Consumer Reports Magazine's Biased Vaccine Reporting

DR. MERCOLA'S COMMENT:

The August 2001 issue of Consumer Reports Magazine included an article on Vaccine Safety. This letter is written in response to that article. Dr. Sherri Tenpenny, DO and other pro-choice parents contributed to this letter.

To Mr. Guest, (President of Consumer Reports)

I have been a subscriber to Consumer Reports off and on for the past 20 years. I had always believed your claims of unbiased reporting, and strongly supported your no-commercialization policy, which prevented advertisements and unsolicited, data from the companies and manufacturers your organization rates.

However, I guess the old adage "all good things must come to an end," applies to reputable magazines as well. I was extremely disappointed and appalled by the content of your recent article in the August 2001 issue "Vaccines: How Safe are they?" While your article does a fine job of outlining the shortcomings of vaccine safety, it completely dismisses the concerns of parents as "groundless."

In my opinion, your article does a "disservice" to all the parents whose children have indeed suffered and died as a result of a vaccine-induced injury.

Every parent has a right to determine what is best for his or her child, and mandatory vaccines are not the safest route for every human being. If research were conducted by those who do NOT serve to gain from the results, perhaps we could determine if some children are predisposed to adverse events, who they are, and why they are so predisposed.

We might also learn why the concerns of so many parents should not be cavalierly dismissed.

For as long as I can remember, Consumer Reports has always included a short description of how their research and/or testing was conducted, often called "The Tests Behind the Ratings," or "How the Tests are Conducted."

Yet in the above referenced article, there is no such accounting. No information was provided to demonstrate to the consumer that Consumer Reports conducted their own research of vaccines and/or the vaccine industry. For example, did Consumer Reports (CR) reps visit vaccine-manufacturing plants to discuss some of the toxic ingredients in vaccines and their typical effects on the human immune system?

Did CR reps attend FDA Advisory panel meetings on vaccines to determine the relationship the panel's members had with the vaccine manufacturers, whose vaccines they are approving?

Did CR reps meet with any scientists, or anyone, specializing in immuno-biologics or infectious diseases, who has no financial ties to the vaccine industry to get an unbiased, scientific opinion on the topic?

Did CR reps research the adverse events reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, or a small sampling of the data, to compile their own statistics on the data and trends therein. Did CR reps review the Vaccine Injury Compensation Table, which lists other "Known (serious) Vaccine Side Effects", in addition to anaphylaxis?

Did CR reps talk to members of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, Inc., (AAPS) an organization of private physicians who distributed a press release in November, 2000 Opposing Mandatory Childhood Vaccines? (Doctors Group Votes To Oppose Vaccine Mandates - November, 2, 2000.)

Did any CR reps attend the Congressional Hearings on Vaccine Safety, or at least talk with Congressman Dan Burton (R-Ind.) who is working tirelessly to change legislation regarding vaccine safety?

Or did any CR reps bother to review the test conducted on vaccine safety, to see if the testing was properly conducted, if proper controls were in place, and if a CR unbiased scientist conducted the same testing would reach the same conclusions regarding vaccine safety?

I wonder Mr. Guest, were any of these questions answered and/or addressed during your research of vaccine safety? How did your researcher obtain the information in the article? Was all information provided by outside sources verified and authenticated, particularly information from FDA advisory panel members.

In May of 2001, USA Today conducted their own review of members of the FDA's Advisory panel and found that 54% have direct financial ties to the vaccine manufacturers, whose drugs they are responsible for reviewing and recommending. Did your research uncover such information, and if so, didn't you find that a bit reprehensible, or at the very least a conflict of interest?

Your article also addresses some parental concerns that are callously dismissed. First, the article states that a common "accusation" by the "anti-vaccine groups" is that vaccines overwhelm the immune system.

You say that vaccines "tax the immune system much less than natural disease due to the small number of antigens injected into a body that is capable of responding to 10 million to 100 million antigens."

However, it is not merely the quantity of antigens that is suspect but their content. If the contents of one man-made antigen can destroy and/or skew 100 million natural antigens, then the concern is not groundless, it's real. As pseudo-scientists, I'm certain you and/or your researchers must realize that the dramatic increases in autoimmune disorders are being caused by something?

Perhaps, at least, one of the causes is vaccination. Shouldn't someone be looking or testing for a link…just in case there is a connection? Whose ends are served by not calling for such research?

At a recent Congressional Hearing by the Committee on Government Reform, chaired by Congressman Dan Burton (Rind), a recent study by the Institute of Medicine, essentially clearing the MMR vaccine of any link to autism, was called a "disservice to the American people."

"You put out a report to the people of this Country, saying the (MMR vaccine) doesn't cause autism…and you can't tell me, the committee chairman, under oath, that there is no causal link because you just don't know, do you," Congressman Burton asked of Marie McCormick, MD, ScD of the Harvard School of Public Health and the Institute of Medicines panel chairwoman.

"No, I don't know," responded McCormick.

So, shortly after the Institute of Medicines study was released in 2001, denying a vaccine/autism link, one of the lead scientists concedes, under oath, that the theory (linking vaccines to autism) has not been disproved by their research.

Was Ms. McCormick interviewed to get her point of view on the existence or non-existence of a link, since hers is the most recent 'scientific research' on the subject?

Your article goes on to discuss how vaccines are tested. And while you acknowledge that vaccine safety testing is "incomplete," you seem to imply that this incomplete testing should be acceptable to consumers because it does not affect safety. How can it not effect safety?

In this same August 2001 issue, in another article not more than two pages from the vaccine article, you rate the 2001 Mitsubishi Montero Limited as "Not Acceptable." You cite safety concerns and inadequate vehicle testing by the manufacturer as grounds for this Not Acceptable rating.

In fact, you report that in 1997 the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA,) stated that Consumer Unions short course test (of automobiles) did not provide a "sufficient scientific basis on which to determine the existence of safety-related defects." (This ist he same short course test conducted on the Mitsubishi Montero, as quoted from text excerpted from page 24, August 2001 issue, under How the Tests are Conducted.)

Yet, in spite of the objections by this government agency that Consumers Union had no scientific basis for their unacceptable findings, you still continued to report the vehicle as Not Acceptable.

You justify your position, on the same page, by adding, "We regard unstable behavior in our…tests as serious, and believe that consumers benefit from this information when deciding which vehicle to buy."

Now after you cite all of these safety concerns for an automobile, a non-living entity, and publish a magazine report that categorically states this automobile is unsafe, and 'Not Acceptable' to the American consumer, you turn a page and say that these same safety concerns should be ignored in regards to the safety of our most precious possession…our children.

What about how consumers decide which vaccines to give their children? Would they (parents) not benefit from knowing which vaccines have a higher incidence of adverse events than others, when deciding which vaccines to give their children?

Don't parents have a right to know which vaccines have consistently failed safety tests, or, have not been tested at all? Even worse, shouldn't they (parents) be made aware of studies, which deliberately skew research results in favor of vaccines, by not using un-vaccinated children as controls? Shouldn't it be your role to inform the public of such lapses?

This brings me to my final point. Your article states that vaccine testing is costly at $58.00 a shot, and, "everybody wants more babies studied, but whose babies are these going to be?"

Cost should never be a factor in determining who gets to live or die.

If children are dying, or suffering permanent injuries from untested vaccines, then someone should be demanding better testing

Your article poses the questions: "If a vaccine prevents 1,000 deaths, are 10 vaccine-related injures (deaths) an acceptable tradeoff?" As a parent I ask you Mr. Guest, "why should even one child die from a vaccine? Because testing is too costly?

And worse, whose child gets to die for the common good? Consumers Report spends between $8,000 and $10,000 to test automobile safety every month, twelve months a year. Automobile manufactures probably spend more than that testing each model for every make of car.

Yet $58.00 is too much to spend to save the life of a child? If a company cannot find test subjects, or some laboratory method to test their product, then it should not be allowed on the market. Clearly it should not be mandated under such circumstances, nor should parents be criticized for questioning such products.

Please don't tell me the drug manufactures can't find an appropriate method to test their drugs. With billions of dollars in annual profits, these companies, like automobile manufacturers, should not be allowed to market unsafe products.

The Food and Drug Administration, and Public Health Officials, should not allow any product on the market with "incomplete" testing and such poor safety records. Who are they protecting? Certainly not the consumers.

Mr. Guest, your test and research results are no longer reliable if this is the kind of reporting and research you conduct. Your claims of unbiased reporting are no longer believable. I now wonder if Toyota, or Honda, pay you to knock their competition, since as you must know, Mitsubishi reported that their sales were the fastest growing for Japanese car manufacturers.

Is someone afraid of a little competition? Is this just a coincidence? I also wonder which pharmaceutical company paid, or coaxed you into publishing this article. The drug companies must be afraid of losing a government-mandated, lucrative customer base. This magazine, and organization, should no longer be trusted as a reliable source for unbiased reporting.

Sincerely,

Marvis Hardy-Nash

And Pro-Choice Parents who believe every parent has a right to make an informed choice regarding whether or not to vaccinate, and Parents who are Concerned About Vaccine Safety.

Related Articles:

Dr. Mercola's Favorite Vaccine Links Page

If you find this newsletter interesting and valuable, help support it by recommending it to some friends by using this button.

Return to Table of Contents #246

©Copyright 1997-2001 by Joseph M. Mercola, DO. All Rights Reserved. This content may be copied in full, with copyright; contact; creation; and information intact, without specific permission, when used only in a not-for-profit format. If any other use is desired, permission in writing from Dr. Mercola is required.

Disclaimer - Newsletters are based upon the opinions of Dr. Mercola. They are not intended to replace a one-on-one relationship with a qualified health care professional and they are not intended as medical advice. They are intended as a sharing of knowledge and information from the research and experience of Dr. Mercola and his community. Dr. Mercola encourages you to make your own health care decisions based upon your research and in partnership with a qualified health care professional.