Conspiracy theories more dangerous than swine flu?

Printer-friendly versionSend to friend

To immunize or not to immunize?

That seems to be the question that keeps cropping up into every conversation that I have lately, and it's all thanks to the H1N1 scare.

As the wave of the H1N1 pandemic roots itself in Canada and vaccination clinics open their doors, the conspiracy theories around the vaccine vary from really wacky to absolutely frightening.

The vaccine will give you the flu; it’ll cause autism or Gulf War Syndrome; it’s a plot by pharmaceutical companies to make money. The weirdest one I came across is from a former Quebec physician that was stripped of her medical license, Ghislaine Lanctot.

In a pamphlet titled Vaccination 101, she wrote, “The impending massive vaccination (2009) is the direct result of a pseudo-pandemic of swine flu (A-H1N1) officially declared by the UN. The long term ploy of the global elite is to reduce the world population to 500 million. The new vaccines contain an extremely vicious cocktail of avian, swine, and human influenza viruses”.

Lanctot’s allegations are at best insane and at worst calculatedly dangerous, but they need mentioning because they serve as a reminder of the type of influences acting on the public.

It would be easy to dismiss her and her half-baked ravings as psychotic, but many people are being exposed to this and even more innocent-sounding anti-vaccination rhetoric.

Simply put, the vaccination is not a secret government conspiracy, nor does it contain a live virus, so you cannot contract influenza from it.

As B.C.’s health officer, Perry Kendall stated, “We’ve gone through extensive safety tests with this vaccine. We would not be recommending a vaccine that we did not think was safe.”

I believe what is scaring people the most is the scare-for-ratings media coverage and the word “pandemic”.

An influenza pandemic is just an epidemic of the influenza virus that spreads on a worldwide scale. A pandemic will happen very irregularly compared to seasonal flu epidemics and usually when a new strain of influenza virus is transmitted to humans. These new strains are unaffected by any immunity people may have to older strains of influenza and can spread quickly, infecting large numbers of people.

Like the seasonal flu, H1N1 can infect anyone, but so far there are no facts suggesting that it is worse than seasonal influenza. Also like any flu, people can die, but most will not. There have been 95 H1N1 deaths in Canada so far and, while that number may sound high, Dr. Theresa Tams, chief of respiratory disease with the Center for Infectious Disease Prevention and Control, estimates that 700 to 2,500 people die each year from seasonal influenza in Canada.

The majority of young, otherwise healthy people will recover from H1N1 with just some basic TLC. Those at greatest risk are children under five, pregnant women, those with compromised immune systems (such as cancer and AIDS patients) and the elderly.

It is our responsibility to be informed, and once the facts (the vaccine is an egg-based technology containing particles of dead virus) are separated from the fiction (the vaccine is a government plot to control the world's population), the choice shouldn’t be difficult to make.

But even with all the information, the question still stands…

Should I get vaccinated?

I don’t know the answer to that, but I do know that it’s something that should be taken seriously. Discuss it with your loved ones, and most of all, your health care provider.

After all the choice is ours to make, and now is the time to make it.

Comments

I was reading how the drug

I was reading how the drug companies just tried to scare everyone into thinking the h1n1 was more widespread and dangerous than it was to sell more vaccines and after hearing about climategate which had proof to back that scandal up i can certainly believe the drug companies would do that to make money. Even the women's rehab i worked at everyone was wearing masks at one point and getting vaccines as soon as they could.

Then is it OK to use the phrase "sheeple"? <ducks-for-cover />

My suggestion to "do some reasearch" wasn't worded
as well as it could have been and I can see how that may have been mis-construed. It was actually aimed at any of your readership who are yet to form opinions on the H1N1 virus/vaccinations and not at Rob, who obviously did some research before writing this article.

From what I have read, the history of the term "conspiracy theorist" dates back to around the time after the massive public support of opposing beleifs to what has been said in the Warren Commission report about the Kennedy assassination. I do my best to point out that it is an unfair phrase to use when someone takes an opposing stance to that of popular belief/urban myth/propoganda. It's not really that important in the great scheme of things (call me what you like...) as it 'generally' defines a type of person that uses it: someone who has been propaganda-ised (and unfortunately even I am not immune to propaganda as much as my ego would like to argue).

While I have not personally done any scientific research into the H1N1 virus, I have read articles from people whom I have confidence in (I've done my social research) that have led me to take my chances with not getting vaccinated. I empathise completely with those who think this may be a dangerous position but my cynicism and general distrust in mass media has overwhelmed my in-built human safety mechanism - or maybe this not taking the vaccine is my natural instinct (we're all different). FWIW, I also strongly oppose mandatory vaccination.

Reading the comments to this article has been very informative and it's genuinely nice to see such strong and intelligent views being expressed, with one notable exception who seems to have a totally different understanding than me about freedom of speech.

Rob, I shall continue to enjoy reading your articles and I hope I have made you think for a moment about using that phrase. I didn't mean to offend you. I like the fact you point out people have a choice and that you are not entirely sure what your stance was. It makes you sound much more human than a lot of journos.

Kyra, I look forward to reading more of your responses and am enamoured by the fact you have been so receptive to our comments, even if I did make your blood boil. Your explanations about the way the editorial section of the Castlegar Source is run was enlightening and refreshing to hear how independent you are.

David, I'll be reading more of your work for sure. It's nice to know there are very smart and informed people locally who are pushing boundaries with secret clubs and societies, joining the dots and asking pertinent questions.

From the editor: debate the vaccine for ignorant "sheeple"

Sensibleskier:

Thanks for your comments and interest.

I know one of the best barriers to bacteria and illness is sterilzation, so perhaps making one's "blood boil" is a good thing, no?

Regards,

Kyra Hoggan

Oooh, emotional and subjective terms again...

Kyra,

You completely got it wrong.

This has little to do with freedom of speech and nothing to do with respect.

This is about public health and a lack of knowledge regarding both the virus and vaccine.

A lack of knowledge that can have serious health consequences or result in death.

What my previous post takes issue with is your apparent belief that conspiracy theorists do no harm and are merely expressing an opinion; that they really shouldn't be called "conspiracy theorists" because that makes them upset and then things get all "emotional and subjective".

When I see you, as the editor, cosy up to the one who presents just such a theory, and then waffle on whether or not to use that particular term to describe people holding those views, I'll call you on it.

Kyra Hogan accuses

Kyra Hogan accuses sensibleskier of making 'sweeping hacks' at Rob Leggett, and of interpreting Rob's article as a personal attack.

Reading the post made by sensibleskier carefully reveals that Krya Hogan's accusations are unjustified.

The posts made by sensibleskier and David Livingstone are calm in tone, devoid of personal attack and logically presented.

In contrast Rob Leggetts article uses a classic ad hominem argument by dismissing Ghislaine Lanctot's opinions as "insane" "half baked" and "psychotic"

Kyra Hoggan also uses a 'straw man' argument when she says that sensibleskier makes " sweeping hacks at a man for the dastardly crime of speaking a mind that thinks differently than yours " Nowhere does sensibleskier state or imply that he disagrees with Rob Leggett simply because he "thinks differently". Kyra is obscuring sensibleskier's real arguments with a fictitious one of her own making which she attributes to him, so that she can then knock the straw man down and score a point, but it's a fake point !

Rob and Kyra are themselves indulging in exactly the sort of emotive attacks and unjustified accusations which they claim to be against, while those they accuse are clearly innocent of any such behaviour in their comments. These errors completely undermine their position, and it is laughable that they advocate rational discourse while simultaneously exhibiting such poor discussion form themselves.

.

consipracy theorists or rightly cynical?

Dear Rob,

I am not going to get myself vaccinated and only time will tell if I have made the right decision. Whilst I do not believe this is a NWO plot to reduce the world's population, I get pretty upset by the labels being stamped on people like myself who are merely pointing out:
1. that (for the time-being) people have a choice (as you quite correctly point out)
2. the massive influence big pharma has over governments worldwide
3. and that big pharma is profiting massively though these vaccinations
4. the government spin which is reverberating through national level to local journalists (who suggested you write this article?)
5. the apparent lack of research done in to this vaccine in order to rush it through for approval
6. that this virus is not a new phenomenon
7. the it's implied the US government has played with their numbers to try and raise concern about the virus
8. manufacturers are being granted legal immunity to protect them should there be harmful consequences through the use of their vaccines

I would suggest doing some research like those in the comments of the above Huffington Post article, which are both for and against vaccination.

I am sick and tired of rightly cynical individuals being labelled as "conspiracy theorists" particularly when they only have the general public's best interest at heart and are not profiteering out of mass vaccination.

I could go on but I am keen to hear any responses you or others may have to my "half-baked ravings" before I reply to them.

Best Wishes
Porky Chops

From the editor: rational discourse is better

Sir Porky Chops,

I don't know who you are, but unless you are the doctor in Rob's column, I 'm quite certain he did not, in fact, accuse you of half-baked ravings, as you imply.

People of various lobbies keep claiming they want honest dialogue - but react wth furious vitriol if columnists dare take a different stance than their own.

That's not dialogue, sir, it's monologue.

Can you honestly say there are no conspiracy theorists, no half-baked ravings condemning vaccinations? Are you really so obtuse? I know there are fanatics on the pro-vaccine side of the fence, too - no one said there wasn't and, in fact, Rob said he wasn't sure what the right thing to do was vis-a-vis vaccination.

You have every right to disagree with him - just as he has every right to state his opinion, and you interpreting his doing so as a personal attack suggests, I would argue, a lack of perspective that discredits both you and your cause.

If you genuinely want a reasoned, honest discussion to take place, perhaps responding to a column like Rob's in a reasoned, honest manner would bear more fruit than taking sweeping hacks at a man for the dastardly crime of speaking a mind that thinks differently than yours.

As someone who is, as you say, rightly cynical about vaccinations, I question your hijacking the opportunity for any case to be made against them, in favour of angry rhetoric that serves only to entrench opponents in their position and discredit those who would challenge the status quo.

Respectfully yours,

Kyra Hoggan

 

 

What is a "conspiracy theorist"?

But I agree with sensibleskier that using the term "conspiracy theorists" is unfair.  It's political correctness.  What does it mean anyway?  That there are legions of hysterics out there looking for a spook under every rug?

No, the term has been used by the mainstream media to dissipate debate into those myths which they have been hired to erect, like Japan attacking Perl Harbor unprovoked, or the lone gunman of the JFK assassination, or al Qaeda acting alone on 9/11.  These have all been thoroughly debunked, but it is the media's job to cordon off criticism with these types of ad hominen accusations.  These include attacks that critics of Zionism are "anti-Semites", or that supporters of social programs are Communists and Socialists, or that Global Warming debunkers are financed by "Big Oil", and so on and so forth,

This is alternative media, and I would hope that we would see an effort to allow a wider range of debate, not repeating the memes employed by the mainstream media to confine discussion to the dictates of corporate sponsors.

I'm not familiar with the theories of Lanctot, but depopulation has indeed been an important agenda, particularly in the last half of the 20th century.

The notion was first devised by John Malthus (1766 – 1834), who posited that population growth would outpace humanity's ability to provide for itself.  Malthus therefore recommended that governments adopt certain social policies to prevent human over-population, such as the promotion of hygienic practices amongst the poor or “undesirable elements”. The spread of disease, he thought, could be further assisted through discriminative vaccination and zoning programs.

Malthus' prognosis was sensationalized in a book that became a best-sellter in the 70s, called the Population Bomb.  According to its author, Stanford Professor  Paul Ehrlich, "A cancer is an uncontrolled multiplication of cells; the population explosion is an uncontrolled multiplication of people…. We must shift our efforts from the treatment of the symptoms to the cutting out of the cancer. The operation will demand many apparently brutal and heartless decisions."

Ehrlich’s prescriptions were reminiscent of Malthus', where he advocated for “compulsory birth regulation… (through) the addition temporary sterilants to water supplies or staple food. Doses of the antidote would be carefully rationed by the government to produce the desired family size.”

Here's a few disturbing remarks from some prominent Malthusians:

“If I were reincarnated I would wish to be returned to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels.”

Prince Phillip, Queen Elizabeth’s husband, Duke of Edinburgh, leader of the World Wildlife Fund

“A total world population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.”


Ted Turner, in an interview with Audubon magazine

“There is a single theme behind all our work–we must reduce population levels. Either governments do it our way, through nice clean methods, or they will get the kinds of mess that we have in El Salvador, or in Iran or in Beirut. Population is a political problem. Once population is out of control, it requires authoritarian government, even fascism, to reduce it….” “Our program in El Salvador didn’t work. The infrastructure was not there to support it. There were just too goddamned many people…. To really reduce population, quickly, you have to pull all the males into the fighting and you have to kill significant numbers of fertile age females….” The quickest way to reduce population is through famine, like in Africa, or through disease like the Black Death….


Thomas Ferguson, State Department Office of Population Affairs.

“In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill…. But in designating them as the enemy, we fall into the trap of mistaking symptoms for causes. All these dangers are caused by human intervention and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy, then, is humanity itself.”


Alexander King, Bertrand Schneider – Founder and Secretary, respectively, The Club of Rome, The First Global Revolution, pgs 104-105, 1991

“War and famine would not do. Instead, disease offered the most efficient and fastest way to kill the billions that must soon die if the population crisis is to be solved. AIDS is not an efficient killer because it is too slow. My favorite candidate for eliminating 90 percent of the world’s population is airborne Ebola (Ebola Reston), because it is both highly lethal and it kills in days, instead of years. “We’ve got airborne diseases with 90 percent mortality in humans. Killing humans. Think about that. “You know, the bird flu’s good, too. For everyone who survives, he will have to bury nine”

Dr. Eric Pianka University of Texas evolutionary ecologist and lizard expert, showed solutions for reducing the world’s population to an audience on population control

“The present vast overpopulation, now far beyond the world carrying capacity, cannot be answered by future reductions in the birth rate due to contraception, sterilization and abortion, but must be met in the present by the reduction of numbers presently existing. This must be done by whatever means necessary.”

Initiative for the United Nations ECO-92 EARTH CHARTER

“The Planetary Regime might be given responsibility for determining the optimum population for the world and for each region and for arbitrating various countries’ shares within their regional limits. Control of population size might remain the responsibility of each government, but the Regime would have some power to enforce the agreed limits.”

Obama’s science czar John P. Holdren: From a book he helped write ‘Ecoscience’, co-authored with Paul Ehrlich
 

From the editor: PC not our agenda

David,

Your latter argument is sound, well-reasoned and compelling - and if you'll notice, I specifically said I am one of the "rightfully cynical" about vaccination.

Having said that, there are - whether we like it or not - irrational paranoid people out there advocating for every possible argument (and many that are patently impossible).

Pretending they don't exist for fear of offending the intelligent , reasonable and knowledgeable  proponents of a given cause - that  would be erring on the side of political correctness. It would be dishonest, and a disservice to our readers.

I was just as prepared to say many vaccine advocates are paranoid and strident (in fact, I believe I did just that). That's balanced, and fair ... and good journalism, because it's truthful.

Furthermore, while I concur that many conspiracies have been proved correct - that doesn't make them ALL true. Rob has a right to view them with a jaundiced eye, just as you view certain arguments with a jaundiced eye. Welcome to democracy.

What's unfair is the effort being made - not to further anti-vaccine ideology or get people thinking more critically about back-door government programming - but rather to shut Rob up.

We post EVERY opinion - including the ones with which we vehemently disagree. THAT is what sets us apart from mainstream media with a sinister agenda. We are still entitled to our opinions ... and I think we should be able to express them, ideally  without being accused of pursuing a lesser form of journalism. In fact, I take great exception to that implication.

Rob was careful to choose someone advocating a truly ridiculous stance (if all the good doctor said was true, vaccinated folk would be dropping like flies) ... he was NOT quelling rational discourse, but rather explaining how histrionic paranoia can be as infectious as influenza.

To quash that argument for fear of being perceived as too politically correct ...well, that just seems a tad too convoluted for my taste, or my editorial policy.

We do not, as anyone who reads our commentary regularly knows, use this publication to cowtow to corporate sponsors, nor yet to further a mainstream media agenda.

Rob himself, for The Source last week, wrote a column debunking global warming - how does that fit with your comments? I, through the course of my career, have penned countless columns condemning our action in the Middle East ... including our blind support of Isreal. Does that not run contrary to your recent critique? I have openly, and consistently supported a socialist agenda (I would refer you to the very title of my column).  In fact, I have even fielded death threats for so doing.

Which is why I resent the implication that we have chosen the path more travelled, merely by virtue of having agreed with the mainstream on this one (and I didn't even do that ...just defended Rob's right to do so).

Would it be better, then, if we mimicked our flailing, flagging governmental system by disagreeing with something simply because it is mainstream? Should we become so polarized that when we find ourselves in accord with the powers that be, we alter our beliefs so we might oppose those powers, regardless the merit of their individual stances?

How constructive would that be? And how honest?

I stand by Rob's right, and my own, to argue the beliefs we hold, regardless of their political correctness (or lack thereof).

If you consider that herd-style journalism, I guess that, in turn, is your right ... and we will continue to publish your perceptions and allow you to express those opinions within our pages.

It just seems a shame that so many are  unwilling to accord us the same courtesy.

Regards,

Kyra Hoggan

 

With all the places you can

With all the places you can buy steroids online these days i'm surprised more people haven't decided to try them since a lot are legal considering people try diet pills supplements vitamins etc why not something a bit better

Thank you for the detailed

Thank you for the detailed response Kyra.  On the contrary, I applaud your decision to publish the commentaries of one who's views, I know, are often diametrically opposed to your own.  I am in no way condemming your choice to do that.

I believe that Rob has every right to express his opinion here, like everyone else, as long as it is done in a respectful manner.  And I'll concede that I find Rob definitely tends to do that, and alto be fairly well-balanced in his presentation.  I also applaud his courage in expressing views that are evidently controversial.

I meant no critique of your editorial policy either.

That said, I would hope that Rob would be open to equally respectful critique of his arguements.

Yes, there are many who are feeling various concerns, but I don't know how paranoid they are.  I'm not that familiar with the various counter-arguments to vaccination.

But i think, as sensibleskier pointed out, that it does a diservice to the discussion to employ ad hominen terms like "conspiracy theorists".  The term is ambiguous, because what is paranoid, and what is "rightly cynical".  Because, that which should be judged as a legitimate concern to a lot of people is precisely what is otherwise considered the lore of conspiracy nuts.

Thank you to both you and Rob for your frankness.

From the editor: okay, I take your point

I have to agree with you, and a previous reader's comments, that terms like "conspiracy theorist" are emotive and subjective ... I know I would never allow them in the context of a straight news story.

Perhaps I need to examine more closely their use in op-ed copy as well - while I think strong columns should be emotive, I don't think they should be disrespectful, nor yet apply stereotyped generalizations. I need to think on this one (see, now look what you did).

What astounds me (and you absolutely did NOT do this) is how many accusations Rob fields suggesting he hasn't done his research. I've been doing this for more than a decade, and known few who do half as much research as he does. People keep confusing "disagrees" with "ill-informed".

I'll also suggest that it's his emotive quality that so often sparks conversation and debate - which I see as one of our prime goals - and you can't criticize the guy for couching his opinions or being afraid of controversy... and the courage to stand behind strong opinions is more rare than I would hope.

I love that so many people are responding - even when their responses make my blood boil - because that, to me, says we're doing something right.

Thanks for your input - keep it coming.

As Joseph Joubert said, “It is better to debate a question without settling it than to settle a question without debating it.”

Regards,

Kyra

 

 

Oooh, emotional and subjective terms...

Kyra,

I know you're not naive enough to have lived this long in the Kootenays and never experienced any conspiracy theorists. This place is rancid with them.

Just follow the link to one of David Livingstone's sites and you'll see why he might take exception to the term...

Kyra, I really think you do have to question your lack of critical thinking regarding your defense of the willful ignorance of those who partake in, and spread, these self-delusional, and in this case, harmful concepts.

I wonder why you would consider the views of most conspiracy theorists worthy of propagation or defense?

Why does just having an opinion, irregardless of how sane or kooky, justify a representation of it?

What value is balanced reporting if half of it is completely BS?

Will we be reading an opinion piece next week about a holocaust deniers' claims to "give balance" to your coverage on the observance of Remembrance Day?

I think not.

If you are not differentiating between perception and reality, you really should ditch the facade of journalism and stick to writing fiction. No one bothers much with fact checking there, it's wide-open. And there's even a subset, called science fiction, that has very little to do with actual science! Imagine, a whole field that isn't concerned with actual, repeatable, evidence! You don't even have to ask people with any annoying, elitist, expertise that might cast doubt on the validity of your idea. And even if they do, you can always squeal your are being repressed and make sure to use "emotional and subjective" terms like "big pharma"...

From the editor: check your facts

Ian,

I'm sorry you so little value the concept of freedom of speech, and are struggling so to differentiate between opinion/editorial and straight news.

I defy you to find a single newsstory in this publication with an even questionable presentation of the facts.

As for op-ed copy,  I believe everyone deserves a voice ... even when you disagree with them; even when you think they are "kooks". Say what you like about David - his postings are a far sight more respectful than yours.

Would I ever denigrate this site or my readers by hosting hate-promoting material? No, you're right, I wouldn't do that.

But I see a great deal of hate in your missive - we're not differentiating between fact and fiction? Were "facts" more important to you, sir, you would've taken a second to read our news coverage and known better.

Regards,

Kyra Hoggan