Follow the Science: How Big Pharma Misleads, Obscures, and Prevails
Rate it:
Open Preview
Read between December 16, 2024 - February 7, 2025
37%
Flag icon
But the phrase is uncannily effective. There’s something about falsely tagging someone as “anti-vaccine” that seems to have a magical effect on others. Logic is tossed aside, reporters reject normal fact-finding practices, minds are tightly shut. Nobody bothers to consider the existence of solid studies exposing vaccine side effects. Instead, they robotically insist any negative facts about vaccination cannot possibly be true. Only those putting out pro-vaccine narratives with cultlike fervor are to be heard or believed. The public and media tsk-tsk and nod their heads knowingly about the ...more
38%
Flag icon
Frankly, it would be no different if Democrats were in charge. Both political parties are hopelessly conflicted at the highest levels. They get too much money from the vaccine industry.
40%
Flag icon
“No, I’m not anti-vaccine,” he says. “That’s like ‘You’re a witch’ . . . the Salem Witch Trials. All of a sudden, you’re ‘anti-vax.’ That’s a lot of baloney. A lot of malarkey. It’s ridiculous. I’m not anti-vax. I take vaccines all the time. And my kid’s gotten vaccines. But there’s something wrong. And it’s gotta be fixed.”
40%
Flag icon
It’s hard to imagine the AAP doesn’t understand that vaccines pulled from the market due to safety concerns certainly aren’t (and weren’t) “safe and effective” for all. These withdrawn vaccines include the oral polio vaccine; Rotashield-brand rotavirus vaccine for diarrhea; plasma-derived hepatitis B vaccine; DTP (diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis) vaccine; and several flu shots. Also pulled for safety reasons: versions of vaccines for DTaP; measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR); haemophilus influenzae; Lyme disease; and rabies.
40%
Flag icon
Though parents don’t usually receive or read the packaging material, every vaccine approved in the US carries a list of possible adverse events that has ranged from brain damage, including autism, to death. There are also warnings describing which patients shouldn’t be inoculated due to preexisting health conditions. For the American Academy of Pediatrics to encourage parents to blindly adopt all vaccines for all children rather than—at the very least—urge them to be on watch for any vaccine reactions is irresponsible and potentially very dangerous.
40%
Flag icon
American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) accepts untold millions from the vaccine industry for conferences, grants, medical education classes, and even to help c...
This highlight has been truncated due to consecutive passage length restrictions.
40%
Flag icon
It’s often quoted by the media as if it’s an independent child advocacy group.
41%
Flag icon
Listed as “Treasurers” for Every Child By Two are none other than officials from vaccine-maker Wyeth, as well as a paid advisor to big pharmaceutical clients.
41%
Flag icon
He sits in a $1.5 million dollar chair funded by Merck at Children’s Hospital. He holds the patent on RotaTeq, a controversial rotavirus antidiarrhea vaccine he developed with a Merck grant reported to be valued at $350,000. And around the time I air my story, future royalties for Dr. Offit’s Merck vaccine have just been sold for $182 million. As part of my story research, I’ve asked Dr. Offit how much money he’s made from RotaTeq. I’ve also asked for his conflict of interest disclosures—the list of pharmaceutical companies that have paid him. All publishing scientists should have that list ...more
42%
Flag icon
After the legal letter, Dr. Hotez publicly admits his mistake on Twitter and takes back his outlandish accusations. However, most of those who read the original false information will never see the correction.
42%
Flag icon
(Just so you know, meetings, seminars, and Continuing Medical Education courses that are infectious disease–related are usually dominated by vaccine industry interests trying to sell physicians on their products and deflect from vaccine safety questions.)
42%
Flag icon
when you see the same storylines repeated by multiple news organizations at the same time, often using the same wording and taking the same editorial position, you should suspect it may be part of an organized campaign.
42%
Flag icon
The portrayal of Dr. Hotez as a serial victim has a distinct purpose. It’s part of a strategy to characterize people who question vaccine safety as “violent” in order to get their speech curtailed or censored.
43%
Flag icon
Vaccinate Your Family also worked with food pantries and arts organizations in the Pilsen neighborhood of Chicago with “events, giveaways and clinics to promote vaccine confidence.”
43%
Flag icon
Additionally, many parents who say their children developed autism from vaccines commonly report that their babies and toddlers had extremely sore arms, fevers, and fussiness after their shots.
43%
Flag icon
Naturally, I found other big-name pharmaceutical interests operating in the background of Vaccinate Your Family. Among supporters listed on its website are the CDC; vaccine makers Pfizer, Glaxo, Novavax, Johnson & Johnson, Merck, and Sanofi Pasteur; Julie Gerberding (former director of the CDC, ex-head of Merck vaccines, and head of the Foundation for the National Institutes of Health); and the infamous Dr. Offit, who also happens to be a Vaccinate Your Family board member.
43%
Flag icon
these interconnections demonstrate how a core group of players has appendages that reach deeply into countless organizations where they exert broad influence over thought and policy on scientific topics.
43%
Flag icon
Science Fiction
43%
Flag icon
Those tentacles also reach deeply into fact-checking and media literacy organizations. Typically, their goal isn’t really to check facts or help people find credible media sources. Instead, they seek to blanket the information landscape with a singular slant so that you’ll be inundated everywhere you look with one uncontested view. These groups are cross-pollinated by a handful of common benefactors—such as Google, Facebook, Crai...
This highlight has been truncated due to consecutive passage length restrictions.
44%
Flag icon
It’s remarkable how those intent upon shaping information, censoring off-narrative views and facts, and in some cases promoting disinformation, speak as though they’re doing the opposite—and nobody challenges them.
44%
Flag icon
But now, Dr. Neitzel posts a lengthy, public apology that sounds like it’s being made to avoid legal action.
45%
Flag icon
There are thousands of similar groups. If you look through their websites and mission statements, they typically claim they’re independent and nonpartisan. They insist their donors have no influence over their fact checks and reports. But keep in mind they have no obligation to tell the truth. Their work product reveals their true colors. They use money from vested interests to write propaganda in the name of science. They coordinate with news organizations to distribute the propaganda and call it journalism. They are not unbiased scientific authorities no matter how many times they claim to ...more
45%
Flag icon
According to the media, whatever a favored public figure utters is “official” and true, even when it’s patently false.
45%
Flag icon
the vast majority of people sick in the hospital with Covid had isolated themselves just as the government asked!
45%
Flag icon
“This is a surprise,” Cuomo remarks. “Overwhelmingly, the people were at home.
46%
Flag icon
He begins by recounting outlandish anecdotes of people who’d been counted as “Sturgis” Covid cases back in their own home states even though they’d never stopped anywhere near Sturgis or the rally!
46%
Flag icon
The truth is, there’s no way science could tell if anybody was infected at Sturgis, let alone who and how many. But a lot of hard data shows how wrong the alarmist media reporting and “scientific” projections proved to be.
46%
Flag icon
only 300 cases among 460,000 attendees? That works out to an infection rate of just .065 percent, or about six-hundredths of 1 percent. That would make the Sturgis rally one of the safest places in America—not a superspreading event!
46%
Flag icon
Far too late, the CDC tacitly acknowledged that its recommendation to isolate indoors was a mistake. The agency eventually noted on its website, “Spending time outside when possible instead of inside can also help [prevent Covid spread]: Viral particles spread between people more readily indoors than outdoors.” Mayo Clinic wrote more plainly: “It’s much harder to catch the virus . . . when you are outside.” And the EPA now states, “Being indoors rather than outdoors” increases the risk of infection.
46%
Flag icon
“[T]he case fatality rate may be considerably less than 1%,” Dr. Fauci wrote in an article two weeks later, published in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) on March 26, 2020. “This suggests that the overall clinical consequences of COVID-19 may ultimately be more akin to those of a severe seasonal influenza
47%
Flag icon
Drs. Bhattacharya and Bendavid pointed out, Italy’s “real fatality rate could, in fact, be closer to 0.06%.”
47%
Flag icon
They finally acknowledged, publicly, that fully vaccinated people who catch Covid can infect others, after all—something they’d long denied.
47%
Flag icon
[C]ountries with higher percentage of population fully vaccinated have higher COVID-19 cases per 1 million people. Notably, Israel with over 60% of their population fully vaccinated had the highest COVID-19 cases per 1 million people in the last 7 days. The lack of a meaningful association between percentage population fully vaccinated and new COVID-19 cases is further exemplified . . . by comparison of Iceland and Portugal. Both countries have over 75% of their population fully vaccinated and have more COVID-19 cases per 1 million people than countries such as Vietnam and South Africa that ...more
48%
Flag icon
Covid’s overall death rate was proving to be minuscule, regardless of whether the person was vaccinated or not. Why wasn’t that a headline—that Covid rarely kills?
48%
Flag icon
When natural immunity’s superiority over Covid vaccines became evident in the scientific literature, vaccine industry interests worked to engineer data to make it seem as if vaccines were more effective than they were.
48%
Flag icon
Why admit a product is a failure when you can unilaterally change the meaning of a word and claim it’s a success? So in early September 2021, on CDC’s web page, somebody made the change. “Vaccine” had been defined as “A product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease.” But the phrase “protecting the person from that disease” was removed. Today the CDC says that vaccines merely “stimulate the body’s immune response.”
49%
Flag icon
common
49%
Flag icon
not unusual with vaccines,
49%
Flag icon
In Norway, they paid attention to the possible danger signs and recommended that the frail and elderly avoid the shots. In the US, our health officials explained away the warning signs.
50%
Flag icon
What makes the case of elderly deaths after vaccination most concerning is that the victims were all vaccinated shortly after the CDC disseminated important but shockingly false information that may have cost them their lives. The CDC wrongly claimed the original vaccine studies definitively showed the shots somehow benefited people who’d already had Covid. But the studies didn’t show any advantage to people who’d already had Covid. It wasn’t even a main research question addressed during the rushed studies. So there was no good reason to vaccinate the nursing home patients who’d already had ...more
50%
Flag icon
previously infected people who got vaccinated were at greater risk of getting Covid. For example, in Pfizer’s study, for test subjects who’d already had Covid, the vaccine had an effectiveness of minus 17.9 (−17.9 percent). In simpler terms, they were more likely to get Covid again after vaccination according to some scientists who reviewed the study.
50%
Flag icon
in Moderna’s original study, test subjects who’d had Covid, then got vaccinated anyway, were six times more likely to have to drop out of the study because they suffered such serious side effects.
50%
Flag icon
It wasn’t Pfizer, Moderna, the government’s top health experts, public health officials, medical reporters, or “fact-checkers” who unearthed the CDC’s error. They all just parroted and passed around the same bad information. Had any of them actually read the studies? It was a member of Congress who exposed the truth. Representative Thomas Massie, a Republican from Kentucky, identified the CDC’s disinformation in December 2020, while researching whether he should get vaccinated after he’d already had Covid.
50%
Flag icon
In the phone calls, Massie can be heard pressuring the CDC to tell the public the truth: that the original vaccine studies did not show any benefit to people getting the shots if they’d already had Covid. Shockingly, just days after one recorded conversation in which CDC officials finally agreed to make corrections to the public record, the same CDC officials took part in an online webinar for medical professionals where they repeated the misinformation. In that presentation, the CDC’s Dr. Sarah Oliver reiterates the false claim: “Data from both [vaccine] clinical trials suggests that people ...more
50%
Flag icon
two very large, outcome-based published studies from Cleveland Clinic and Israel in 2021 expanded the knowledge base. They concluded there’s no scientific reason to vaccinate people who already have natural immunity from Covid. Vaccination exposes them to risks with no benefit.
50%
Flag icon
If top CDC scientists and officials are intentionally distributing false information, what does that imply about the advice they’re giving and policies they’re making concerning the many vaccines we give our children, or other disease challenges we face, and the trillions of tax dollars we’ve provided to address these problems?
50%
Flag icon
All the Fake...
This highlight has been truncated due to consecutive passage length restrictions.
51%
Flag icon
In January 2022, justices on the Supreme Court displayed shocking ignorance of facts and played a remarkable role in furthering disinformation—even basing decisions on it.
51%
Flag icon
750 million people tested positive for Covid-19 on one day that week. (The US population is roughly 330 million people.)
51%
Flag icon
“The very next day [the deaths] showed up on the state website as Covid deaths,”