My friend Brad texted me during the Michigan-Michigan State football game yesterday telling me I have to read the flu shot article in the WSJ and write about it. Well, I got home from the BIG Michigan victory (Go Blue!) and promptly read the November 16, 2019 article. This article must have been supplied to the WSJ writer by Big Pharma as this was nothing more than a promotional spot for why we should be vaccinated against the flu. Fake News: The flu vaccine has NEVER been shown to protect those aged 65 and older. And, 79,000 dying from the flu last year? No way. The CDC annually gins up the number of deaths from the flu by reporting pneumonia and flu deaths as one number. Then, the CDC reports this number as the total dying from the flu. The number who die from the flu range from a few hundred to a few thousand per year. Since the flu vaccine does not prevent pneumonia, and pneumonia deaths vastly outnumber flu deaths sometimes 20-40x, there is simply no reason to lump the numbers together unless you want to unnecessarily scare the population into getting a flu vaccine. The flu shot has NEVER BEEN SHOWN TO REDUCE SERIOUS COMPLICATIONS SUCH AS PNEUMONIA OR HOSPTILIZATION FROM INFLUENZA INFECTION IN CHILDREN, HEALTHY ADULTS AND THE ELDERLY!
Health Impact News was recently contacted by John Gregory, a medical reporter working for the company NewsGuard, a self-appointed Internet policing group that awards "nutrition badge" ratings for websites determining if they are "reliable" or not. Mr. Gregory accused me right up front of publishing "false" claims, and asked me to comment on a list of articles in our network that he determined were "false." Curiously, one of the articles he chose to exhibit as something published that was "false" was one of our articles on the Department of Justice quarterly reports on compensated cases for vaccine injuries and deaths in the U.S. Vaccine Court, submitted every three months to the federal government Advisory Commission on Childhood Vaccines (ACCV) under the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The article is reporting what is public information from government sources. When they gave Health Impact News a negative rating, they even gave a negative rating to Created4Health.org, which is not even a news site but a site where I publish my devotional articles based on Bible studies. They also gave a negative rating to MedicalKidnap.com. Mr Gregory accused us of simply taking unverified social media posts from parents who claimed their children were being kidnapped by the state, and asked us if we even bothered to verify their stories. There is strong evidence that NewsGuard is comprised of "old-school journalists" who represent corporate interests, and are doing everything they can to squelch free speech on the Internet, especially in social media platforms. Health Impact News provides a free service to the public that often is seldom found elsewhere, and that is especially true with our Medical Kidnapping stories, where we are one of the few places parents can come to and find a platform to tell the world what is happening to America's children who are being kidnapped by the State, and often end up being sexually trafficked. What a shame it would be if the corporate censorship forces get their way. What can you do to fight corporate censorship?
The lead New York Times (NYT) editorial today is titled, “Know The Enemy.” According to the NYT, the “enemy” is anyone who questions the safety and efficacy of any vaccine. I guess that makes me the enemy. I thought I was a board-certified physician trying to read and decipher the research on vaccines to help guide my patients on how to make their best health care decisions.
Unless you've been living under a rock or hiding beneath the covers in your bed for the past couple of months, you've undoubtedly heard the war cries against "fake news." Facebook — being the largest social media site on which news is shared among millions — has vowed to take steps to limit the amount of "misinformation" that can be spread on its site by forwarding suspected fake news stories to fact-checkers like Snopes. The danger of giving certain entities the power to tag a news story as "fake" or "real" is clearly demonstrated by recent revelations about Snopes. After Facebook announced Snopes would be used to fact-check stories, The Daily Mail questioned Snopes' façade as a paragon of truth. Snopes was created in 1995 by Barbara and David Mikkelson to explore the truth and fiction behind myths and urban legends (see video above). According to the Daily Mail's investigation into the company, the couple posed as "The San Fernardo Valley Folklore Society" when they first started — a society that, in fact, does not exist as a legal entity. David has admitted they created the fake society, with official-looking stationary and all, "to help make the inquiries seem more legit." The Mikkelsons divorced in 2015, but are still locked in a heated legal battle over corporate and private funds. Barbara claims David embezzled $98,000 of company money, allegedly spending it on "himself and prostitutes," and used corporate funds for his personal use, including attorney's fees, without consulting her. David, on the other hand, claims he's been underpaid, and is demanding an "industry standard" rate of at least $360,000 per year. He's currently making $240,000 a year from Snopes. He also accuses Barbara of taking millions of dollars from their joint bank accounts to buy property. According to the Daily Mail, David's attorneys have also "blasted Barbara as 'a loose cannon who simply must have her way.'"