Vaccines
and the Liberal Mind
Instead of demanding blue-ribbon safety science and
encouraging honest, open and responsible debate on
the science, too many online outlets are silencing
critics and shutting down discussion on this key
public health and civil rights issue
By Robert F. Kennedy Jr.April 13, 2020 "Information
Clearing House" -
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 media—the supposed
antidote to corporate and government power—has
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
injured—Merck 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 world’s 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
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
that’s not true. FDA’s 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 studies—the
gold standard of safety science—that the FDA
requires prior to licensing other medications, most
vaccines now on the CDC’s recommended childhood
vaccine schedule were safety tested for only a few
days or weeks. For example, the
manufacturer’s package insert
discloses that Merck’s 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 seizure—or died—on day six, Merck was
under no obligation to disclose those facts.