Tuesday Top of Mind 2/13/24-color me surprised, the articles about mifepristone were retracted by publisher

Shocked, I am shocked. This is heavy sarcasm.

Does anyone remember the debunked articles by Andrew Wakefield that began the most recent wave of anti-vaxers nonsense with a widely exposed fraudulent article in the Lancet conflating autism with childhood vaccines? And how every parent clutched their child to their breast and decided then and there that of course the man was telling the truth. With nothing underneath him but air? Yeah, him.

Healthcare workers, such as myself, have been educating parents about how safe vaccines are ever since. But the idea was like an earworm and refused to die. As a society, we are still dealing with the fallout and the consequences of this. Current measles outbreak numbers do not lie.

Herd immunity works very well. But the public has to be 1) vaccinated for it to work and 2) be protective of those who cannot get vaccinated, like the very young, the people who are anaphylactically allergic to the vaccines, or those who cannot otherwise take the vaccines.

Think of what the planet just went through with covid and you have a good idea of how damaging and heartless this was. People who didn’t get the widely available and FREE covid vaccines extended the pandemic.

To be blunt, autism is NOT caused by vaccines. To mislead the public into believing that was a gross malpractice on the former Dr. Wakefield’s part.

Well.

The 2021 paper that the Texas judge used in a ruling against the use of mifepristone has been yanked. By the publisher. Retracted by the publisher. What the judge did was bend the facts to make his ruling that mifepristone was dangerous and should be stopped. And his ruling was appealed and stayed and overturned. Which is what was the intention.

The case that is in front of the U.S. Supreme Court right this very second.

I’ve said it before, over and over again. This lunacy is a war against women and is about trying to control more than half of the population. Control is at the root of this.

Will they care that the original ruling was based on a retracted by the publisher paper?

It remains to be seen. I have an idea about what will happen. Don’t you?

I hope I am wrong.