Unveiling Barbara Loe Fisher: Friend or Foe of the Anti-Vaccine Movement?
Who exactly is Barbara Loe Fisher? Currently, she performs a pivotal role in the administration of the National Vaccine Information Center. However, grasping her backstory necessitates revisiting 1984 and witnessing her navigation through contentious public health landscapes.
Barbara Loe Fisher’s image often belies both her claims about herself and certain public perceptions towards her. Alongside Jeff Schwartz—also notable for his advocacy work—they are responsible for successfully pushing forward the National Vaccine Injury Compensation program in 1986. United under their collective D.T.P (Dissatisfied Parents Together), they championed safer immunizations while emphatically proclaiming their support for vaccine initiatives overall.
The ripple effects of their involvement with Congress were extensive and far-reaching, predicated on an awareness of both their objectives and potential consequences, many might argue these extended beyond those negatively impacted by vaccines. Notably controversial was Schwartz’s claimed personal tragedy—a daughter lost to adverse DPT vaccine reactions.
However, this narrative has not held up against scrutiny; persistent questioning unveiled that Jeff Schwartz did not lose a daughter due to declining health after receiving the DPT vaccine; public records confirmed he has only one child, a son—a fact contrary to his previous assertions around experiencing firsthand the devastation wrought by compromised vaccines.
Why would someone lie about something like this you ask? It is a very easy task when you follow the money.
Jeff Schwartz, renowned for his work in law and politics, was instrumental in drafting the indemnification legislation to safeguard vaccine manufacturers during the 1976 swine flu outbreak under Democratic oversight led by Rogers. Following a period of relative silence, he unexpectedly partnered with prominent advocate Barbara Loe Fisher to concoct further legislation intended to shield vaccine manufacturers from an escalating number of lawsuits connected to polio and DPT vaccines.
His testimony to congress stated this “Despite our own experiences, we are not an anti-vaccine group. Our three major goals are simple. We seek to prevent other children and families from suffering the catastrophes that have befallen us. We are proud to join with a number of medical, nursing, provider, public health, consumer, and other groups in supporting this bill. For this bill would do what no other bill that has been discussed would do.”
If you read a multitude of newspaper excerpts and you will find that Barbara Loe Fisher, author of “A Shot in the Dark”, sourced 90% of her referenced materials from Marge Grant. During congressional hearings and subsequent press releases, Fisher unequivocally stated that her daughter was a victim of an adverse reaction to the DPT vaccine. However, she refrained from being branded as anti-vaccine.
As echoed in earlier statements, Jeff Schwartz held similar positions as Fisher. Both personalities were keen on establishing an exclusive redressal approach for vaccine-related injuries through non-jury courts.
The actions of both Schwartz and Fisher have been criticized for not inherently serving children’s best interests. Despite this criticism, they both continued to advocate at legislative levels on behalf of organizations such as the American Academy of Pediatrics – evident through their respective testimonies given during congressional hearings.
Both Schwartz and Fisher were instrumental contributors towards developing the Vaccine Injury Table; lobbying tirelessly until its adoption within legislation became a reality – much to their elation upon receiving news surrounding its passing into law.
However, enthusiasm soon soured when intricacies unfurled post-implementation led to unsatisfactory results prompting Ms.Fisher to take issue with governmental bureaucracy supposedly shifting regulations ad hoc – all while ignoring her active participation throughout discussions between Paula Hawkins and Senator Waxman.
Prior to the passing of the legislation, Phil Donahue did a show revolving around the DPT controversy. A guest on his show was Marge Grant, who spearheaded an initiative soliciting personal stories related to the issue at hand. Regrettably, she did not receive these letters, due to intervention by Barbara Loe Fisher and Jeff Schwartz, who obtained them unlawfully; urging Ms. Grant to secure legal representation for their return.
Fisher is alleged to have used sourced documents from this same individual as foundational material for her book ‘A Shot In The Dark’. Their involvement subsequently led towards shaping what many believe now categorize as a contentious creation that has resulted in lingering challenges society faces today.
Post-legislation approval saw Fisher garnering nominations for membership on the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices board until 1992. Her research contributions extended overseas where she participated in a decade-long UK study investigating potential long-term impacts of DPT vaccines on brain-injured children (a 10-year study) – systematically assessing possibilities like learning disabilities and other health complications associated with these vaccinations.
The research under discussion is known as the “National Childhood Encephalopathy Study”. Its primary objective was to consider including reissued seizure disorder in the vaccine table, which saw a substantial number of claims made from the federal government’s dedicated vaccine fund.
Barbara Loe Fisher, however, cast her dissenting opinion against this move due to insufficient evidence advocating such action. Consequently, her stance substantially contributed to the exclusion of residual Seizure disorder from revisions on the vaccine injury list causing numerous individuals to lose compensatory avenues for their injuries.
Marge Grant also played a role in this study and detailed her insights about Barbara Loe Fisher in her book titled “A Stolen Life.” By 1992, Fisher had vacated this field and transitioned into leading roles at the National Vaccine Information Center.
To elaborate further on Fisher’s background; she has not publicly spoken about any personal connection or experiences related to these circumstances such as an injured daughter nor revealed that she actively offered contributions towards drafting legislation – which she openly criticizes today. Another significant detail kept out of public knowledge is that Federal funds facilitate running aspects of VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Reporting System) database under Fisher’s management.
During the Bruesewitz v. Wyeth trial held at the United States Supreme Court, an Amicus curiae brief was written in favor of Bruesewitz by an anonymous author, which gained prominence for its noteworthy commentary. The National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) was distinctly referred to as an “Adjunct” or subsidiary body resulting from the Act of 1986.
The term “adjunct” is conventionally utilized when a law spawns auxiliary entities and it implies that something is not fundamental but rather complementary to a primary integration. In this context, Barbara Loe Fisher – founder of NVIC – appears to have reaped numerous benefits post-implementation of the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program in 1986. Going by dictionary denotations, being termed as ‘adjunct’ suggests her association with NVIC operates on support accrued from this Act while delivering additional reinforcement.
Moreover, there’s a constant undercurrent suggesting Fisher discreetly manipulates information output whilst toeing the line; only disclosing sufficient data without crossing limits set forth by controlling entities. A question hence arises about her affiliations amidst varied government bodies – are these collaborations furthering her cause positively?
As far as improvements since NVIC’s inception are concerned, tangible changes require scrutiny and any incremental progress should ideally be assessed over time.
Conclusively noting Barbara Loe Fisher’s stance – she openly advocates not against vaccines per se but emphatically voices support towards safer vaccine protocols instead. Why is he dallying with all these different government agencies? What significant changes have been made since the National Vaccine information center went live?
It is imperative to recognize that those claiming to be pro-safe vaccine, rather than anti-vaccine, are indeed controlled opposition. This seemingly benign stance promotes the false notion that progressive steps are being taken. A case in point involves Barbara Loe Fisher, who not only participated in contriving pertinent legislation but also had an active role within ACIP when it controversially eliminated a condition evidently arising from vaccinations.
Subsequently assuming a position at the National Vaccine Center, Fisher now behaves as if she wasn’t personally affected – her daughter isn’t injured due to vaccines. It contradicts earlier claims portrayed vividly across various media platforms pre-legislation about her child’s severe injury caused by vaccination; nowadays such incidents rarely bear mentioning.
By perusing these archived newspaper articles and assessing other corroborative evidence carefully, it becomes increasingly evident that Barbara Loe Fisher is NOT who she say she is.
