In stark contrast to candidate Clinton in 2008 when questions over the
safety and effectiveness of vaccines were just coming to the political
consciousness of the American people in large numbers, Hillary has now
become a vocal cheerleader of Big Pharma and vaccinations. ***Read full article here***
I was expecting a lengthy article, but was glad to see it short and to-the-point, which I think will reach more readers.
I wasn't aware that Clinton had made somewhat vaccine-skeptic statements in the past.
Here in Canada, the Toronto Star -- the largest newspaper by circulation -- originally ran a story about the dark side of the Gardasil vaccine, documenting some of the horror stories, and after industry pressure, it was completely removed, with an apology.
For issues of history and politics, they can allow dissenting opinions, but with science, they have their trump card of "scientific consensus," and they can shut down any dissenting opinions, calling them unscientific, and completely restricting layman discussion on the issue, which isn't parroting the consensus.
It's reminiscent of her switch on so-called gay marriage, when she got upset at a reporter for implying that she changed her view for political reasons. She denied it, but the reality is, it wasn't just her -- all the big politicians who changed their position did so for political reasons, so the only unfairness of the journalist's question was focusing on her.
The big change for vaccines since her 2008 position is that they used the whole Dr. Andrew Wakefield scandal to say that therefore all vaccines are safe, since he and others had been saying mercury was causing autism, so once it was removed in that vaccine and autism was still rising, they could say, there you go, that's not the cause, and therefore they're all safe.
Revealing, however, how they made Wakefield out to be a disingenuous fraud for his claims based on his study sample, yet those same detractors who write off CDC whistleblower, William Thompson, don't seem to see a problem with how kids were later excluded from the study on an unwarranted basis once they started showing a link between the MMR vaccine and autism.
I was expecting a lengthy article, but was glad to see it short and to-the-point, which I think will reach more readers.
ReplyDeleteI wasn't aware that Clinton had made somewhat vaccine-skeptic statements in the past.
Here in Canada, the Toronto Star -- the largest newspaper by circulation -- originally ran a story about the dark side of the Gardasil vaccine, documenting some of the horror stories, and after industry pressure, it was completely removed, with an apology.
For issues of history and politics, they can allow dissenting opinions, but with science, they have their trump card of "scientific consensus," and they can shut down any dissenting opinions, calling them unscientific, and completely restricting layman discussion on the issue, which isn't parroting the consensus.
It's reminiscent of her switch on so-called gay marriage, when she got upset at a reporter for implying that she changed her view for political reasons. She denied it, but the reality is, it wasn't just her -- all the big politicians who changed their position did so for political reasons, so the only unfairness of the journalist's question was focusing on her.
The big change for vaccines since her 2008 position is that they used the whole Dr. Andrew Wakefield scandal to say that therefore all vaccines are safe, since he and others had been saying mercury was causing autism, so once it was removed in that vaccine and autism was still rising, they could say, there you go, that's not the cause, and therefore they're all safe.
Revealing, however, how they made Wakefield out to be a disingenuous fraud for his claims based on his study sample, yet those same detractors who write off CDC whistleblower, William Thompson, don't seem to see a problem with how kids were later excluded from the study on an unwarranted basis once they started showing a link between the MMR vaccine and autism.