Fisher writes, referring to the first decade of the 21st century, "it is clear that the first one saw big changes in the way Americans think about health and vaccination." Uh-huh. Thanks to organizations like yours, to Generation Rescue, and to AoA in the last two years, Americans got access to incredibly inaccurate information, like the idea that there is antifreeze and insect repellant in vaccines, that the polio vaccine caused AIDS, that vaccines are injected into the bloodstream, and other streams of bilious nonsense. Nice work. If you'd simply led with the truth that vaccines do carry risks, which the government, the pharmaceutical companies, scientists and doctors all acknowledged, then you'd have been fine. That is not the apparent intent of any of these people or they would not crow with satisfaction as vaccination rates drop.
You have to be impressed, though, at the temerity of Fisher. Having invoked the holocaust and other atrocities in previous writings, Fisher uses 9/11 and fear to link to vaccines.
AoA doesn't cover the whole piece by Fisher, so you'll have to click over to here to get the rest of her insightful piece. Ya'll notice that Fisher loves to talk on camera?
She ends her piece:
"We, who are critical of one-size-fits all mandatory vaccination policies because those policies fail to acknowledge biodiversity and do not respect the informed consent ethic, welcome a new, more rational and substantive conversation about vaccination in 2010. As President Franklin Roosevelt said “The truth is found when men are free to pursue it.”I call Fisher out on the bullshit this is. If she meant that she wouldn't be engaged in the lawsuit she's in now. If she were really about the truth, then she wouldn't be trying to silence Offit and doctors willing to speak, the journalists willing to report, or the publishing companies willing to print.
Hopefully, 2010 will be the beginning of a fearless and fierce search for the truth about health and vaccination that will enlighten us all."
I'd argue, having looked at the 2007 tax return for NVIC, that what she really wants is an influx of cash. She seems to be making her living off the back of people willing to support an anti-vaccine stance. Now, admittedly, it is not the cash cow that Autism Speaks is, but still, I cannot see where NVIC did anything good, anything charitable. It took in money, it paid Fisher, the vice president, and employees, it maintained an office and a website and it printed out materials. Nice. Also, it would be interesting to know just how much she makes from speaking engagements.
I'm not suggesting that people shouldn't take salaries from non-profits. People need to pay bills, need to eat. I'm just saying that when you're the head of the nonprofit and it looks like you've found a way to make a living off of peddling fear, well, your altruism is suspect. That's all. Just suggesting. Sort of like how I might be skeptical of a particular editor of Aoa plugging her sponsors' products. Just putting that idea out there that if your very livelihood depends on feeding and adding to the fear of vaccines, that you've got a huge, biased incentive to increase that fear and ignore facts.
And lastly, and all that decent, rational people should have to know: whale.to.