Martha Rosenberg Commits Heresy in the Eyes of Mainstream News
Martha Rosenberg, a reporter who says she has been with The Huffington Post for 7 years, wrote an article that is considered taboo. The article subject? — Vaccines. More specifically, she wrote an article that tried to elicit common sense thinking, in an upside down world. In this world, our reality, if any reporter dares to question the safety of vaccines, they are ostracized and branded an “anti-vax nutter”, “conspiracy theorist”, or worse.
Ms. Rosenberg pointed out the inconsistency, in which news sites will expose disinformation, in both government, and corporations, as long as the subject matter is not vaccines. She also points out the obvious influence pharmaceutical companies would have on scientists and their medical centers, as they heavily fund them.1
On Conflicts of Interest in the Scientific Community
Was Ms. Rosenberg wrong? Is there no worry of conflicts of interest within the scientific community? Is this just some opinion she pulled out of nowhere? There are several prominent former editors of major medical journals, who would agree with Ms. Rosenberg. There are also many articles and even studies written on the subject.
Dr. Marcia Angell, of Harvard University, and the former editor in chief of the New England Journal of Medicine wrote in her article published on nybooks.com 3,4
It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of TheNew England Journal of Medicine.
In a study entitled “Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals”5 the following was stated, regarding the former editor of BMJ, Robbie Fox:
That is why Robbie Fox, the great 20th century editor of the Lancet, who was no admirer of peer review, wondered whether anybody would notice if he were to swap the piles marked `publish’ and `reject’. He also joked that the Lancet had a system of throwing a pile of papers down the stairs and publishing those that reached the bottom.
Richard Horton, a former editor in chief of Lancet, another well respected (by the scientific community) medical journal, wrote:
much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness. As one participant put it, “poor methods get results”.6
Working hard to resuscitate common sense line of thinking back into, perhaps fellow journalists (my assumption), as well as her readers, Ms. Rosenberg brings up several withdrawn and dangerous medications, that were once deemed safe and effective. Medicines like Seldane that was taken off the market due to causing fatal heart rhythm abnormalities.2
If vaccines are so safe, why has the federal National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) awarded Billions of dollars?
Martha Rosenberg delves into the fact that, unlike what mainstream news sites, as well as doctors and scientists, tend to report, vaccines are not completely safe. Money awarded from the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program is proof of this. She then goes on to discuss one of the most controversial vaccines on the market, Gardasil. Ms. Rosenberg speaks briefly about the dangers of Gardasil, and then points out, once again, the influence the all mighty dollar can have to not just our scientists, but our politicians! Her article states:
According to CBS News, there was another cloud over Gardasil. “Merck gave $6,000 to [Texas Gov. Rick] Perry’s election campaign fund as part of a national lobbying effort to persuade states that it ought to require Gardasil as one of the vaccines all kids should have before attending school,” it wrote. The director of a Merck-funded pro-Gardasil group was also Perry’s then-chief of staff’s mother-in-law.
American College of Pediatricians on Gardasil
To reiterate Ms. Rosenberg’s assessment that there are safety concerns regarding the Gardasil Vaccine, I would like to add that the American College of Pediatricians also expressed concerns over reports of ovarian failure as well as a number of other legitimate concerns:
(1) long-term ovarian function was not assessed in either the original rat safety studies3,4 or in the human vaccine trials, (2) most primary care physicians are probably unaware of a possible association between HPV4 and POF and may not consider reporting POF cases or prolonged amenorrhea (missing menstrual periods) to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), (3) potential mechanisms of action have been postulated based on autoimmune associations with the aluminum adjuvant used1 and previously documented ovarian toxicity in rats from another component, Polysorbate 80,2 and (4) since licensure of Gardasil® in 2006, there have been about 213 VAERS reports (per the publicly available CDC WONDER VAERS database) involving amenorrhea, POF or premature menopause, 88% of which have been associated with Gardasil®.5 The two-strain HPV2, CervarixTM, was licensed late in 2009 and accounts for 4.7 % of VAERS amenorrhea reports since 2006, and 8.5% of those reports from February 2010 through May 2015. This compares to the pre-HPV vaccine period from 1990 to 2006 during which no cases of POF or premature menopause and 32 cases of amenorrhea were reported to VAERS.7
In her article, Martha Rosenberg points out that, as a reporter, she has interviewed people whose lives were affected by vaccines. She believes Pharma to be “unwise” to cast reports of parents of vaccine injured or dead children/babies aside, and she questions the amount of vaccines, given at once to babies. Ms. Rosenberg brings her article to a very strong conclusion that should have jolted common sense back into her fellow journalists and readers. She states:
Like all drugs aggressively marketed these days, patients and parents need to do their own research and weigh benefits and risks—never forgetting Pharma’s spotty safety record.
Nothing of what Martha Rosenberg reported on was false, and the article was obviously meant to bring a discussion to the table regarding the issues of media blackouts, as well as bring attention to the double standards of reporting the truth, and openness on the subject of vaccines. Unfortunately, as many on twitter predicted, The Huffington Post purportedly not only yanked Ms. Rosenberg’s article from their site, but banned her from any future posts. In this classic move, The Huffington Post ironically proved Martha’s point of the article and validated the reason for the article in the first place. The Huffington Post upheld the media blackout and censorship of the topic of speaking out against vaccines.
Surely Ms. Rosenberg knew what she was getting herself into, and what might happen when she posted her article. I applaud her bravery in standing up, and doing the right thing, by reporting what so many are scared to. Please offer as much support to this new hero, who will undoubtedly face bullying, and possibly damage to her career.