Attacks on Health Reporters and Their Readers Are Escalating
September 18, 2013
Story at-a-glance
A new UNICEF report reveals that the organization is tracking
the rise of online anti-vaccination sentiments in Central and
Eastern Europe, and has identified the most important
“anti-vaccine influencers” on the web
Instead of addressing the evidence of potential harm of
vaccines, UNICEF is entering into ever-deepening partnerships
with vaccine company giants like Merck and GlaxoSmithKline
UNICEF devises public relations schemes to convince you to
ignore any science that raise safety questions
In the report, UNICEF infers that I and other vaccine-safety
advocates are lying about the situation and therefore should be
ignored
In 2009, it was revealed that Merck had a hit list of doctors to
be "neutralized" or discredited for voicing critical opinions
about the pain killer Vioxx—a drug that ended up killing more
than 60,000 people before it was pulled from the market
GSK spent more than 10 years covering up information that proved
they knew about the serious health dangers of their blockbuster
diabetes drug Avandia, as it would adversely affect sales.
By Dr. Mercola
Truth becomes treason in an empire of lies. Attacks against
health web sites like yours truly and others, and our readers—yes,
that would be you—are rapidly escalating.
Thinly veiled threats are issued not just by industry spokespersons
(many of whom hide their industry ties from their readers),
but also international organizations like UNICEF. It’s become very
evident, very quickly, that now more than ever, we need your support
to counter the increasingly dirty tactics of these industry players.
Simply by reporting the scientific evidence—which is published in
peer-reviewed journals, mind you—I’ve been labeled as a top
“anti-vaccine influencer” for my pro-safety stance on vaccines, and
a “media supporter of domestic eco-terrorists” for my reporting on
the hazards of
Roundup and genetically
engineered foods.
Why Is UNICEF Accusing Health Journalists of Lying?
A recently published report1
by the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) reveals that the
organization is tracking "the rise of online pro-vaccine safety
sentiments in Central and Eastern Europe,” and has identified the
most influential pro-vaccine safety influencers” on the web.
UNICEF included me on the list, along with other independent
health websites like GreenMedInfo.com, Mothering.com and
NaturalNews.com, just to name a few. In their opening reference,
they use a quote by Mark Twain that reads:
“A lie can travel halfway around the world while the
truth is putting on its shoes.”
Clearly, UNICEF is inferring that I and other vaccine-safety
advocates are lying about the situation and therefore
should be ignored. This would be hilarious if it wasn’t so serious.
Here we have an international organization supposedly dedicated
to children’s health and wellbeing, and instead of addressing the
ample scientific evidence showing the potential harm of vaccines,
they’re entering into ever-deepening partnerships with vaccine
company giants like Merck2
and GlaxoSmithKline3
(GSK).
They spend precious time and resources on public relations
schemes to convince you to ignore any science that raises
questions about the wisdom of “carpet-bombing” infants’ and young
children’s immune systems with potentially harmful vaccines.
UNICEF’s Bedfellows
This is especially disturbing because Merck has been involved in
numerous criminal scandals and class-action lawsuits in recent
years, including fraudulently marketing its deadly drug Vioxx; lying
about the true efficacy of its
mumps vaccine.
Additionally, they engaged in scientific fraud (a charge brought
by its own scientists); and hiding critical side effects associated
with its osteoporosis drug
Fosamax, just to name a few of the most publicized.
Even more shocking, in 2009, it was revealed that
Merck actually had a hit list of doctors to be "neutralized" or
discredited for voicing critical opinions about the pain killer
Vioxx—a drug that indeed ended up killing more than 60,000 people
before it was pulled from the market.
Two years later, in 2011, the company ended up pleading guilty to
a criminal charge over the fraudulent marketing and sales of this
deadly drug.4
But sure, let’s listen to UNICEF and trust the guys who go so far as
to threaten the lives of those who question the safety of a very
factually dangerous drug. Then there’s GSK, whose leadership among
corporate criminals is illustrious indeed.
Doctors and government officials are said to have received perks
such as travel, cash, and sexual favors that when combined, amounted
to nearly $5 billion, according to some reports. The company
allegedly used travel agencies as middlemen to carry out these
illegal acts. Four Chinese GSK executives have so far been detained
on charges of cash and sexual bribery.
GSK also spent more than 10 years covering up information that
proved they knew about the serious health dangers of their
blockbuster diabetes drug
Avandia, as it would adversely affect sales. While carousing
with the true liars and criminals, UNICEF deems it fitting to paint
me and other health journalists as the liars; the ones leading you
astray.
Little does UNICEF realize that by publicizing a list of
monitored “vaccine influencers”—the health reporters who stick pegs
in the wheels of their crafty PR schemes by publishing all those
studies the vaccine industry would rather see buried—they’ve
basically given you a Who’s Who of real vaccine information.
Maybe we should thank them rather than rail against their poor
judgment? As stated by Sayer Ji5
of Greenmedinfo.com, who was also targeted in the report:
“[W]hile the document purports to be analytical and
descriptive, it has proscriptive and defamatory undertones, and
only thinly conceals an agenda to discredit opposing views and
voices. UNICEF's derogatory stance.
This is all the more surprising considering that websites
such as GreenMedinfo.com aggregate, disseminate and provide open
access to peer-reviewed research on vaccine adverse effects and
safety concerns extracted directly from the US National Library
of Medicine, much of which comes from high-impact journals.”
GMO-Labeling Supporters Now Accused of Supporting Eco-Terrorism.
What’s Next?
Another recent article, published in Forbes Magazine,6
really ups the ante of the attack on health journalists and their
readers with the headline: “ Domestic Eco-Terrorism Has Deep
Pockets. And Many Enablers.” The article, written by Jay Byme and
Henry I.Miller, reads in part:
“In recent years, [eco]terrorists have attempted
to gain sympathy and “justification” for their actions by means
of disinformation campaigns that relentlessly smear the safety
and utility of genetic engineering applied to agriculture...
“Frankenfood” headlines may sell newspapers and organic food,
but this kind of “black marketing” — enhancing the perceived
value of your products by disparaging those of your competitors
– can also encourage serious criminal acts.
...There exists in this country a vast, well-established,
highly professional, protest industry fueled by special interest
groups seeking to line their own pockets... Anti-genetic
engineering campaigns are openly funded and promoted by
mainstream organic food marketers like Gary Hirshberg, the
chairman of Stonyfield Organic, and alternative health and
food-supplement hucksters Joe Mercola and Mike Adams — all
cynical fear-profiteers who benefit from increased consumer
mistrust in their competitors’ products... The ultimate
objective, of course, is to sell more overpriced, overrated
organic food...
One result of the widely disseminated disinformation
effort is an environment that provides encouragement to
extremists who commit criminal acts. It comes from the Facebook
and Twitter followers of the genetic engineering conspiracy
theorists, organic marketers and “right to know” labeling
activists... Against the backdrop of this fear-mongering,
hate-speech and support for acts of terror toward legal, highly
regulated, safe and societally valuable R&D, we should condemn
not only the perpetrators themselves but also their corporate
and media enablers.”
Why Am I on Biotech’s Hit List?
Alright, now that we’ve been labeled as “enablers of domestic
eco-terrorism” as well—again by simply reporting on research that is
published in peer-reviewed journals and interviewing educated
researchers and professionals in the field—let’s take a look at
who’s behind the name calling. The first author of this hit-piece
is Jay Byrne, whose author’s bio identifies him as president of
v-Fluence Interactive Public Relations, Inc. Why does Mr. Byrne
fail to mention in his bio that he was a former Monsanto
executive?
Jay Byrne actually headed up corporate communications for
Monsanto Company from 1997 to 2001. And this piece is nothing if not
a corporate communication; clearly, there are persistent ties there.
How nice for Monsanto to be able to call up their old communications
director and have him pen a totally impartial article warning you of
your eco-terrorism ties and contributions, should you decide to
support a GMO labeling campaign. Back in 2001, Jay Byrne also made
the following statement, which is more than a little telling:
“Imagine the internet as a weapon, sitting on a table.
Either you use it or your opponent does, but somebody’s going to
get killed.”
Byrne’s company v-Fluence Interactive Public Relations7
is also a thinly veiled arm of big Biotech. According to Byrne,
“traditionally produced foods and agricultural practices are under
attack... Leveraging such issues as pesticides, GMOs, hormones,
antibiotics, Mad Cow disease, CAFOs and trade concerns linked to
risk factors (human health, environmental risks and consumer
choices/controls).” If that’s not a statement taken right out
of Big Biotech’s playbook, I don’t know what is. He’s certainly not
speaking with any concern for your health and wellbeing.
Perhaps Jay would like to address the recent contamination of
alfalfa and wheat exports. While it was just recently approved for
commercial use, it was already found in contaminated and rejected
exports sending yet another shock to countries who require labeling
or reject genetically engineered crops. Monsanto is single-handedly
destroying farmer's export markets by genetically polluting and
contaminating our entire agriculture.
The following slide is from his 2013 conference presentation8
on Food and Agricultural Advocacy, which carries the following
description (you can view the slideshow in its entirety
here):
“These five stakeholders represent a core group of
commercial players who act in advocacy roles seeking to
influence public attitudes, commercial and governmental policies
negatively impacting agriculture and food biotechnology. These
influencers directly or via their organizations have been
principal drivers via direct activities, funding or
complementary marketing behind North American anti‐GMO advocacy
campaigns in 2011.
While the scope of this report focused on NGOs it is
important to note that absent commercial partners – specifically
those in the organic, natural products and alternative health
sectors – who provide funding and other leverage for anti‐GMO
advocacy there would be little effective or sustained advocacy
in this space.”
Remember Henry Miller?
Coincidentally, if the name Henry I. Miller—the second author of
that hit piece—rings a bell, it could be because you paid attention
during last year’s campaign to get genetically engineered foods
labeled in California. He was front and center of the “No on Prop
37” campaign, posing as a Stanford professor in TV commercials and
flyers, telling California voters that the ballot measure was
“arbitrary,” “completely illogical,” and “ill conceived.”
In reality, he’s not a Stanford professor; he’s a
research fellow at the Hoover Institution, a conservative think tank
that happens to be housed on the Stanford campus. Furthermore,
Stanford has a policy to not take positions on candidates or ballot
measures, and does not allow political filming on campus. The
campaign’s TV ad was eventually pulled due to the misrepresentation
of Miller.9
He also has a long history10
of defending toxic chemicals such as DDT, in addition to working for
Big Tobacco.
If you care about your right to know what’s in your food, your
right to choose organic, and your right to learn how your food is
being produced, I suggest you etch the names Jay Byrne and Henry
Miller into your memory, so you know exactly who is speaking when
you come across their industry PR pieces, because nowhere do either
of these men fess up their close ties to the industries they defend.
The Science Media Centre—the Dark Side’s PR Center
Another not-so-independent source of information is anything
generated by the Science Media Centre (SMC).11
Headquartered in the UK, there is also a US-based outlet.12
The SMC13
claims to be “an independent press office helping to ensure that the
public have access to the best scientific evidence and expertise
through the news media when science hits the headlines.” Yet their
list of funding sources reads like a a Who’s Who of big biotech14
-- multibillion dollar giants like:
BASF
Bayer
CropLife (pesticide and biotech trade group)
Abbott Laboratories
Monsanto
Novartis
Syngenta
Astra Zeneca
Coca-Cola
Biochemical Society
Chemical Industries Association
GlaxoSmithKline
The organization lays claim to being objective and non-biased
because they don’t receive more than five percent or so of their
funding from any one company, organization or individual. But how
non-biased can you possibly be when so much of the funding comes
from different companies and front groups within the same
industries? Their highly conflicted panel of “experts”
represent the funding industries and are NOT providing the media
with objective academic feedback. Why would any company pay to have
some independent, objective expert speak out against them? In short,
the SMC has one agenda, and that is to deceive you with corporate
propaganda.
For example, they provide handy tips to their “independent”
experts in a document15
called “Communicating Risks in a Soundbite: A Guide for Scientists.”
It explains how to respond to media questions by downplaying
problems. For example, if a reporter asks, “Is it risky?” the
scientist should get the journalist to instead ask about the
benefits by replying, “the benefits outweigh the risks.” Another
suggested answer: “It is a very small risk. So small that I believe
it is safe.”
Not exactly players with an objective view of science.
This might explain why the Science Media Centre pounced16
on the French study showing organ damage and massive
cancer tumors in rats fed GE corn. This was the first lifetime
feeding study that has ever been conducted with GE food, so it was
sure to be a major embarrassment to Big Biotech. The very same day
the French report was published came a press release17
from the Science Media Centre claiming “anomalies throughout the
paper” despite the authors having been through the usual peer review
process.
In short, you can bet if there’s a harmful substance out there
that makes money, there are at least one or more
front groups, posing as independent non-profit organizations,
disseminating anything but independent safety reviews and
information pertaining to it. It’s high time to pull back the
curtain and see who’s really pulling the strings and levers.
I hope you will support not only this web site by reading and
sharing what you learn here with others, but also any number of
other health journalists reporting the results of research that Big
Business would rather you didn’t know. It’s quite clear that many of
us have targets on our proverbial backs, and the attacks are quickly
escalating. Now is the time to stand together, form a united front,
and show them that we simply will not be cowed by their
thinly-veiled threats.
Why Does Monsanto Hate Americans?
Interestingly ,Monsanto seems to be fine with supporting GMO
labeling when there’s no other choice. Here’s a Monsanto ad from the
UK, letting British consumers know how much the company supports the
mandatory labeling of their goods—even urging Britons to seek such
labels out—ostensibly because Monsanto believes “you should be aware
of all the facts before making a decision.” What’s the difference
between British shoppers and American shoppers? Why does Monsanto
support one nation’s right to know but not another?
Join Us in Your Right to Know by Getting GMOs Labeled!
While California Prop. 37 failed to pass last November by a very
narrow margin, the fight for GMO labeling is far from over. In the
past few weeks, Connecticut and Maine have passed GMO-labeling
bills, and 20 other states have pending legislation to label
genetically engineered foods. So, now is the time to put the pedal
to the metal and get labeling across the country—something 64 other
countries already have.
I hope you will join us in this effort.
The field-of-play has now moved to the state of Washington, where
the people's initiative 522, "The People's Right to Know Genetically
Engineered Food Act," will require food sold in retail outlets to be
labeled if it contains genetically engineered ingredients.
Please help us win this key GMO labeling battle and continue to
build momentum for GMO labeling in other states bymaking a donationto the Organic
Consumers Association (OCA).
Remember, as with CA Prop. 37, they need support of people like
YOU to succeed. Prop. 37 failed with a very narrow margin simply
because we didn't have the funds to counter the massive ad campaigns
created by the No on 37 camp, led by Monsanto and other major food
companies. Let's not allow Monsanto and its allies to confuse and
mislead the people of Washington and Vermont as they did in
California. So please, I urge you to get involved and help in any
way you can.
No matter where you live in the United States, please donate
money to these labeling efforts through the
Organic
Consumers Fund.
Sign up to learn more about how you can get involved by
visiting
Yeson522.com!
For timely updates on issues relating to these and other
labeling initiatives, please join the Organic Consumers
Association on
Facebook,
or follow them on
Twitter.
Talk to organic producers and stores and ask them to
actively support the Washington initiative.