Replies

>>... and no matter how hard you dig and how hot you are on the trail of a story, sometimes there is no “there” there.<<

I think you misread the objective of her reporting. It wasn’t to prove the existence of vaccine-related autism. Instead it was to illustrate the extent to which those with an interest in getting everyone vaccinated would go to repress an opposing view that also has some reasonable scientific backing.

Science has certainly been corrupted in the global warming scam; there’s no reason to assume that it hasn’t also been corrupted to some extent when it comes to another government goal, 100% vaccination for childhood diseases.

She makes a good case, as she does for most issues she tackles.

I would suggest that the least likely group of scientists to be corrupted (as opposed to those in the global warming scam) are the medical/pharmaceutical ones. They take their jobs very, very seriously. I know some pharmaceutical chemists, and they are pretty boring guys but dead serious about their work, which is as it should be.

The reason global warming "science" has been corrupted is the same reason that social sciences have been corrupted: the politicization inherent in government grants. The agencies mostly control the funding, and we know how Obama's minions have wreaked havoc on the DEA, IRS, BLM, ATF/E, etc. Get the results they "suggest", or you won't get another grant. Even the CDC got into the act with the attempt to treat "firearms deaths" as a public health crisis, but to their credit the rank and file scientists opposed it.

It is actually safer from a corruption standpoint for pharmaceutical cos. and healthcare cos. to fund research than government grants. For example, I would trust the larger drug companies before I'd trust the CDC.

She makes a good case, as she does for most issues she tackles.

On the contrary, she makes an extraordinarily weak case. In fact, looking at her recitation of study after study ostensibly linking autism and vaccine use, you see over and over, “results not replicable,” “too small” of a study,” “logical hurdles,” and on and on. Even Atkinson admits that these studies have not demonstrated a causal link between vaccines and autism. Worse, she repeatedly calls scientists who come to different conclusions than she has “propagandists” and “critics,” presupposing an unsupportable or unfair bias. She has utterly failed to demonstrate that any such bias exists in fact. Even Atkinson herself says: "To be clear: no study to date conclusively proves or disproves a causal link between vaccines and autism and—despite the misreporting—none has claimed to do so.” If all this is so, then where’s the beef?