Tuesday, August 26, 2014

Snope doggy-dog ... snooping, not reporting

The rumor-debunking website snopes.com has waded into the controversy surrounding the CDC whistleblower with this post:

The bias in what they have written is palpable.

Snopes derides concerns about the link between vaccines and neurological problems (primarily autism) as a "conspiracy theory" - the only conspiracy is the concerted effort to dismiss these concerns ... concerns the whistleblower's allegations absolutely validate.
The whistleblower's allegations are themselves validation of the conspiracy so many want to deny - all the more so if his statements are proved to be true. His allegations are validating because he was involved - he was part of the "conspiracy" and he is coming forward admitting as much! He is a witness as well as a whistleblower - he should be commended for his honesty and protected while further investigation is done (just not by Snopes!)

They cite the iCNN source - but that is secondary at best, as it is the whistleblower who made the allegation and first disclosed this to Hooker/Wakefield.

They allege Wakefield's original Lancet study regarding GI issues associated with autism first planted the "seed of fear" about the link between vaccines and autism - um, no. It was moms and dads who know and love their children who first correlated loss of skills and other neuro-developmental changes/degenerations with receipt of vaccines. (Silly mommies and daddies, what do they know - they are not scientists!) There was no need for any scientific paper to cause concern about undesired consequences of vaccination - indeed that has been brewing since Jenner first proposed it as a medical intervention. Controversy about vaccination is nothing new, nor is the use of fear and manipulation to force it upon those who do not want it.

The Snopes peice states "anyone can submit content" to iReport on CNN - as if any story not having the blessing of an officially sanctioned outlet isn't valid? Kudos to CNN for having this platform and making it available - others can do their work for them and alert them to developing stories and give them the chance to have first crack at what may well develop into something important - if CNN recognizes it! Does Snopes think crowdsourcing is only valid if it's promoting ALS fundraisers?

This writer doesn't pretend to be unbiased. Neither should Snopes. Ronald Reagan could not have been more correct in saying "trust, but verify"!


  1. Matthew -

    Thank you for your comment.

    I don't think this post is stating the Snopes post about this is the final word.
    Far from it!

    My point is simply that Snopes may not be all that objective, and many people rely on them as a "fact checker" service.

    Clearly, SBM is hardly unbiased as well.


Comments are moderated - expect your post to be approved within 24 hours.
Polite, respectful discussion welcomed.