TV show speaks out against vaccines
I’m wholeheartedly against the idea of vaccinations. One reason (among a ton of others) is that there’s a strong link between childhood vaccinations and autism. But regardless of the evidence against them, they’re such an accepted fact within the mainstream medical community that anyone who speaks out against them is swimming upstream against an incredibly strong tide. And though I constantly rail against vaccinations, I often have the sneaking suspicion that my protests are largely ignored. But that was before I read this next fascinating item.
Apparently, the incredibly powerful American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) actually wanted ABC to cancel the pilot episode of their new drama series “Eli Stone” because it “perpetuates the myth that vaccines can cause autism.”
In the show, which debuted in spite of the AAP’s protest, one of the plotlines revolves around the title character – a lawyer – who argues in court that a flu vaccine is to blame for a child’s autism. The denouement reveals that one of the heads of the fictional Big Pharma company who makes the vaccine didn’t allow his own child to receive a vaccination. Of course, the lawyer wins the case and everyone is happy (except the vilified drug company).
And to answer your question, no I am not moonlighting as a TV writer! What shocked me was the vitriol spewed by AAP president Dr. Renee R. Jenkins in her letter to ABC: “If parents watch this program and choose to deny their children immunizations as a result, ABC will share in the responsibility for the suffering and deaths that occur as a result. The consequences of a decline in immunization rates could be devastating to the health of our nation’s children.”
Talk about dropping the hammer. That’s the most intense press release I think I’ve ever heard.
To me, the force of this reaction illustrates two points: 1) the AAP in particular and the mainstream medical community in general is incredibly defensive about their decades- long pro-vaccination stance, and 2) the AAP is not wise in the ways of publicity – their heavy-handed public statement likely generated what amounts to millions of dollars of free publicity to the very show they wanted people not to see, and probably drove hundreds if not thousands of viewers to their TV sets to see what all the fuss was about. Whoops.
Think about it: why launch an all-out assault on an under-promoted mid-season replacement show that was only hitting the airwaves because the networks were running out of fresh material due to the recent Writers’ Guild strike? Unless, of course, you feel that public sentiment on the issue of vaccines is swinging in the opposite direction from your “immunization-at-all-costs” stance. Which is what makes this such an interesting story for me.
Ironically, the writers of the Eli Stone episode claim they had no intention of pushing an anti-immunization agenda, and even went as far as to say that they’d be “deeply upset” if parents chose not to immunize their children as a result of seeing the show. In fact, the intended take away of the show was “the downside of the corporatization of American,” not a statement about the vaccination/autism debate. I wonder which the AAP, Big Pharma, and the mainstream medical community would think was more damaging their current practices?
Whether or not this particular episode in the ongoing immunization debate will have an appreciable impact, only time will tell. But I suspect, in spite of the AAP’s protests and the fact that the first episode of Eli Stone was critically well-received, the status quo will continue. There are too many doctors pushing the pro-vaccine agenda, and one fleeting plotline in the debut of a single TV show isn’t likely to have much of an impact on decades of public brainwashing. Still, it’s interesting to see how vehemently the vaccination lobby is willing to defend its turf. And that’s something I’ll note as I continue to fight the good fight against the scourge of needless and potentially dangerous immunizations.
No strong link between cancer and testosterone
Some people hate to say “see, I told you so.” As you’ve learned, I am not one of those people. And so it is with the greatest joy that I tell you that new research agrees with me on something I’ve been telling you for years: Natural testosterone levels in a man’s body have NO AFFECT on his risk for prostate cancer.
Needless to say, I’m pumped up.
In spite of the fact that there have been over 20 studies seeking to establish a link between testosterone and prostate cancer, they’ve all come up with results that are, at best, inconclusive. In fact, in spite of gathering evidence to the contrary, a long held “old doctor’s tale” suggests that increased testosterone causes not only prostate cancer, but also testicular cancer and even heart disease.
As you probably already know, prostate cancer usually occurs in older men, and is second only to lung cancer as the most fatal cancer among men. The reason testosterone levels had initially been linked to cancer was because it was assumed that testosterone could be as effective at growing tumors as it is at growing muscle mass. In fact, many cancer treatments actually block testosterone as a result, and it’s possible that these findings could impact the treatment of cancer as a whole.
I’m glad to see that testosterone – which has many beneficial effects – is starting to get some more credit. The hormone can have an incredibly positive impact on the brain, the heart, and even the reproductive system. It has few side effects other than an increase in acne and, of course, libido and who wouldn’t gladly accept a couple of extra zits for that?
