|
The Friday, May 31st edition of The Wall Street Journal published an article on the front page, above the fold: “Vaccine Battle Bedevils Facebook.”
The article blasts Facebook for, ironically, not following up fast enough on their decision to censor information about vaccine safety. Vaccines Revealed is mentioned:
“And the top three vaccine-related accounts recommended by Instagram are ‘vaccinetruth’ ‘vaccinesuncovered’ and ‘vaccines_revealed’—all advocates for the discredited claim that vaccines are toxic.”
In a nation that has historically prided itself in its democracy, individual rights, and freedom of the press, it’s hard to understand how a major publication can decry a public media platform’s failure to silence a group that’s speaking out, within their rights, about an issue as important as this one.
What Does “Misinformation” Mean?
The Wall Street Journal, Facebook, Amazon, and others who are accusing vaccine safety advocates of spreading “misinformation” need to clarify what they mean by this term. There are a lot of opinions being shouted and names being called, but there are few actual facts being shared.
Is it “misinformation” to say that vaccines cause autism? The vaccine injury court has awarded compensation to autism injury claims1. The Department of Justice recently fired their own expert witness when he corrected an attorney who misquoted him as saying vaccines don’t cause autism–when in fact he actually stated that he has seen clear evidence that they do.
Is it “misinformation” to say that vaccine reactions can cause death and permanent disability? There are verified deaths recorded every year due to vaccines, as well as injury caused by encephalopathy, seizures, and neurological damage caused by vaccines. These are recorded facts and are noted on vaccine package inserts2.
Is it “misinformation” to say that vaccines can fail to provide the immunity they claim to? Re-labeling measles as a“measles-like rash” or mumps as a “mumps-like illness”3in those who have been vaccinated against it yet still contract the disease does not change the fact that it is, in fact, the exact same disease.
Is it “misinformation” to continue to claim that vaccines are safe and effective, discrediting those who say otherwise as being “anti-science” while at the same time ignoring the science that does not back their own opinion?
Yes, I think it’s safe to say that last one is misinformation…
The Emperor’s New Clothes
If anything is “bedeviling” the media, it’s the fact that the issue of vaccines seems to be operating under the same premise as the children’s tale, The Emperor’s New Clothes.Little else can explain how the media continues to tout the efficacy and safety of vaccines…
…Despite the package inserts produced by vaccine manufacturers themselves that detail a long list of adverse reactions including permanent injury and death.
…Despite the existence of the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, set up by the government to compensate those injured by vaccines, which has paid out billions to petitioners since its inception in 1988.
…Despite the fact that many people who are fully vaccinated still come down with the diseases they’ve been “immunized” against.
And, despite the irrefutable fact that many of the ingredients in vaccines are, indeed, toxic4…including aluminum salts, mercury-based preservatives, and formaldehyde.
The emperor is stark naked, but the media is determined to silence anyone who dares to point that out.
It’s Vital to Allow Both Sides of the Story to be Told.
We simply can’t allow an issue that is this important to our health and to future generations to be censored. The stakes are too high.
The US has the highest rate of vaccination5in the developed world. We can also claim the highest rate of autism, auto-immune disease, and an infant mortality rate that is a full 71% higher than any other developed nation.
You read that right….
Our infants receive a whopping 36 vaccines before age five, and die at a 71% higher rate than comparable countries—where children receive just 11 to 13 vaccines.
If we don’t allow this information to be shared, we will continue to be a nation that battles illness, learning disabilities, and reduced quality of life. Parents will continue to lose their children needlessly to autism, profound disability, and even death.
If this trend of censorship is allowed to continue there will be no voice of reason urging for better research, caution, and accountability where our children’s health is concerned.
Ronald Reagan once said,“Of the forces shaping the destiny of our civilization, none is more crucial to our future than the responsible reporting and truthful analysis of the events of our era.”
That holds especially true where issues of health, quality of life, and individual rights to liberty and personal choice are concerned.
Vaccines Revealed will not be threatened, censored, or bullied into silence, and we hope you won’t either…
To share real information with more people, feel free to forward this email, or share the link VaccinesRevealed.com on social media. We thank you for your partnership in spreading the truth.
Sincerely,
The Vaccines Revealed Team
1 https://www.huffpost.com/entry/post2468343_n_2468343
2 http://www.immunize.org/fda/
3 https://www.merck.com/product/usa/pi_circulars/m/mmr_ii/mmr_ii_pi.pdf
4https://childrenshealthdefense.org/news/toxic-vaccine-ingredients-the-devils-in-the-details/
The PPJ Gazette 
Jun 08, 2019 @ 04:26:37
Marti
I tackle this subject in my latest article in a different way. These two paragraphs might cultivate synergy:
https://ozziethinker.wordpress.com/2019/06/02/a-crisis-of-social-grooming-fear-and-manipulation-at-the-root/
“There are some contradictions to this that are easy to explain “in perspective”. Autism as a “condition” is not discussed in reasoned terms by the mainstream because it represents vaccines’ major Achilles heel. Though statistics have rocketed from one in ten thousand to one in thirty per capita since its 1980’s “discovery” (actually a variation of Asperger’s syndrome or Schizophrenia, both forms of brain damage), these blemishes are very much in the minority. Therefore FDA (a toothless “internal” commercial watchdog misbranded as a government department) reputation remains spotless after ceaseless allegations (even by inside professionals) against certain products continue to plaque alternative Medias. From the “group think” perspective, under these circumstances, those that suffer autism must be defective and vaccines (if truly to blame) merely act as agent to stress their abnormality. Only when majorities are demonstrably afflicted, does the campaign fall in a heap. So here’s the contradiction. There have been innumerable pharmaceutical product recalls but, in most instances, the “batch” is judged as culprit. In the case of GlaxoSmithKline Australia many years ago, it required only one alleged poisoning to justify recall of their entire paracetamol production run. Globally, instances of autism may run into hundreds of thousands (depending on statistical diagnosis), but to coin a phrase “nothing to see here” for reasons outlined.
If I conducted a poll from residents of my local street, I would be surprised if I was able to collect even one in a hundred that had heard of Eli Lily’s Thimerosal product. Rhetoric supporting “educated” mainstream vaccine awareness campaigns has been dedicated only to slander. Those that “don’t like” vaccines are painted pathological evil and scandalously ignorant (though explanation for ignorance is routinely absent), whereas those that are on the correct team are “normal”, good, virtuous “God fearing” people even. We must begin to realise that corporate Medias are, with scant exception, supported by pimps and hookers, and these vassals do not (by any means) deserve the title “journalist”. On rare occasions truthful truth rears its head in isolation, it is always skew. Judaism undeniably influences mainstream content censorship measures. Indeed, so much so, some believe there are no other political interests balancing control (Christianity and Islam both versions of Judaism). Jews, regardless of status and location, today are classed as “People of Israel”. That is the only [real] reason most nations permit dual-citizenship….”
LikeLike
Jun 06, 2019 @ 13:40:42
This article was written a few years ago
Who actually owns the Wall Street Journal?
JUSTIN WALTON
Updated Nov 12, 2015
The Wall Street Journal is owned by media magnate Rupert Murdoch, who purchased the company for $5 billion in 2007 through his company, News Corporation. The sale ended the 105-year-long ownership of the Wall Street Journal by the Bancroft family. Murdoch, one of the world’s most powerful media tycoons, founded Fox Broadcasting in 1986. As of 2015, the Murdoch family controls a media empire consisting of 120 newspapers in five countries, multimedia company 21st Century Fox and book publisher HarperCollins. Founded in 1889, the Wall Street Journal has long dominated American business publishing and was the country’s first national newspaper.
Phone-Hacking Scandal
Not long after News Corp purchased the Wall Street Journal, news broke that journalists at British newspapers owned by Murdoch were tapping phone lines to get the inside scoop for their stories. While Murdoch says he had no direct involvement, the scandal forced the closure of the News of the World, Britain’s top-selling newspaper and led to criminal charges against many senior journalists. As a result, Murdoch dropped his bid to purchase the BSkyB satellite network.
Most members of the Bancroft family said they would not have sold the company to Murdoch had they known of the conduct of his employees in the phone-hacking scandal. Even before news broke of the scandal, many members of the family showed concern over Murdoch’s journalistic practices and attempted to put an independent panel in place to safeguard the paper’s ethics.
Details of the Sale
Murdoch offered $60 a share, a 67% premium, and $2.25 billion over the announced market price on the day his offer was announced. The newspaper industry was struggling, and many prominent daily papers had already closed or drastically reduced production, so Murdoch’s deal was extremely attractive.
https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/111215/who-actually-owns-wall-street-journal.asp
LikeLike
Jun 06, 2019 @ 08:53:40
Reblogged this on NoFakeNews.net.
LikeLike