• Kennedy on the Media: Quotes from Press Conference

    Source: Kennedy on the Media: Quotes from Press Conference

    By Anne Dachel

    At his press conference, Robert Kennedy Jr offered a $100K challenge to members of the media:

    “We know journalists don’t want to look into the science, so we are going to offer a one hundred thousand dollar reward—It’s called the 100K Challenge—to any journalist or anybody else who can point to a single existing study that says it’s safe to inject mercury into little babies or pregnant women at the levels we are currently injecting them in the flu vaccine. …

    “[CDC] says that the methyl mercury in fish is more persistent in the body and more toxic than the ethyl mercury in vaccines. …

    “CDC’s own scientists last month published a massive data review and literature review that proved that claim to be a hoax. Where CDC is now acknowledging through its own scientists that the ethyl mercury in vaccines may be fifty times as toxic to the brain as the methyl mercury in fish and twice as persistent in the body.

    “Yet that study…got zero coverage in the mainstream press. Democracy requires checks and balances. One of the first things that journalists learn when they go to journalism school is that people in power lie. People in authority lie and it’s the job of journalists to check them. You can’t just take their word on stuff. …

    “The pharmaceutical industry has paid eight billion dollars out in recent years for pharmaceutical drugs, for lying, for doing off-label marketing, for doing adulteration, for doing all kinds of bad things with their pharmaceuticals.

    “What makes you think they wouldn’t do the same thing with vaccines?

     “Congress receives more money from the pharmaceutical lobby …there are more lobbyists on Capitol Hill from pharma than there are congressmen and senators combined. …So they bought up Congress, they own the regulatory agency which is an arm of the industry. These are the institutions that are supposed to be standing between a rapacious industry and our little children. …

    “…No matter how grievous your child is injured, you cannot sue [the vaccine makers]. So there is no discovery, there’s no document searches, no depositions, there’s no class action suits.

    “So what is the last institution left that is still standing between our kids and that industry? It’s the press, and of course the press is going to tell the truth.

    “But no, for some reason the press has been co-opted.

    “Pharma is now the single biggest contributor to network news divisions. Up to $5.4 billion a year.

    “You look at a network news broadcast these days and it’s just a vehicle for selling pharmaceutical products.

    “And I was told by the president of one of the biggest networks in this country  that he was sympathetic with what I was asking, which was to go on TV and talk about this issue, he believed I was right, but he could not allow me on his network, because he said that he would have to fire any host who allowed me on.

    “And it’s not just mainstream media that’s accepting all this money, …the so called alternate press which is supposed to be the antidote to corporate control of our media: Salon, Slate, Huff Post, Daily Beast—they won’t run any kind of debate or criticism of this issue. There’s something wrong with that in a democracy—that the press, which is the final readout for public scrutiny of institutions and industry, has been completely removed from this debate.

    “You cannot go on TV and talk about this, you cannot go to the press. You will be maligned, you will be marginalized as ‘anti-vax.’ This week, the British Medical Journal editors finally had enough, and they put down their foot and they said that word ‘anti-vax’ is a dirty word, and it’s used to shut people up on a debate that we should be having. Journalists need to stop doing that, and they need people to start talking about them.

    “The reason people stop vaccinating is because their child was injured or they’ve lost faith in the program, and without journalistic scrutiny—journalistic scrutiny is required to make sure that this industry and this regulatory agency serve the public interest. And if you remove your scrutiny, and your editors tell you, you cannot play this story, it’s not making our vaccine program stronger. It’s making it weaker. It’s gutting it out because …This industry, if you suddenly remove scrutiny, is not going to come to Jesus and find that it’s time to start telling the truth. You can’t imagine that that would happen. …

    “I’m called ‘anti-vaccine’ in every article written about me, but I’ve never ever made a single statement that could justify that label.

    “I want to get mercury out of the vaccines.

    “For thirty-three years I’ve been working to get mercury out of fish. Nobody has ever called me ‘anti-fish.’ Because I want to get mercury out of vaccines, I should not be called ‘anti-vaccine.’

    “The reason I’m called that is because journalists want to make this a binary argument. They want to say either you’re either pro-vaccine, or you’re anti-vaccine. There’s nothing in between. There’s nobody like me who’s pro-vaccine, but wants safe vaccines, wants to get mercury out so that our children’s health can be protected. That’s a rational—and it’s shouldn’t be a radical idea. It should be something that is getting support from journalists, and journalists should be talking about it. But they don’t. …”

    Author: whatsyourcloud

    Share This Post On