Mark Lynas: US Right to Know funded by anti-vaccine activists

| | August 23, 2016

USRTK’s [U.S. Right to Know] funding is substantial. . . .

. . . .To date, it has received $314,500 from the Organic Consumers Association (OCA), $30,000 from Dr Bronner’s Family Foundation and $5,000 from Westreich Foundation.

But here the problems begin. OCA has published numerous articles on its website promoting anti-vaccine and other anti-science campaigns. . . . OCA also promotes homeopathy, and publishes numerous pieces claiming child vaccines cause autism.

. . . .

The Westreich Foundation, USRTK’s third-largest donor, clearly shares this anti-vaccine agenda. Its website front page states: “Vaccine safety for all, including independent testing and research of vaccines and the ingredients they contain, as well as the synchronicity effect of using multiple toxic chemicals together when injected into the human body.”

Related article:  Disease-resistant GMO crops can reduce pesticide use—if environmental activists do not block them

. . . .

It is now well-established that anti-vaccine denialism and conspiracy theories such as those promoted by the Organic Consumers Association and Westreich Foundation have contributed to a resurgence of infectious diseases such as measles and a number of preventable deaths of young children. So is USRTK complicit in this agenda?

The GLP aggregated and excerpted this blog/article to reflect the diversity of news, opinion and analysis. Read full, original post:  Anti-GMO group USRTK attacks UC Davis scientists while refusing to answer questions about own anti-vaccination links

The GLP aggregated and excerpted this article to reflect the diversity of news, opinion, and analysis. Click the link above to read the full, original article.

4 thoughts on “Mark Lynas: US Right to Know funded by anti-vaccine activists

  1. I am pro-science. Not anti-vaccine. They will tell people correlation isn’t causation when vaccines maim or kill someone but then claim correlation IS causation when it comes to vaccines reducing diseases. That is just double-standard BS. They can’t have it both ways. They don’t have ANY science on their side. Without valid studies on the vaccinated versus the unvaccinated population, with those who are totally unvaccinated as a control group, they don’t know if vaccines are preventing any disease, or not. Or increasing the death rates. They wouldn’t know if there is a higher incidence of cancer, autism, autoimmune diseases, food allergies, infertility, etc. in the vaccinated group, or not. It doesn’t sound much like science to me. No child should be subjected to a health policy that is not based on sound scientific principles and, in fact, has been shown to be potentially dangerous.

    Furthermore, even 100% vaccination compliance can at best make only a quarter of the population become resistant to infection for more than ten years. This makes it apparent that stable herd immunity cannot be achieved via childhood vaccination in the long term regardless of the degree of vaccination compliance. Vaccine-induced synthetic immunity does not guarantee any real world protection, and certainly not with anything near 100% effectiveness, despite what the CDC, vaccine manufacturers or mainstream news reports imply by blaming the non-vaccinated for vaccine-failure associated outbreaks.

    At least half the population, that is the generation x and baby boomers, have had no vaccine-induced immunity against any of the diseases for which they had been vaccinated for very early in life. At least 50 percent of the population has been unprotected for decades. Let me repeat: we have all lived for at least 30 to 40 years with 50 percent or less of the population having vaccine protection. Herd immunity has not existed in this country for many decades, and no resurgent epidemics have occurred.

    • And speaking of autism, are they still giving the hepatitis B vaccine to infants? Since this was published? Does it look like the intent is to cause autism in children? Yes, it does.
      “Hepatitis B vaccination of male neonates and autism diagnosis, NHIS 1997-2002.”
      “Universal hepatitis B vaccination was recommended for U.S. newborns in 1991; however, safety findings are mixed. The association betw…een hepatitis B vaccination of male neonates and parental report of autism diagnosis was determined. This cross-sectional study used weighted probability samples obtained from National Health Interview Survey 1997-2002 data sets. Vaccination status was determined from the vaccination record. Logistic regression was used to estimate the odds for autism diagnosis associated with neonatal hepatitis B vaccination among boys age 3-17 years, born before 1999, adjusted for race, maternal education, and two-parent household. Boys vaccinated as neonates had threefold greater odds for autism diagnosis compared to boys never vaccinated or vaccinated after the first month of life. Non-Hispanic white boys were 64% less likely to have autism diagnosis relative to nonwhite boys. Findings suggest that U.S. male neonates vaccinated with the hepatitis B vaccine prior to 1999 (from vaccination record) had a threefold higher risk for parental report of autism diagnosis compared to boys not vaccinated as neonates during that same time period. Nonwhite boys bore a greater risk.”

      • I see among your list of factors controlled for one conspicuous absence: diagnostic criteria. Autism didn’t even exist as a diagnosis in the US until 1980, and then it could only be diagnosed in infants with severe language impairment. In 1995, the definition of the disorder was vastly expanded, as was awareness of it. I’d say that what’s really to blame for the rise in diagnosed autism is those rainbow ribbons encouraging everyone to get their kids evaluated, not to mention basically everything we used to file under “personality quirk” being redefined as “autism spectrum”.

      • The journal that article appears in has a pretty bad track record – publishing activist science which contradicts established consensus on vaccines and autism.

        here is a pretty poor study also published in that journal:

        and another one here:

        Given their propensity to publish extremely poor papers on this topic – why should we trust this one paper here, especially when it goes against the much larger number of studies which contradict the vaccine/autism connection and the growing body of research showing genetic vectors as increasingly important?

        I urge anyone lurking and reading to consult the above link for good science and information on the vaccine and autism link (there isn’t any).

Leave a Comment


News on human & agricultural genetics and biotechnology delivered to your inbox.

Send this to a friend