Since I have been occasionally criticized for adopting, as it were, too
acerbic a tone in my contributions on vaccination questions, I will try to
demonstrate why those of us who have opted to contest the position of the
medical-industrial-governmental complex on this issue at times feel overcome
with rage at the abominably poor quality of the pro-vaccination epidemiologic
research which is foisted on the public in the hope and expectation that no
one will ever take the trouble to check it out and criticize it.
One feels rage as well at the complicity of the “peer reviewed” journals
which print these awful productions. It is abundantly clear, if further proof
were needed, that “peer review” means simply preventing criticism of certain
commercial interests and blocking the emergence of competing viewpoints.
Finally, one feels rage and exasperation at the total inability of
journalists — who are reputed to be professional sceptics — to see through,
and expose, this duplicity. They fearlessly cross-question generals and
members of the cabinet, even the President himself, but are struck dumb by the self-promoting assertions of some character in a white coat (“Say Joe, how do you spell ‘breakthrough'”?).
Let us not forget that it is small and defenceless babies who are being
turned into mincemeat by these commercial products known as vaccines.
Once upon a time, long ago in the 1940s and 1950s, physicians who were
interested in vaccine reactions actually (would you believe it?) went into
hospitals, and even to people’s homes, to examine babies who were thought to
have suffered some sort of adverse reaction. They went so far as to speak with the parents and to ask their opinion. This was called by one British pioneer “shoe-leather epidemiology.”
Today our epidemiologists have progressed way beyond those primitive
techniques. Rarely do they actually observe a sick baby. Rarely do they
actually discuss a case with the parents. Oh no! That would be accepting
“anecdotal evidence” — a cardinal sin. That would be mistaking the well-known “background incidence” of SIDS or epilepsy or asthma or diabetes, or you name it, for a vaccine reaction. Never mind that no research exists on any such “background incidence” in an unvaccinated U.S. population. Our epidemiologists are not fazed by this. They just keep repeating the mantra until everyone is convinced that a “background incidence” must have been demonstrated somehow, somewhere, by someone.
Fortified by these unproven assumptions and methodological limitations,
epidemiologists funded by government agencies and the medical-industrial
complex fill the pages of medical journals with trash epidemiology — the
articles discussed below are prime examples — which, in a sort of scientific
apotheosis of Gresham’s Law, drives good research out of circulation or
prevents it from being published.