UNICEF Surveils, Defames Health Sites over Vaccines – Including Mercola.com

A stunning new report reveals that the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) has been monitoring independent health sites and their users in an attempt to identify 'anti-vaccine influencers' and their effect on lackluster vaccine uptake.

August 29, 2013 | Source: Green Med Info | by Sayer Ji

For related articles and more information, please visit OCA’s Health Issues page and our Appetite For a Change page.

A newly fashioned United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) working paper tracking “the rise of online anti-vaccination sentiments in Central and Eastern Europe” identifies independent health websites, including GreenMedInfo.com, Mercola.com, NaturalNews.com and VacTruth.com, as contributing to lackluster vaccine uptake.

The UNICEF report, titled “Tracking anti-vaccination sentiment in Eastern European social media networks,” obtained data using “state-of-the-art social medial monitoring tools,” and confirmed that parents are using social media networks to decide whether to vaccinate their children.

The 47-page report attempts to answer the following questions:

● Why parents are refusing vaccination? 
● What are the concerns about vaccines? 
● What are their ideals/perceptions? 
● Who is influencing the discussion?
●  Which networks are being used?
●  Where are they located?
●  How to respond?

Opening with the Mark Twain quote: “A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes,” the report lists the following ‘anti-vaccine influencers’ shaping the online conversation:

GreenMedInfo.com
●  Mercola.com
●  Vactruth.com
●  Mothering.com
●  Dr. Tenpenny on Vaccines
●  Thinking Moms’ Revolution
●  The Refusers
●  Natural News
●  Worldtruth.tv
●  Cafemom.com
●  VaccineInjury.info
●  EverydayHealth.org
●  LeftBrain/RightBrain
●  Zen Gardner – Just Wondering

UNICEF’s opening reference to the “lie” (misinformation) spread by the above-mentioned web-based organizations indicates that while the document purports to be analytical and descriptive, it has proscriptive and defamatory undertones, and only thinly conceals an agenda to discredit opposing views and voices.