On May 8th, IMAC scored a coup with this patsy plant, in the Press. This article is stunning - not for it's factual or investigative, intelligent content, but for the seeming naive gullibility of the reporter, who it would appear didn't realise that he was asked to come for a walk, like a little puppy dog. I can just see it now. Someone walks in and asks, “Who is the most provaccine reporter here?”, ... and hands them suitably predigested material on a plate. Pre-written, with the "right" slant, just as it "should" be! “What we need is a re-port-er, okay? .. No – no, not an investigative journalist! Shhhh A re-port-er, to re – port what we think, just the way we think it. No, we don't need balance - we just need the right message!” Of course they wouldn’t want an “investigative” journalist on the job, because that might involved "balance"!. And worse, in the past, investigative journalists who have taken the time and energy to do their own research have become ultra critical of IMAC pre-digested soundbites.
This article dutifully quotes IMAC, IMAC, and more IMAC, or.. what IMAC thinks about what other people think, and what IMAC thinks everyone else should think, when they bother to think.
Did Phillip Matthews not have time to check out primary sources?
For a start, had he done so, and read Alex Snelgrove’s submission, “he” would have known that “he” is a she.
Had Phillip actually gone and looked at all the comments sections of all the articles after Ashley Epapara's death, he would have seen that by far the majority of comments were placed by shocked parents whose children had also reacted badly, or landed up in hospital as well. You know; the bitten provaccine brigade who jump to it and do everything their doctors say without thought or question. Oh sure, there were a few anti's whose primary message was "Educate yourself, before you vaccinate your child." but then, shouldn't that be "mandatory" starting with reading the vaccine datasheet on Medsafe website?
Phillip briefly talks about the Renata's “heartfelt” submission, and then immediately shifts to IMAC's "opinion". IMAC of course, consider themselves qualified to state that without doubt, this will be another of those congenital issues - nothing to do with Gardasil - and really, no-one should open their mouths about such situations until the causes are "officially" known.
IMAC however, should know that if Jasmine's death was a congenital issue such as they suggest happened in England, the Renatas would have known within a week (as happened in UK) because the preliminary postmortem would have shown just that. But IMAC ignores that piece of inconvenient reality.
And further, if Jasmine's parents had to stay silent until a coroner pontificates, at the rate things are going, that would be never. Ever tried to get blood out of a stone? If not, try the coroner's office, and try getting tests done, suggested by international experts who maintain that these tests will answer a few questions. But no. That would not be politically or medical expedient, so absolutely nothing happens. The situation is more reminiscent of Monty Python, than Medical Practice.
Here’s an invite Phillip. How about getting your tail up here, and actually physically coming to this house, and discussing the issues, face to face, and dealing with FACTS put in front of you from medical literature, doing some indepth research and thinking, and then writing a balanced piece of well thought out journalism.
Too scared? Did your IMAC buddies tell you that I’m too dangerous?
Seriously.
I’ll not eat you for breakfast. Your fibre and mineral profiles so far, lack substance.
