Last week, I published an article exposing how Parents magazine deceives its readers about the toxicity of mercury in vaccines. I noted that the article was “riddled with deceptive statements”, and I highlighted a handful of key deceptions, including the bald-faced lie that ethylmercury cannot possibly cause toxicity because infants’ bodies so rapidly eliminate it.
One of my readers, David, did an excellent job of exposing an additional error in the Parents article that I had glossed over. In the comments section of my article, David points out:
It is amazing that the author of the Parents article is clearly not even aware of the difference between the earlier whole-cell DTP vaccine and the newer DTaP vaccine which used an acellular form of the pertussis bacterium. The article states “the diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis (DTaP) vaccination was the only thimerosal-containing shot recommended for infants and children until 1991”. Um…the DTaP vaccine was not even licensed in the US until 1991. They are trying to parrot their reference from JAMA Psychiatry which states: “Before 1991, the combined diphtheria and tetanus toxoids and whole-cell pertussis vaccine (DTP) was the sole thimerosal-containing vaccine (TCV) recommended for all infants and children in the United States.”
Thus, even though Parents’ own cited source clearly differentiates between the whole-cell pertussis vaccine (DTP) that has been replaced in the US and other developed countries with the acellular vaccine (DTaP), the magazine still got it wrong by referring to DTP as DTaP.
David went further in debunking the Parents article by doing basically exactly what I do with practically all of my articles: check the cited sources to demonstrate how the public message is contradicted by the very scientific literature we are supposed to believe proves just how perfectly safe vaccines are.
For quick context, one of the key points I had made is how Parents’ narrative about how the mercury-based preservative thimerosal was removed from most childhood vaccines around the turn of the century whitewashes the fact that the CDC’s schedule was exposing infants to cumulative levels of mercury in excess of the government’s own safety guidelines.
David demonstrates how the author of the Parents article either didn’t bother reading her own cited source or did read the JAMA Psychiatry article and deliberately chose to omit that key fact. He quotes from the source:
By 1999, it became recognized that, under the recommended childhood immunization schedule, infants at 6 months of age were potentially exposed to cumulative doses of ethylmercury that, using an inexact surrogate benchmark in the absence of data, exceeded safety standards (maximum values of which vary from 65-501 μg) for ingestion of another mercury compound, methylmercury.
Now, if Parents’ aim was to educate their readers, don’t you think the fact that the CDC’s schedule was exposing infants to alarmingly high levels of mercury would be considered critically relevant?
Pop Quiz: What conclusion can we draw about the nature of the digital magazine’s “journalism” from the fact that Parents omitted that detail from their account of how thimerosal was phased out of most vaccines?
I’ll be you all get an “A” on my pop quiz, especially if you’ve already read my article, which highlights that very omission. David eloquently reiterates the same point I made with the following astute observation about the language used in the JAMA Psychiatry article:
Pay special attention to: “…using an inexact surrogate benchmark in the absence of data”.
This right here tells you everything you need to know about how vaccine safety is not taken seriously by the CDC and our other health agencies. As the Parents article itself states, ethylmercury has been used in vaccines for decades. But notice that they do not even have a standard benchmark to use as an acceptable (“safe”) amount of ethylmercury to inject into infants. The entire concept of a “safe” amount of mercury to inject into infants is ludicrous on its face. But they have to compare to a different mercury compound altogether because they NEVER BOTHERED TO DO ANY SAFETY STUDIES for this vaccine ingredient.
Bingo!
I love the fact that David, after reading my article, took the time to examine the Parents’ article for himself and, further, took the time to check Parents’ source relative to its statements about the pertussis vaccine.
This is a key lesson I always try to impart upon my readers: when you come across information from whatever media source that you question or doubt, assuming a source is cited, always check the cited source and compare the information provided therein with the claim being made and the purpose for which the source has been cited.
That’s basically what I do with my own journalism. Indeed, while I’ve come to accept the job description of “journalist”, I view myself as an information analyst doing open-source intelligence. I read a lot, check sources, synthesize the often-conflicting information in a way that reconciles the contradictions, and then publicly share my findings and conclusions.
David has offered a great example of savvy news consumerism, which I wanted to highlight because we all need to develop this kind of skill in assessing information so that we don’t become duped by the incessant stream of deceitful propaganda emanating from the government and media.
In case you missed it, read my article “‘Parents’ Magazine Deceives about Infant Excretion of Mercury from Vaccines”, and I encourage you to critically analyze the content and share in the comments any additional errors or deceptions that you can find!
I am sure the examples I provided plus the one David highlighted are not an exhaustive list of errors and deceptions in the Parents article. What additional problems can you find?
Jeremy thanks for the kind words!
Thank you for taking the time and effort to debunk the media reports smearing RFK Jr and this article from Parents Magazine, among many others! This is incredibly important work since it’s easy for some half-wit who considers themselves a “journalist” to write something that will convince the majority of those who read it, even though much of it is patently untrue. We have to break this cycle of dogmatic thinking.
??