One-sided reporting

This article (“No shots, no school,” feature, 9/21) seriously lacked journalistic integrity. In fact, it came off as completely one-sided, and made no reference to any of the actual “controversy,” which it implied it was going to address. Perhaps it was intended simply to promote the alleged safety of vaccinations, or perhaps it was just a fluff filler piece, but if so it should not have been on your cover.

I have spent the last 12 years researching vaccine safety. I’m not anti-science; quite the opposite in fact. I have three3 advanced degrees in different fields, having started out in physics. I was also heavily vaccinated as a child, and previously assumed science was the basis for vaccinations. That is, until I prepared to have children of my own.

At the time, and being who I am, I started researching the literature to verify that my understanding was correct. What I found instead was the worst kind of science, where studies were funded by those who were to benefit from selling vaccinations. No study should be called “science” if it was paid for by those promoting a specific outcome. Even worse, vaccine manufacturers are immune from liability for the harm caused by their products. That should be cause for concern in itself; what other product can claim such protection?

There is a glaring failure to even mention that the proposed law is being challenged in court, or the well-documented harm caused by the Gardasil HPV vaccine, or all the scientifically established vaccine components which are known to be toxic to the human body, such as mercury, formaldehyde and aluminum, to name but a few.

If you want to publish a real subscriber-grabbing news article, have better writers do more thorough research into the subject.  I’d recommend starting with a lengthy reading of the material published by the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) at

Tony Karian