAccess
(5,210 posts)I've been learning that liberals / so-called progressives can be pretty damned authoritarian too.
Thank you for your response. i agree wholeheartedly.
Aristus
(66,531 posts)I'm sure we're supposed to classify your erroneous outlooks as 'well-meaning', but I'm not having any of it.
As a medical provider who sometimes has to arm-wrestle ignorant parents best two-out-of-three to get them to understand the importance of vaccination, I can't keep quiet when people are calling it 'propaganda'.
Stop spreading misinformation about vaccines.
Go ahead. Flame away. I've been doing this since before you got here, and I'll be doing it long after you have rage-quit and gone over to JPR.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)An absolutely fantastic post!
Bradshaw3
(7,554 posts)If the science regarding vaccines is such a major problem as you assert we should have lots of data to prove that point. Also pediatricians have kids too. Are they all up in arms over vaccines, or are they getting their kids vaccinated? I'm betting it is the latter.
There isn't a "dogma" regarding vaccines. There are thousands of researchers and physicians who have studied this issue, are dedicated to doing what is right, and who know more about the science of it than you; they have children too, so both from professional and personal standpoints they have every reason to do the right thing, not do something because some big corporation told them to in order to make money. So slurring them and people on here who disagree with you as being "authoritarian" tells me you don't have any facts to back up your assertions. Unless you have there is some trove of scientific data proving your points, because all the science points the other direction.
GulfCoast66
(11,949 posts)And if you think that rejecting anti-vacc propaganda is very anthesis of the scientific method because it excludes all thoughtful and compelling arguments then it is apparent that you do not know the first thing about science nor the scientific method. Because arguments, thoughtful or compelling mean absolutely nothing. Evidence is all that matters. And there is no evidence supporting anti-vaccination. Just arguments and scientific sounding propaganda.
We at DU are a fact based community and when we come here pushing ideas that are not fact based we can expect a rather brusque reaction.
I am sure you are nice and mean well, but you have bought a pig in a poke with this anti vaccine idea.
Aristus
(66,531 posts)Vaccines are safe and prevent disease, and anyone who says otherwise is irresponsibly spreading harmful misinformation. This is unethical in the extreme.
saidsimplesimon
(7,888 posts)I have never had chickenpox. My MD wants me to get a Shingles' vaccine shot. We had a conversation, she is British. Bottom line, I am at risk, it is my choice to play the odds given my record of zero incidents with multiple exposures.
My vaccination record is up to date and ready for travel.
Phoenix61
(17,028 posts)reason for you to get the shingles vaccine.
saidsimplesimon
(7,888 posts)Can I sell my immunity genes?
GulfCoast66
(11,949 posts)If an adult who has never been exposed to chicken pox gets them it can be very, very dangerous.
The poster you were responding to needs a vaccine against that virus badly and needs it now.
Now, whether they need the actual chicken pox vaccine or the shingles vaccine or both is above my pay grade
Years ago a 50 something man who worked for me got the chicken pox. It was bad.
Phoenix61
(17,028 posts)pox virus that has lain dormant in your nerve cells overcomes your immune system. The shingles vaccine is less than 50 percent effective.
GulfCoast66
(11,949 posts)Read up on the effects of an adult being exposed to chicken pox for the first time.
Just because they are not a kid does not make them immune.
The fact that they could go their whole life and not be exposed to chickenpox speaks to the value of herd immunity.
But if as an adult they contact chickenpox things can go bad quickly. They need a vaccination.
RobinA
(9,916 posts)shingles vaccine. Just sayin.
underpants
(183,070 posts)I think RFK Jr is making a leap here. Philosophy people could inform me of the kind of fallacy this is.
Yes Pharma has a really bad history but just because they did the things he cited doesn't mean it taints everything they do. I know that money talks but there would have to be some sort of evidence if these vaccines were really that suspect or actually detrimental- either in general or weighed with their positive effects.
mcar
(42,478 posts)Solly Mack
(90,803 posts)Patently unnecessary but nonetheless needed disclaimer.
Of course this doesn't apply to those who can't vaccinate their children due to actual medical reasons.
Link to tweet
?s=19
GulfCoast66
(11,949 posts)But anti-vaccination nuts are like Trump voters. Evidence, we dont need no stinking evidence.
It confirms their bias and no evidence will ever make them see reason.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)I can't stand him.
ismnotwasm
(42,030 posts)Famous ones especially
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Meanwhile the federal Vaccine Injury Compensation Program has paid out a total of $3,911,224,328.73 in injury awards as of June 04:
https://www.hrsa.gov/sites/default/files/hrsa/vaccine-compensation/data/monthly-stats-june-2018.pdf