Has Snopes Been Snoped? Will Retraction Watch Retract?

Has Snopes Been Snoped? Will Retraction Watch Retract?
Source: GreenMedInfo.com
Celeste McGovern
May 22, 2017

Originally published on CMSRI.org.

The NEVER-retracted vaccinated vs. unvaccinated study that revealed significantly higher odds in risks of chronic illness among vaccinated children is back online. But will Retraction Watch admit it launched the attack to discredit it? Will Snopes fact-check itself? If not, why not?

The first-ever study of vaccinated vs. unvaccinated American children (and a subset study) published two weeks ago in the peer-reviewed Journal of Translational Science have reappeared online after briefly disappearing while under fire from a small band of Skeptics and the staff at Retraction Watch, an organization that reports Science retraction news. Snopes, the fact-checking website, is still misreporting that the study has been retracted, even while it sits, published, in the science journal’s pages.

It is a troubling saga unfolding in the scientific publishing world, and it is worth paying attention to because it’s revealing of powerful forces in that realm that are trying to censor scientific research and to shield important data from public viewing. Not at all the methodical and logical sort of thing you would expect from modern scientific types.  It looks more like a secret 17th century Salem witch trial…interrupted.

Most readers here will be aware of Anthony Mawson et al.’s pivotal pilot study on the health of homeschooled American children. It is one of very few studies to examine the explosion of once rare disorders and conditions affecting modern children (all the millions of 21st century First World earaches, allergies, hayfever, ADD, neurodevelopmental disorders and autism, that is damaging young children’s brains in spiking numbers). And it is the only study (yes, the ONLY study to contain totally unvaccinated American subjects.) There are no other studies of American children who have never had a vaccine compared to kids with the motherload of CDC protection.

The researchers cautiously asked a logical, but unorthodox question: is it possible that all this immune –mediated disease has anything to do with the immune-mediating drugs that children are given in doses five times that of their parents?   (And yes, autism is brain damage but it is almost certainly the result of a damaged immune system). Could it have anything to do with the 50 doses of 15 immune-stimulating vaccines before age six compared to the three doses of three vaccines the last generation — that wasn’t so sick — got?

The researchers got some very troubling answers. They reported Odds Risk ratios similar to smoking and lung cancer for vaccination and immune-mediated allergic rhinitis, for example.  And a more than four-fold higher risk of vaccinated children having been diagnosed on the Autism Spectrum than unvaccinated children. We better have another study, the researchers concluded. A bigger and better study.

Round One: Suppressing the Study Results

Enter the Skeptics. When the Mawson paper was under review at Frontiers last year, a Skeptic named Leonid Schneider leapt into action.

“I pride myself to have caused the Frontiers anti-vaxx retraction with one tweet!” he tweeted. “The anti-vaxx paper was published as abstract, a reader alerted me, I tweeted, Frontiers got scared, pulled the paper.” Before it was published. It was never published. NEVER RETRACTED. Just tweeted away by Leonid and his Skeptic friends.

Most scientists are skeptical — they don’t like claims without evidence – but not all scientists are Skeptics. Skeptics are champions of objective scientific inquiry who fight against anything they see as irrational and unscientific, which is everything outside of pharmaceutical manufacturing interests. Functional Medicine is equal to Bigfoot to them.  They know the difference between Good Thinking and Bad Thinking and some theories (like evolution) they think are very good and some ideas, like God, are particularly bad. They don’t like religion, but Skeptics can be quite dogmatic themselves about some things. Like vaccines. According to them, all vaccines are safe and effective. No one is ever injured by vaccines. Every child is healthier because of vaccines. The epidemic of childhood disorders is caused by something that is not vaccines. Questioning vaccines is heresy.

Retraction Watch, which bills itself as “a window into the scientific process,” got a little more involved than window-watching and inaccurately reported that the study was retracted, based on a Tweet. It ignored that accepting science on its merits, and then rejecting it on Tweets from those who disagree, is in violation of the publishing code of conduct.  Not to mention that there is a big difference in the world of science between having a paper retracted – which implies scientific misconduct or gross scientific error – and having a paper declined because of disgruntled Tweets.

Frontiers publicly posts their retraction policy and affirms that they abide by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines and recommendations in cases of potential retraction. Frontiers also abides by two other key principles, as recommended by COPE:

  • Retractions are not about punishing authors.
  • Retraction statements should be public and linked to the original, retracted article.

There was no retraction statement ever made or posted by Frontiers; therefore Retraction Watch’s statement about Dr. Mawson’s paper being retracted is inarguably false. This proven lie was used to interfere with and misconstrue Dr. Mawson’s research, resulting in a temporary removal of his article from The Journal of Translational Science pending an inquiry. Inquiry resolved, the articles have been reinstated on the journal’s website, demonstrating sufficient proof that the articles were never retracted as claimed by Retraction Watch.

Round Two: Discrediting the Study Results

Retraction Watch was again the first to misreport the retraction of the Mawson paper from the Journal of Translational Science last week. Rather than reporting on the facts, Retraction Watch took an activist role in the attempted takedown of Dr. Mawson’s research. Misconstruing and misrepresenting another scientist’s research is considered scientific misconduct. Retraction Watch still has (at the time of writing) an article posted that claims the paper has been doubly retracted. Their actions have a ripple effect, furthering the harm to Dr. Mawson and his younger colleagues, actions which are harmful to reputations, careers, and their future livelihoods. Snopes, the “fact-checking” entity, was still reporting that the papers were retracted because of methodological flaws, with only a tiny disclaimer at the bottom showing the papers restored to the Journal’s webpages. I pointed out the error to the editors and they updated the story today, without apology for inaccuracies.

Continuing to retain articles that are demonstrably and provably false on their website shows a lack of regard for the integrity and truth they espouse to protect. The public should be aware that their representations are not well researched and supported by the facts, and that the due diligence they claim to conduct in the interest of scientific integrity is not as it appears once you scratch the surface.

No answers have been forthcoming from Retraction Watch’s editor Alison Cook. She has not replied to my inquiries. Snopes founder David Mikkelson and managing editor Brooke Binkowski did not reply to messages. I did not receive explanations from the journal editors either.

The Digital Media Law Project publishes guidelines for publishing information that “harms the reputation of another person, group, or organization.” Injury to one’s reputation that stems from a falsehood is defamation, and claiming an article was retracted when it wasn’t is false, defamatory and should be corrected when notice and evidence has been provided to the author of the defamatory article. In the case of the Snopes article, the DMLP states “the republication of someone else’s words can itself be defamatory. In other words, you won’t be immune simply because you are quoting another person making the defamatory statement, even if you properly attribute the statement to its source.”

The DMLP also advises publications to “be prompt and give your correction the same prominent position that you gave the inaccurate information you previously posted.”

Can Snopes and Retraction Watch be Trusted? 

The whole ordeal puts scientific publishing into a bad light. Can it be so easy to push editors out of publishing? Is the code of conduct meaningless? Don’t the researchers have recourse to defend their work if there are allegations against it, in a scholarly manner? Has science stooped so low, so beneath accepted standards of professionalism, that it is time to call in lawyers?

This disturbing event leaves the public bewildered. Is there something to worry about for our children’s health or not? Why did these researchers find such a high risk of autism and other disorders in vaccinated children?  What are the possible mechanisms of immune system injury from vaccination in children?

The way the Mawson study was received undermines public trust in a system that is meant to be seeking better health for humanity. It will continue to erode so long as it fails to answer these questions that our children need answers to, now.

Read More At: GreenMedInfo.com
___________________________________________________________

The Children’s Medical Safety Research Institute (CMSRI) is a medical and scientific collaborative established to provide research funding for independent studies on causal factors underlying the chronic disease and disability epidemic.

Disclaimer: This article is not intended to provide medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. Views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of GreenMedInfo or its staff.
Advertisements

iHealth News: Pet Studies & Child Health | Yoga | Nutrition & More

Source: iHealthTube.com
April 14, 2017

Can you eat your way to a healthy blood pressure? Find out what foods can help. Also learn about the benefits of having a pet for your infant and what benefits yoga is now showing for a certain group of men!

Why Aren’t More Doctors Like THIS?

Source: iHealthTube.com
Dr. Michael Farely | Ty M. Bollinger
June 26, 2016

Dr. Michael Farley shares a couple of stories with doctors he’s worked with that might be outside what many of us consider the norm. Find out how. You’ll be surprised at how much doctors don’t learn and know and what areas they know very little about when they become doctors. Watch the video and you’ll wonder, why aren’t more doctors like this?!

The Fluoride Wars: Loving Cancer, Loving Lower IQ


NoMoreFakeNews.com

Jon Rappoport
April 26, 2016

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, The Matrix Revealed, click here.)

It’s no surprise that the US government would look the other way when lower IQ and cancer are business as usual.

One of the major agencies that would look the other way is the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

—But suppose scientists within the EPA spoke out, revolted, and issued official rebukes to their own Agency’s position on fluorides?

Talk about cognitive dissonance. Contradiction. “We at the EPA know fluorides are wonderful and safe and beautiful. Of course, our own scientists disagree. Strongly. But don’t worry, we’re ignoring them. And we’re keeping their statements out of the press. Our position on fluorides is administrative. It has nothing to do with science. Anyway, we support cancer and plummeting IQ. They’re wonderful.”

Case in point, going back 17 years. Buckle up. Here is what the EPA Union of scientists had to say about fluoridation:

Quoting from a May 1, 1999, statement— “Why EPA’s Headquarters Union of Scientists Opposes Fluoridation”—written by William Hirzy, PhD, [Union of Scientists] Senior Vice-President, Chapter 280:

“…our opposition to drinking water fluoridation has grown, based on the scientific literature documenting the increasingly out-of-control exposures to fluoride, the lack of benefit to dental health from ingestion of fluoride and the hazards to human health from such ingestion. These hazards include acute toxic hazard, such as to people with impaired kidney function, as well as chronic toxic hazards of gene mutations, cancer, reproductive effects, neurotoxicity, bone pathology and dental fluorosis.”

“In support of this concern are results from two epidemiology studies from China that show decreases in I.Q. in children who get more fluoride than the control groups of children in each study. These decreases are about 5 to 10 I.Q. points in children aged 8 to 13 years.”

“Another troubling brain effect has recently surfaced: fluoride’s interference with the function of the brain’s pineal gland. The pineal gland produces melatonin which, among other roles, mediates the body’s internal clock, doing such things as governing the onset of puberty. Jennifer Luke has shown that fluoride accumulates in the pineal gland and inhibits its production of melatonin. She showed in test animals that this inhibition causes an earlier onset of sexual maturity, an effect reported in humans as well in 1956…”

Continue Reading At: JonRappoport.wordpress.com

——————————————————————————-

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

Study Suggests We Patients be Able to Predict Illness Better than Doctors

medical-self-diagnosis-doctor-735-350

Source: NaturalSociety.com
Julie Fidler
January 8, 2016

My mother never goes to the doctor for a diagnosis; she diagnoses herself, tells the doctor what’s wrong with her, and he treats her for it.

…And she’s never wrong. I mean never.

A recent study backs up my mother’s theory (and she’s not alone in that theory) that since people know their own bodies better than anyone else ever could, sometimes you have to tell the doctor he’s wrong.

Carnegie Mellon University psychologists asked 360 healthy adults age 18 to 55 to complete a basic self-assessment to determine whether how they rated their health could predict their risk of getting a cold. [1]

“We wanted to examine whether self-rated health predicted effective immune response in younger adults selected for their good health and whether this association was dependent on health practices and socioemotional factors,” he said in a university news release.

The results of the assessments accurately predicted participants’ susceptibility to one of the most miserable “common” ailments out there.

The psychologists concluded that doctors might benefit from asking patients to rate their own health.

“Poor self-ratings of health have been found to predict poor health trajectories in older adults, including an increased risk for mortality,” said study leader Sheldon Cohen, a professor of psychology at the university.

That link remains significant even after accounting for the effects of objective indicators of health like physical examinations, medical records, and hospitalizations.

Researchers also found the results were true even when accounting for differences across “age, sex, race, pre-challenge immunity…body mass, season, education, and income.”

The participants – clearly all good sports – were exposed to a cold virus and monitored for 5 days after filling out the survey. About one-third of them got sick. Individuals who rated their health as fair, good, or very good were more than twice as likely to develop a cold as participants who said their health was excellent. None of them rated their health as poor.

The study found no cause-and-effect link between how people rate their health and risk of a cold or any other illness, but Cohen suggested the association could be due to “subtle sensations, feelings or symptoms that signal immune system problems.”

Continue Reading At: NaturalSociety.com

What Is Part Of The [Establishment] Plan?

By: Zy Marquiez
January 4, 2016

Pondering quite a bit upon a recent conversation with a friend of mine, we delved into things that are obviously a plan of the comptrollers, and some events that are not.

Things that are ‘part of the plan’ as the Joker [Heath Ledger] famously joked in the second modern Batman reboot, are things/issues that society as a whole has gotten used to, for various reasons.

Things that aren’t part of the plan, are things that throw a wrench into the ‘official’ reality, so to speak.

Here’s that starkly grim and yet illuminating quote:

“You know what I noticed? Nobody panics when things go “according to plan.” Even if the plan is horrifying! If, tomorrow, I tell the press that, like a gang banger will get shot, or a truck load of soldiers will be blown up, nobody panics, because it’s all “part of the plan”. But when I say that one little old mayor will die, well then everyone loses their minds!”
– Joker

The clip below elucidates this best.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0AXgaFqEas

With that said, am not by any means advocating that people should do anything to any mayors, people in power, or anything of the like.  Was just using the notion behind that particular scene to show how reality ultimately operates.

The plan is what society expects based on what the duplicitous media/establishment/corporations expounds. If society expects a certain thing to happen, be it organic, or engineered, then its ‘part of the plan.’ But if society doesn’t expect a certain event to take place, then that’s not part of the plan, but also usually ends up in people’s ‘moral compass’ coming off the hinges in a myriad of ways because their carefully orchestrated reality [illusion] just got shattered.

The careful management of illusion is why so many vital topics of utmost importance are not talked about within the duplicitous mainstream media circles.

Rummaging further, we can gather that although the above line was said in a fictionary world, we must remember that in America everything is backwards.

“In America fact is fiction and fiction is fact”, as former Assistant Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, Catherine Austin Fitts says regularly. This is because Hollywood elucidates quite clearly how our reality operates much more than most realize or care to ponder.

How do we know what is part of the plan by the comptrollers?   By sifting for evidence that show us the unfortunate circumstances.

Here are some notable examples:

Not allowing people to have organic, real salmon is part of the plan.

– Not having mainstream media presstitutes talking about fake grassroots movements funded by Corporations, also known as astroturfing is part of the plan.

– Not discussing countless studies of vaccinations [80+ studies outlining some of the dangers of vaccinations] that blow a hole into the mainstream media & establishment narrative the size of cape cod is part of the plan.

– Not discussing Geoengineering information that is pertinent to our every day health, and to our knowledge of our current environment is part of the plan.

Not having actual Presidential debates of substance like they used to have in times past is part of the plan.

– Not discussing cannabis’ benefits with certain diseases. There are countless diseases cannabis benefits for what its worth.  Look it up.

– Not discussing the work of Dr. Burzynski, which happens to have come up with an effective way in dealing with some cancers, and yet this isn’t discussed in the mainstream at all.

– Not discussing the dangers that fluoride poses in when its added to water. Not only water fluoridation failed modern civilization [as if it could really succeed], but its been rejected by place after place after place.

Not addressing findings that throw a wrench into the official history of The Great Pyramid is part of the plan.

– And finally, not discussing how the mainstream media manipulation machine is spearheaded by six media conglomerates, how their viewer numbers are declining & how they’ve been caught lying about stories is part of the plan.

Keep in mind that, you returning to your regularly scheduled programming, is also part of the plan.

Now the open-minded, skeptic, incisive, BS-detecting, relentlessly researching, [un]common sense individual though? That’s not part of their plan.

You going to follow their plan?   Or you going to create your own?

The choice is yours.

—————————————————–

Sources:
https://thebreakaway.wordpress.com/2015/11/30/mainstream-media-manipulation-propaganda/
https://thebreakaway.wordpress.com/2015/12/19/analyzing-human-action-in-america-everything-is-backwards/
https://thebreakaway.wordpress.com/2015/12/11/shocking-news-fda-approves-genetically-engineered-salmon/
https://thebreakaway.wordpress.com/2015/12/11/shocking-news-fda-approves-genetically-engineered-salmon/
https://thebreakaway.wordpress.com/2015/12/07/sharyl-attkisson-astroturf-manipulation-of-media-messages/
https://thebreakaway.wordpress.com/2015/12/14/80-studies-outlining-some-of-the-dangers-of-vaccinations/
https://thebreakaway.wordpress.com/2015/12/18/geoengineering-disinformation-battling-climate-engineering-deniers-on-national-radio/
https://thebreakaway.wordpress.com/2015/12/18/republican-presidential-debate-an-exercise-in-mind-control/
https://thebreakaway.wordpress.com/2015/12/18/cannabis-superior-to-drugs-for-inflammatory-bowel-condition-crohns-disease/
https://thebreakaway.wordpress.com/2015/12/05/burzynski-cancer-is-big-business-documentary/
http://www.naturalnews.com/038949_water_fluoridation_failure_toxic_chemicals.html
http://www.naturalnews.com/040465_water_fluoridation_Portland_ballot_measure.html
http://www.naturalnews.com/035352_safe_water_fluoridation_Indiana.html
http://www.naturalnews.com/033496_Philadelphia_water_fluoridation.html
https://thebreakaway.wordpress.com/2015/12/11/scientists-geological-evidence-shows-the-great-sphinx-is-800000-years-old/
http://www.activistpost.com/2015/08/the-illusion-of-choice-90-of-american-media-controlled-by-6-corporations.html

 

Study Calls Into Question Primary Justification for Vaccines

Study Calls Into Question Primary Justification for Vaccines

Source: GreenMedInfo.com
By: Sayer Ji, Founder

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), “Immunity to a disease is achieved through the presence of antibodies to that disease in a person’s system.”[i] This, in fact, is the main justification for using vaccines to “boost” immunity, and a primary focus of vaccine research and development.

And yet, newly published research has revealed that in some cases no antibodies are required for immunity against some viruses.

Published in the journal Immunity in March, 2011, and titled, “B cell maintenance of subcapsular sinus macrophages protects against a fatal viral infection independent of adaptive immunity,” researchers found that mice infected with vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV) can suffer fatal invasion of their central nervous system even in the presence of high concentrations of “neutralizing” antibodies against VSV.[ii]

The researchers found that while B-cells were essential for surviving a systemic VSV infection through the modulation of innate immunity, specifically macrophage behavior, the antibodies they produce as part of the adaptive immune response were “neither needed nor sufficient for protection.”  These findings, according to the study authors, “…contradict the current view that B cell-derived neutralizing antibodies are absolutely required to survive a primary cytopathic viral infection, such as that caused by VSV.”

The discovery that antibodies are not required for protection against infection, while counterintuitive, is not novel. In fact, not only are antibodies not required for immunity, in some cases high levels are found in the presence of active, even lethal infections.  For example, high serum levels of antibodies against tetanus have been observed failing to confer protection against the disease.  A report from 1992 published in the journal Neurology found severe tetanus in immunized patients with high anti-tetanus titers, one of whom died as a result of the infection.[iii]

These research findings run diametrically opposed to currently held beliefs regarding the process by which we develop immunity against infectious challenges.  Presently, it is a commonly held view that during viral infections, innate immunity must activate adaptive responses in order to achieve effective immunity.  It is believed that this is why the immune system has developed a series of innate defenses, including complement, type I interferon, and other “stopgap measures,” which work immediately to lower pathogen burden and “buy time” for the much slower adaptive immune response to develop.

This view, however, has been called into question by the new study:  “Although this concept may apply to other viral infections, our findings with VSV turn this view upside down, indicating that during a primary infection with this cytopathic virus, innate immunity can be sterilizing without adaptive immune contributions.”

Does this strike a mortal blow to the antibody theory which underlies vaccinology, and constitutes the primary justification for the CDC’s focus on using vaccines to “boost” immunity?

Indeed, in vaccinology, which is the science or method of vaccine development, vaccine effectiveness is often determined by the ability of a vaccine to increase antibody titers, even if this does not translate into real-world effectiveness, i.e. antibody-antigen matching.  In fact, regulatory agencies, such as the FDA, often approve vaccines based on their ability to raise antibody titers, also known as “vaccine efficacy,” without requiring proof of vaccine effectiveness, as would seem logical.

The obvious problem with these criteria is that the use of vaccine adjuvants like mercury, aluminum hydroxide, mineral oil, etc.  – all of which are intrinsically toxic substances — will increase antibody titers, without guaranteeing  they will neutralize the targeted antigen, i.e. antibody-antigen affinity.   To the contrary, many of these antibodies lack selectivity, and target self-structures, resulting in the loss of self-tolerance, i.e. autoimmunity.

Continue Reading At: GreenMedInfo.com