Chiropractors who exercise their right to express an opinion on vaccines or any other health issue.....
<<< Back to main document
To the CBC Ombudsman:
Sir:
It is regretful that it is necessary to protest CBC TV's Marketplace (Tuesday, January20/04) focus - better described as a "hatchet job" - on the issue of chiropractors warning their patients about the dangers of vaccines. Marketplace suggested that such a position is beyond that profession's scope of practice while it glossed over and ignored the real issue "are vaccines dangerous and ineffective?" This is typical of extremely biased reporting. Naturopathic and homeopathic physicains also against vaccines as are some medical doctors who dare to question what they have been indoctrinated while under threat of penalty or loss of licence by their medical licensing board.
There are prominent medical doctors and scientists who have warned that vaccines are neither safe nor effective. One example is immuno-geneticist Dr. H.Hugh Fudenberg, MD. PhD, (author of an excess of 800 papers published in peer review journals and among the 12 or 13 most quoted scientists of this era - http://www.nitrf.org/fudenberg.html). Another is J. Bart. Classen, MD, MBA, of Classen Immunotherapies, Baltimore, Maryland (http://vaccines.net/newpage1.htm) Why did Marketplace not see fit to seek out these physicians in deference to the media's well worn mantra - "balance reporting"?
Did Marketplace's "expert" Mr. Busse actually read the many studies he claims overwhelmingly support the safety and effectiveness of vaccines?
What this writer has investigated has turned out to be nothing but a hodgepodge of opinions and reviews of experts by experts all of whom have serious conflicts of interest. It is known as "drinking one's own bath water. To suggest these in any way exonerate vaccines in terms of safety is an insult to one's intelligence. Incidentally, the risk is 100 percent if it is your child or yourself that has the adverse reaction or death as a result of a shot.
If vaccines are so safe, why is it that in order for the United States government to save its mandatory childhood vaccination program in 1987 Congress found it necessary to assume liability for death and damage cause by vaccines? The reality is by 1987 the vaccine manufacturers could no longer obtain liability insurance nor could they cope with the potentially bankrupting lawsuits mounting over death and damage caused by their product. They threatened to stop making vaccines which put the United States' mandatory vaccine program in jeopardy.That underwriters will not offer liability insurance coverage on vaccines speaks volumes. What is even more telling about vaccine safety or the lack of it is that since 1987 U.S. taxpayers have had to foot the bill well in excess of one billion dollars compensation representing only 10 percent of the claims for vaccine death and permanent damage to health.
On January 10, 2004, the dean of American medical writers, Lawrence Altman reporting in the New York Times, pointed out that the United States Centers for Disease Control admitted that of 93 infants who died from the current flu epidemic 60 had been vaccinated against it. But like many other medical writers and news people Altman stated "Thirty-three of the victims had not been vaccinated. The disease control agency [CDC] recommends vaccination for all healthy children 6 months and older." What kind of efficacy rate is that to justify more flu shots? The protection the flu vaccine offered those 60 dead infants was worse than a placebo! It likely killed them.
Agent France-Presse reported (January 21/04) that over 258 crib-death convictions in the United Kingdom are under urgent review after attorney Angela Cannings was released from prison in December having been wrongfully convicted of smothering her two sons. They had died shortly after having been vaccinated. This is a classic case of the doctors and hospitals blaming the parents instead of admitting vaccines were responsible for the infants' deaths. Did any producer or reporter at Marketplace read the book "A Shot In The Dark? That book evolved out of an award winning investigative report broadcast by NBC TV's Washington DC affiliate.
Why did Marketplace choose to ignore another salient issue regarding Ted Koren. The "Witch hunting" efforts of those great "experts" on vaccine efficacy and safety, the United Sates Federal Trade Commission who tried to muzzle Dr. Koren's right to freedom of speech and opinion as guaranteed by the United States Constitution - which these days seems to be honored more in the breach than its observance.
Is it Marketplace's mandate to act as shills for the allopathic monopoly in sickness care as represented by the medical/pharmaceutical/government cabal? Over 650 pages of access to information has revealed a close conflict of interest relationship within middle management at Health Canada and the drug industry. If a mere lay person can find that out why couldn't Marketplace?
Croft Woodruff, CEO,
Zoe Lenska, President & Founder
Val Kneifel, Hon. Member
per pro Hippocrates Advocates International (U.K.)
6262-A Fraser Street
Vancouver BC V5W 3A1
604 327 3889
604 327 3889
