Table of Contents
Introduction
On January 19, 2019, the New York Times published an editorial mischaracterizing anyone who dares to criticize or dissent from public vaccine policy as dangerously irrational and ignorant.[1] In doing so, the Times avoided having to seriously address any of the countless legitimate concerns that parents have today about vaccinating their children according to the CDC’s routine childhood vaccine schedule. Consequently, the Times fulfills the mainstream media’s typical function of manufacturing consent for government policy by manipulating public opinion through deception.[2] In this case, the consent being manufactured in service of the state is for public vaccine policy, which constitutes a serious threat to both our health and our liberty.
What the Times editorial represents is not journalism, but public policy advocacy. And to persuade its readers to strictly comply with the CDC’s vaccine schedule, the Times blatantly lies to its readers both about the nature of the debate and what science tells us about vaccine safety and effectiveness.
The first clue that the Times editorial aims to avoid any serious discussion of the issue is the title: “How to Inoculate Against Anti-Vaxxers”. The term “anti-vaxxer”, of course, is the derogatory label that the media apply to anyone who dares to question public vaccine policy. It is reflective of the mainstream media’s routine use of ad hominem argumentation in lieu of reasoned discourse. Rather than substantively addressing their arguments, the media simply dismiss the views of and personally attack critics and dissenters—and this Times editorial is certainly no exception.
The second clue is in the editorial’s subtitle: “The no-vaccine crowd has persuaded a lot of people. But public health can prevail.” To equate public vaccine policy with “public health”, of course, is the fallacy of begging the question. It presumes the proposition to be proven, which is that vaccinating the US childhood population according to the CDC’s schedule is the best way to achieve a healthy population. Many parents, researchers, doctors, and scientists strongly and reasonably disagree.
The Times would have us believe that the science on vaccines is settled. The reality is that there is a great deal of debate and controversy in the scientific literature about the safety and effectiveness of CDC-recommended vaccines. The demonstrable truth of the matter, as the Times editorial so amply illustrates, is that what the government and media say science says about vaccines and what science actually tells us are two completely different and contradictory things.
Indeed, the underlying assumption that the CDC is somehow infallible in its vaccine recommendations is indicative of how vaccination has become a religion, with those who dare to question official dogma being treated as heretics.
How the New York Times Characterizes the Vaccine Issue
The New York Times begins by noting that the World Health Organization (WHO) recently listed “vaccine hesitancy” among ten “threats to global health”.[3] The term “vaccine hesitancy” refers to a person’s reluctance or refusal to strictly comply with public vaccine policy, which in the US is determined principally by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and state legislatures making compliance with the CDC’s recommendations mandatory for school entry.
For context, children in the US today who are vaccinated according to the CDC’s schedule will have received 50 doses of 14 vaccines by age six and 72 or more doses of 19 vaccines by age eighteen.[4] This has naturally led many parents to wonder what the potential unintended consequences might be of their children receiving so many vaccines, including sometimes many at once.
The Times laments that an estimated 100,000 American infants and toddlers remain totally unvaccinated, with millions more having received some but not all of the CDC’s recommended vaccines, all of which the Times describes as “crucial shots”.
The Times characterizes parents who choose not to strictly comply with public vaccine policy as irrational and ignorant of the science. According to its narrative, the internet abounds with “anti-vaccine propaganda” that “has outpaced pro-vaccine public health information.” The “anti-vaxxers” have “hundreds of websites”, media influencers, and political action committees engaged in an “onslaught” of this “propaganda”, which consists of “rumors and conspiracies”.
The response to this “onslaught” by public policy advocates, by contrast, “has been meager.” The CDC “has a website with accurate information, but no loud public voice”, and the rest of the government “has been mum”, leaving “just a handful of academics who get bombarded with vitriol, including outright threats, every time they try to counter pseudoscience with fact.”
The public policy critics and dissenters, according to the Times, are responsible for causing “outbreaks of measles, mumps, and pertussis”, as well as “an increase in influenza deaths” and “dismal rates of HPV vaccination”, the latter of which the Times editors believe otherwise “could effectively wipe out cervical cancer”.
The Times editors further argue that vaccines are “victims of their own success” because people don’t remember “how terrible those diseases once were”. To counter vaccine hesitancy, there are “some hard truths that deserve to be trumpeted. Vaccines are not toxic, and they do not cause autism. Full stop.”
“Trust in vaccines” is being “thoroughly eroded”, the editorial argues, threatening to cause “the next major disease outbreak”. To thwart this “danger”, the Times advocates that other states follow California’s example in eliminating nonmedical exemptions for mandatory vaccinations.
Describing critics and dissenters as “the enemy”, the Times asserts:
The arguments used by people driving the anti-vaccination movement have not changed in about a century. These arguments are effective because they are intuitively appealing — but they are also easily refutable. Instead of ignoring these arguments, an effective pro-vaccine campaign would confront them directly, over and over, for as long as it takes. Yes, there are chemicals in vaccines, but they are not toxic. No, vaccines can’t overwhelm your immune system, which already confronts countless pathogens every day.
Instructively, while the Times asserts that the arguments used by public policy critics are “easily refutable”, the editors avoided having to actually do so by simply lying that they ignore the past hundred years of science. While urging public policy advocates not to ignore the arguments against vaccinating, the Times editors do precisely that.
On the contrary, the critics most certainly cite modern science to support their arguments and to expose how the public is being blatantly lied to by the government and mainstream media, such as how the Times here lies that aluminum and mercury, both used as ingredients in vaccines, “are not toxic.”
Since the Times utterly fails to do so, let’s now take a serious and honest look at the subject and examine the real issues and legitimate concerns that the Times goes so far out of its way to avoid discussing.
🔓Continue reading with a FREE or premium membership.
Log in below or choose your membership.
The ENTIRE mainstream corrupted media has been staffed for over forty years by malleable retards who can read teleprompters and “moue” convincingly to the cameras and able to transfer materiel supplied by their handlers to “news(?)print”…are we witnessing the encroaching Dark Age???
“By the time the vaccine was introduced in 1963, although the virus continued to circulate and almost everyone was infected during their childhood, the mortality rate had already plummeted so that only about 450 people died each year from measles.[12]” Have you read the articles you’re referencing? https://academic.oup.com/jid/article/189/Supplement_1/S1/820569 states that ‘Measles is the greatest vaccine-preventable killer of children in the world today and the eighth leading cause of death among persons of all ages worldwide’
You ask that as though what I wrote isn’t true. But it is true. As the source cited states.
A brief look at their profile and history of commentary quickly renders engaging this individual as a no-value activity.
Have a friend working on an app to examine such things. TrustScience. You may find it useful in your line of work.
yes, in malnourished children .
Excellent article. Thank you.
Thank you for exposing the truth about vaccines so few are failing to acknlowledge! I totally agree the practice of vaccination has become a “religion” that if anyone dares question is considered heresy!!!
As an RN who publically and professionally speaks out about these points and advocate informed consent, I Thank You. I wish more care providers were educated about vaccines but sadly, the education consists of a few minutes spent on public health advocacy propaganda. Cell mediated immunity isn’t well understood by care providers who would do more to advocate for proper nutrition, probiotics and sleep than they would to push toxins into the bloodstream that would honestly rarely make it there on their own.
Patients are “educated” about “safe” levels of neurotoxin (among other unsafe vaccine ingredients) in comparison with gut absorbed toxins of similar nature without explaining that the GI system eliminates most of this exposure instead of absorbing it directly into the bloodstream to pass the blood brain barrier the way toxins in vaccines do via muscle. There is zero discussion about autoimmunity and risk. There is zero discussion about metal poisoning. There is zero DISCUSSION. I have always refused to take part in this as a professional and furthermore willl continue to dissent, speak out and educate. Your article is a wonderful stepping off point.
I’m glad you found it valuable!
Re-reading your article this sentence jumped out:
“children in the US today who are vaccinated according to the CDC’s schedule will have received 50 doses of 14 vaccines by age six and 72 or more doses of 19 vaccines by age eighteen.”
I was wondering why the MSM hasn’t reported on U.S. National Vaccine Plan aka as Healthy People 2030.
Healthy People 2030 has been in the works since 1979: https://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/healthy-people-2020-and-decade-vacciness.
The ultimate goal is mandatory vaccination from cradle to grave. Once the children schedule is complete adults began a new schedule of 72 vaccine from the age of 19-65: https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/schedules/hcp/imz/adult.html
I wonder if all the concerned citizens that are profaning and disparaging people who advocate vaccine safety are willing to go down the same road as they are insisting children go down? Adults can be contagious and infect others so I have never understood why parents who insist on vaccinating their children with everything in the Doctors office don’t themselves ask to be vaccinated? Especially in light of the fact that the CDC has been saying for at least a decade parents getting “boosters” will not hurt them. I’d be willing to bet there are very few takers.
I’d like to see U.S. National Vaccine Plan with the Adult Immunization Schedule go viral publicly. This way we can get a good look at just how concerned these people are about vaccine preventable diseases in general. Are they willing to put their life at risk as easily as they are demanding parents who oppose vaccines put their children’s lives at risk.
Great points and questions. Emphasizing this public health goal is a great way to get through to people who may not have children. It’s not an issue for parents alone to be concerned about!
Great point about parents accepting all the vaccines they never received or will ever receive, yet they are well and it seems most adults are not at risk. But then we get the clever messages implying even fabricating that we can be carriers of deadly disease. In my lifetime I’ve not encountered any such thing occurring among family or friends, or reported in media. Well meaning parents fear for their children, and I certainly did and we vaccinated our children before we found out it can turn a well child into an injured child.
Here’s a thought that popped into my head that I would appreciate your insights on:
There are schools that will not allow children to attend unless they are vaccinated like in California. In order to receive a public tax payers education which children are entitled to they must be vaccinated-against their parents will violating the Federal law of Informed consent and the right to refuse. There are hospitals that have fired employees, most noticeably nurses for refusing to submit to the Flu Shot violating their informed Consent and the refusal goes on record which in searching for further employment could affect their ability to get another job. There are hospitals that have refused to treat children in the ER unless they submit to being vaccinated or they are refused outright admittance even though people who can’t pay for service are treated according to the law.
Extortion:
Extortion is based upon some type of threat.
… In some states, merely making a threat is enough to qualify as a crime. Intent. A person commits extortion when making a threat with the specific intention of forcing someone else to provide money, property, or something of value.
Surely parents being forced to give up Medical Autonomy, Informed Consent and their right to refuse is something of value. If a child is barred from attending school that the parents tax dollars are paying for unless they submit to a medical procedure that they oppose and do not want, how can that not be extortion? Now bills are being submitted in some state mandating home schooled children be vaccinated. How can that not be extortion?
What are your thought on this?
You are right, it is extortion.
It seems the NYT has written another attack article but I don’t have the stomach to read it.
Thank you Jeremy for this excellent article. The battle lines have been drawn and the result will determine if we live in some semblance of a democracy or a corporate dictatorship. This isn’t just some policy dispute because all of our lives are at stake. I think it’s important to personally identify the perpetrators at the Times. Who exactly makes the final decisions? Is it the owner or the Chief Editor? No one else really matters. We need to know who is taking the money. It all comes down to that.
The solution might be to open schools for unvaccinated children only. But that would barely address the problem that vaccinated children can and do shed their diseases on others.
I can’t agree that segregating children based on vaccination status is a solution. The solution I see is for the fearmongering to cease and for resources to be shifted away from vaccines toward safer and more effective means of disease prevention.
This is amazing! I have been contacting CBS LA, SF Chronicle, and Sac Bee today because of false reports on a recent incident in the California Captiol and wrongly asscociating it with opposition to SB276. When I start to look into the profile of authors and sources of the story it is clear they have formed an alliance with Anti-freedom legislators on the often censored topic of vaccines. The fact that reporters have taken a side on this sensitive issue and use their professional platform push a pharma funded political agenda is unethical and wrong. It’s rare to find objective media outlets and viewers/readers need to wake up and realize it’s a one-sided narrative used to control people.