Jim is the editor of a local free newspaper, the Saanich News, here in Victoria, BC.
Below is the transcript of the email conversation that followed their printing of an op-ed column furiously attacking the internet and, curiously, advocating potentially dangerous medical advice.
I didn't know that the editors of local newspapers were qualified to hand out medical advice to the general public, so I wrote Jim and we had a chat.
The link to the original op-ed is here.
From: Nathan Munn <email@example.com>
Subject: Re: Unclear message fuels inaccuracies
Subject: Re: Unclear message fuels inaccuracies
As a longtime reader, It's hard to know where to start dismantling the appalling display of factual ignorance displayed in the most recent "Our View" column. Let's start with the facts about the swine flu vaccine.
As reported in the Guardian, 60 percent of doctors in the UK will not get the inoculation:
Why is that? Because studies show that you are MORE likely to get infected with H1N1 if you have been vaccinated - a fact that could be considered humorous, were it not deeply troubling.
As reported in the Globe and Mail: http://www.
theglobeandmail.com/news/ technology/science/study- prompts-provinces-to-rethink- flu-plan/article1303330/
As per the intention of your piece, you illuminate well the complete lack of comprehensible policy or leadership provided by our public health officials on this issue. Yet in a statement that I (and many other readers I am certain) find incredulous, you state that "we cant blame the public health officials for their lack of knowledge" about the vaccine and the virus itself.
Excuse me? Why would I inject a substance into my body that our public health authorities know nothing about? If they cant make up their mind about how much and which types of vaccine are needed for which segment of the population, how can they be certain about the efficacy and safety of the product? No significant testing has been done on the vaccine. Already, there have been several deaths in Sweden from the swine flu vaccine. As reported in the Local: http://www.thelocal.se/
The truth is that vaccines variously contain thimerosal, a preservative that contains mercury, industrial detergents, aluminum, squalene (adjuvant), cancerous animal tissue, and other unsavory ingredients. These are facts. The claim is that squalene is found naturally in the body and is therefore safe, even for pregnant women; this is completely false when squalene is injected into the body. Here is a study from the American Journal of Pathology in 2000 that proves it:http://ajp.amjpathol.org/
Vaccination has been clearly and definitively linked to untold numbers of adverse events since their inception. I've included the tip of the iceberg documented evidence of all the facts presented here for your researchers to explore, should they like.
As a final thought, your dismissal of the internet as a "cesspool of misinformation and outright lies" has all the venom of a personal slander. I can understand your frustration, however; it must be difficult to watch as your ignorance of the subject you portend to examine is revealed by a few clicks of the mouse. To hapharzardly exhort your readership to obtain questionable medical attention before actually researching the issue is not only politicized, ignorant journalism - it is dangerous. I will continue to find my news elsewhere than the Saanich News.
Vaccination Risk Awareness Network:
vaccines/vaccine-ingredients/ active-ingredients/ ingredients-childhood- vaccines-in-canada/
World Association for Vaccine Education:
An extensive article by doctor Richard Moskowitz, M.D.
Short Documentary: http://
2009/10/29 Jim Zeeben <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Thanks for your interest in the paper.The world is all about opinions isn't it? It's good to ask questions and I've followed the news about the flu and the vaccine with interest (not as much as some, though).Regarding our editorial. I still think there's too much confusion because people are either misinterpreting or misrepresenting information.I'm not sure if you've also thought that, in some of the websites and videos being posted, the creators are more interested in scaring their audience than informing it.I think it's a concern when people are being told not to listen to their doctor. And I stand by our position that there's more to lose from fearing the vaccine then by getting vaccinated -- with the caveat that people who have potential for allergic reactions get the shot without the adjuvant, if available.I'll keep an open mind as new information comes in.Anyway, I spent the time to check out some of your links. A few thoughts:A quote from the story: “We still do not know if the deaths are connected to the vaccine.”A lot has changed in two months. Try: http://www.guardian.co.
uk/world/2009/oct/29/swine- flu-cases-rise-in-weekRe: http://www. theglobeandmail.com/news/ technology/science/study- prompts-provinces-to-rethink- flu-plan/article1303330/Again, information changes, especially early speculation.Finally, this link doesn't jive with your claim.You're right. There are plenty of places to get information these days.We'll continue working to be the best source of information about the community we live in.Cheers