In the end, this is probably the last major spike of news attention for Andrew Wakefield. Sure, in his new role as spokesperson for a consortium of vaccines-cause-autism organizations, he will get in the news again. And there will be at least one more BMJ article. But, what else is there? His research efforts even before he was let go by Thoughtful House were unimpressive to say the least (remember the Monkey study that used 2 controls and claimed that unvaccinated infant monkey brains shouldn't grow, but the vaccinated ones should?). Perhaps he will be a study author on the Generation Rescue "vaccinated/unvaccinated" study. Even that won't gain him the notoriety of his Lancet paper. With the paper debunked, his ethical violations in pursuing that paper and others proven by the GMC hearing and, now, the entire effort described as fraudulent, what's left? Not much. – LeftBrain RightBrain
Dominant Social Theme: Do as we say to build civil society …
Free-Market Analysis: We watch and analyze the memes of the elite with considerable fascination. This last week brought us what we consider to be two dominant social themes that are very close to the collective heart of the elite. One was simply infuriating and the other was tragic. In this article, we want to examine the mainstream responses to these two events and to then analyze the ways that such reporting has changed over the past decade.
The first, of course, was the further pillorying of Andrew Wakefield who has now (it has been announced some 10 years later) committed to knowing fraud regarding his paper on autism. The second of course was the tragic shooting of U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and many others in Arizona, apparently the work of a lone-crazed gunman.
How are these stories linked? In the case of Andrew Wakefield, it is evident that Big Pharma and the powers-that-be want him shut up and discredited for good. In the tragic shooting of Giffords et al., it is evident once again that no important figure can be gunned down without the national dialogue immediately commencing as regards gun confiscation. It is sad enough that a lovely young woman should be essentially massacred (she yet survives) with so many others, but sadder still that the bodies are not cold before someone is trying to make political points, in this case Democratic sheriff Clarence Dupnik. Here is how ABC News reported Dupnik's reaction:
Political climate fuelled deadly shooting: sheriff … United States police have blamed the shooting of a congresswoman on the vitriolic tone of recent political debate. US congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords was gravely wounded and six other people were killed when a gunman went on a shooting rampage in Tucson, Arizona. The sheriff in charge of the probe into the attack, Clarence Dupnik, confirmed that a 22-year-old suspect, who he did not name, is being held by the police but is not yet cooperating with the investigation. Sounding profoundly shocked, Mr. Dupnik blamed a climate of vitriol for creating the circumstances in which the shooting took place.
In viewing the developing story, we began to note a certain tone of embarrassment creeping into some of the coverage regarding the shooting. This was because Dupnik was so over-the-top in his fervent analysis of what had gone wrong. Usually these analyses are conducted on Sunday morning talk shows in grave, even hushed, tones. But by going on air right away with his finger-pointing – and the implication that immediate curbs should be put on speech along with gun confiscation – Dupnik made the linkages so obvious that others have likely been forced to downplay the issues for fear of looking too calculated.
When it comes the Wakefield story, we notice a pattern that has repeated itself over and over again. First come allegations against Wakefield and then his defenders rush to write rebuttals. Wakefield himself is not shy about coming to his own defense and has even written a book about his persecution by Big Pharma. He is a somewhat reluctant martyr in our view, but he is nonetheless unwilling to renounce his conclusions – though they are not what the media often claims they were and were in fact modest at best. These nuances, lost on the mainstream journos, are presented by his defenders, as we in this article as follows:
Despite a new report that a 1998 study linking childhood vaccines to autism was based on "bogus data," many autism activists are standing by their man — the disgraced doctor who led the research. Andrew Wakefield, a British doctor, and his colleagues scared parents worldwide and spurred an anti-vaccine backlash in a study that was an "elaborate fraud," a British medical journal reported Wednesday. Wakefield misrepresented or altered key findings about the 12 children who formed the basis of the case series, according to a piece written by a British investigative journalist in the journal. As a result of Wakefield's study, some parents stopped immunizing their children for measles, mumps and rubella, and measles outbreaks have surged in the U.K. and the U.S.
Autism activists, including actress Jenny McCarthy's Generation Rescue, the National Autism Association and well-known autism crusader Kim Stagliano, believe Wakefield's original findings were distorted. They claim that he never said vaccines definitely caused autism but merely suggested the possibility of a link merited further examination. The activists told AOL News that Wakefield has been crucified by the pharmaceutical industry, which makes millions off vaccines and doesn't want them scrutinized.
"No one's saying don't vaccinate your children," Rita Shreffler, executive director of the National Autism Association, told AOL News today. "Dr. Wakefield didn't say that either. He made a simple recommendation that vaccines be examined more closely. Kids today get 36 vaccinations before kindergarten. In my day you just got a handful. What we're saying is you need to take a look at the vaccination process today." – AOL News
The point we would make when it comes to the elite's dominant social themes in this day and age is one we made a few days ago. In the 20th century, the elite's fear-based propaganda was overwhelming, but in the 21st century it is not. Instead of believing what they have read, many bright, alert people go and read alternative explanations. The elite messaging – and its messengers – are thus devalued. Let us call the process "meme nullification."
It is not true, for instance, that confiscating weapons results in fewer violent incidents, or even fewer deaths. Britain confiscated guns and now has an epidemic of "knife crime." As knives are confiscated, Britain will no doubt face a similar epidemic of "club" or "fist crime." A beating can be just as damaging as a gun, maybe moreso – though the poor victim might not have received a beating had he or she been armed, even modestly. People notice this sort of thing because the information is readily available to them – as it has not been in the past.
Yes, regarding Wakefield, meme nullification is constantly at work. People are predisposed to believe that a one-size-fits-all treatment (vaccines) is possibly not a good thing; and thus Dr. Wakefield's message falls on repetitive ears. Various power-elite programs are dependent on vaccination, including, possibly, upcoming efforts at "chipping" the population (which is already taking place with animals). Any individual who provides pushback against these generic, "herd" treatments is a serious threat. Dr. Wakefield probably does not understand the full extent of the damage that he has wrought, or is rendering.
The Daily Bell tries every day in various ways to bring across the point that the modern Western dialogue is a struggle between the truth-telling of the Internet and the fear-based propaganda of the Anglosphere. In fact, the Anglo-American power elite seeks global governance and uses its promotions to harry people into giving up wealth and power to global institutions. Here is an article that just appeared in the American Spectator that further buttresses our observations:
The Wakefield formula of hijacking medical science by spreading flimsy fears through the Web is now mainstream. Today, anyone willing to pay for newsfeeds that continually distribute and obtain prominent placement in Google searches can have their medical scare stories and half-baked research virtually circle the globe ten times over before the truth takes its first step. Rest assured, unbalanced media reporting, biased researchers and publicity-seeking medical professionals will spread panic for their own gain.
Hence, Wakefield's imitators are many and are damaging the public health in equal measure. David Healy, another British physician, published a small study matching Wakefield's 1998 research for shoddiness to spread panic about the link between suicide and a class of antidepressants called SSRIs. It led to a decline in the use the drugs and an increase in teen suicide. David Graham, a Food and Drug Administration (FDA) researcher, circulated an unpublished study through the Internet claiming Vioxx was responsible for 100,000 deaths. The rest is history.
Wakefield may be discredited. But as long as the Internet is manipulated to inspire fear about using and developing medical innovations – and as long as researchers, journalists, and politicians spread these misperceptions – people will die and Wakefield's lethal legacy will endure.
The American Spectator's (irritated) point is that the elite does not, anymore, have the field of news, opinion and education to itself. The Internet, like the Gutenberg Press before it, has given plebes a voice. The whole paraphernalia of academic degrees has been built up incrementally to ensure that the power-elite approved "expert" will have the final say; yet now the system becomes a kind of push-back manufacturer. Every proclamation is met with wandering ‘Net fingers; every assertion made with the confidence of multiple Ph.Ds now joins with an inquisitive Google search that reveals an alternative.
Meme nullification is real. Big Pharma and the shadowy elites behind it could take Dr. Wakefield into a public square and rend him limb-from-limb and vaccines rates will still remain stubbornly lower. People have read different information on the Internet and made up their own minds. Not only that, but we have noticed of late that entirely different explanations for how immunization works and how germs relate to the body are beginning to show up on the ‘Net. (Thanks to our intrepid feedbackers for this information.)
Generally, the truth-telling of the Internet is making it harder for the elite to insist on specific interpretations of the Way the World Works. This has significant ramifications as the ability of the elite to insist on a certain world view is critical to the continuance of power. The conflict between the dominant social themes of the elite and the truth-telling of the Internet continues to deepen. The ramifications are immense.
