Editorial – 5 January 2012
Posted 4 months, 1 week ago at 10:04. Add a comment
How you know that the silencing of opposition has really worked
by James Fairbairn, Chief Editor – Open Your Eyes News
Last week we published an editorial, The Dog Whistle – Targeting Whistle-blowers Thus Silencing Opposition, which explored how by simply targeting just a few key individuals a clear message is sent out to others not to repeat the mistake, thus silencing potential opposition very effectively. Subsequently we were in discussions with a prominent civil liberties group who expressed a keen interest in re-publishing the article on their website, however with major one amendment – they wished to remove all mention of Dr Andrew Wakefield from the article.
In their own words “he is a fraud… he was comprehensively and soundly refuted…a vague/circumspect recalling of his situation gives him some credibility…..Children have died because of his false claims…and will continue to die because there will be ignorant parents, exploring the internet, who will latch on to his claims for many years/decades to come.”
If ever you wanted proof that targeting key individuals works, then this is it – a organisation that campaigns against such actions, wishing to censor from history someone who was subjected to it. The last 13 years work of the medical establishment and the pharmaceutical industry has clearly been done very well indeed.
As you will recall from the article we used the words “Irrespective of the veracity or not of his findings…” in the section about Dr Wakefield, and the piece in no way made any judgement as to whether he was right or wrong (or in fact whether any of the others sighted in the article were right or wrong either)
Having followed the Wakefield situation for over 13 years now it increasingly apparent that this is the most perfect example of a witch hunt of them all. It doesn’t matter whether he was right or wrong with his clinical findings, the lengths that the medical establishment (prompted and supported by the multi-billion dollar pharmaceutical industry) have gone to to hang him out to dry, and for so long now, are completely out of all proportion of alleged ”the crime”.
It should not be forgotten that he co-authored the original paper, and that as soon as the proverbial hit the fan all his co-authors all withdrew quick smart and protected their careers. Rightly or wrongly Dr Wakefield didn’t withdraw, stood to his principals and in so destroyed his own reputation and livelihood as a result. That message will have been heard loud and clear by medical professionals and scientists the world over when it comes to vaccine and medicine research ever since. If the pharmaceutical industry was whiter than white then that wouldn’t be an issue but there many thousand examples out there that they are very much not, and thus the independence of scrutiny is essential.
But either way (Wakefield right or wrong), there will be far, far fewer medical professionals ever prepared to step forward regarding any vaccinations in the future – we suspect the parents of the Australian kids killed or permanently maimed by last years flu-vaccine scandal would rather have wished that someone in the medical establishment had come forward. As you will have read here on the pages of Open Your Eyes News, there are many hundreds of examples of why blind faith in the the claims of perfect safety when it comes to all vaccinations should be taken with a very large dose of scepticism, despite what the pharmaceutical industry supported research establishment says.
From what we have witnessed over the last 13 years with Wakefield, is that his original research findings have been exaggerated and misrepresented beyond recognition. As for deaths attributed of him, there has been one Measles death in the UK since 1998 of an un-vaccinated child - a child who was already heavily medically compromised and liked on a gypsy camp. Sales of the MMR vaccine have fallen dramatically, no doubt hitting some bottom lines hard.
Ultimately the fact that a campaign organisation in this area would even consider editing this is case in point as to why it is so essential that his story is not airbrushed from the historical record. This situation is possibly the most perfect demonstration of the total success of silencing opposition. After all we should perhaps consider cutting out Dr David Kelly because he breached the official secrets act, his actions lambasted in the official inquires afterwards, and that he took his own life in shame of his actions? Or perhaps edit out Dr Peter Dingle as so many other professionals ridicule his theories such as regarding the use of sunscreen? Clearly those evil-do’ers Manning and Assange who have “recklessly en-dangered the lives of US service personnel” must be quickly whitewashed from the record? After all Assange is soon to be found guilty of attempted rape, and Manning will no doubt be found guilty by a court and will do a long stretch as result.
A good test of how free debate is in a society is whether it is prepared to discuss the most painful or controversial of subjects, or whether it will choose to ignore them. This case shows that we have a long way yet.
