Skip to main content
Report this ad

See also:

Whistle-blowers and vaccines in the news: Who speaks for the patient?

Who speaks for the patient if nobody with authority for legal change listens when the patient speaks alone? How do consumers 'handle' accusations of scientific fraud when it comes to vaccine whistle-blowers? Do most people assume or speculate that the spread of disease actually boosts vaccine sales? Epidemics are a "marketing tool" to create demand for a profitable product that people can be convinced to purchase over and over again, year after year, whether it works or not.

Whistle-blowers and vaccines in the news: Who speaks for the patient?
Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Images

After all, each year the news is relatively silent during the shopping season between Halloween and New Year's Day about seasonal illnesses and the vaccines you're told to get, and suddenly, as soon as the holiday decorations come down, the newspapers and TV news channels are flooded with the latest news on flu deaths, pneumonia cases, spreading illnesses, and urging to get vaccinated. But why all the silence during the holiday season followed by a flood of media urgings to get vaccinated? But little news of whistle-blowers?

You may wish to check out the November 11, 2013 Natural News article, "Merck falsified its mumps vaccine efficacy results, say former employees." The article's sub heading reads, "Vaccine fraud exposed: Measles and mumps making a huge comeback because vaccines are designed to fail, say Merck virologists."

Then you can check out a vaccine-whistle-blower-related lawsuit PDF file online, "VIOLATIONS OF Plaintiffs, THE FEDERAL FALSE CLAIMS ACT v, Metcl:c." It's a link at the November 11, 2013 Natural News article, "Merck falsified its mumps vaccine efficacy results, say former employees."

What the former Merck virologists said about its mumps vaccine, according to Natural News

Merck knowingly falsified its mumps vaccine test results to fabricate a "95% efficacy rate" say former Merck virologists Stephen Krahling and Joan Wlochowski in their shocking False Claims Act document. The author of that article, Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, Editor of wrote last year, "

In order to do this, Merck spiked the blood test with animal antibodies in order to artificially inflate the appearance of immune system antibodies." You can check out the article, "Vaccine fraud exposed: Measles and mumps making a huge comeback because vaccines are designed to fail, say Merck virologists."

Another recent study on whistle-blowers defines what happens when a whistle-blower's identity is disclosed

In another recent study on whistle-blowers, researchers define when disclosing a whistle-blower's identity, like in an email, becomes retaliation. Under the law, whistle-blowers are supposed to be protected from direct reprisals on the job, including discrimination. What if any given individual or group of whistle-blowers and their actions become the subject of a widely distributed email? Is that a form of retaliation? You may wish to check out a January 7, 2013 news release, "Study defines when disclosing a whistle-blower's identity, like in an email, becomes retaliation."

Two professors at Indiana University's Kelley School of Business set out to answer that question and determine when public disclosure of the whistle-blower's identity -- like in an email -- is sufficient to support such a claim, in a paper, published in March 2013 in the North Carolina Law Review. You can check out the study or its abstract, "North Carolina Law Review | Retaliatory Disclosure: When Identifying the Complainant Is an Adverse Action."

"When someone makes a complaint of discrimination that's covered by federal anti-discrimination laws, you're automatically cloaked in protection from retaliatory actions that could come in response," said Jamie Prenkert, associate professor of business law at the Indiana University (IU) Kelley School of Business Bloomington and the study's lead author. "But what can be retaliatory is a broad-ranging continuum of actions that the courts don't specifically define."

Publicly identified as a complainant: The whistle-blower

Prenkert, who also is a Weimer Faculty Fellow, noted that simply the possibility of being publicly identified as a complainant is enough to discourage someone from becoming a whistle-blower. But Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, existing case law and EEOC regulatory documents provide little guidance on the use of email and similar, immediate forms of communication.

"It doesn't even provide a framework for how to consider these issues," he said, according to the January 7, 2013 news release, Study defines when disclosing a whistle-blower's identity, like in an email, becomes retaliation. "To the extent that they've come up, the courts have been inconsistent and not made these determinations in a coherent way. The outcomes are fairly consistent, but the reasoning is not consistent, which is always a problem in the law."

Courts inclined to stop retaliation against whistle-blowers

The courts have been inclined to put a stop to retaliation so that employees who blow the whistle on discriminatory practices are not threatened or prevented from doing so, said Julie Manning Magid, associate professor of business law at the IU Kelley School of Business Indianapolis.

"There's a lot of research about whistle-blowers -- why people blow the whistle, what influences them -- and anonymity is one reason to decide to blow the whistle," Magid said, according to the news release. Allison Fetter-Harrott, an assistant professor of political science at Franklin College, also was a co-author on the study. In their paper, the professors discuss social science literature and analogous cases regarding when parties to litigation can remain anonymous to come up with a framework for defining retaliatory disclosure.

Also at the heart of their paper was a 2007 case involving Belmont Abbey College, a Catholic institution in North Carolina, and eight of its faculty members. When Belmont Abbey College chose to exclude contraceptives from its employee health care coverage, the faculty members filed a complaint with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, claiming religious and gender discrimination. The college's president reacted by sending a mass email to faculty, students and staff detailing the complaint and identifying the faculty members, which resulted in an additional EEOC complaint against the college of retaliation.

In July 2009, the EEOC found reasonable cause to believe Belmont Abbey had discriminated against the charging parties based on gender but found "no cause" supporting the religious discrimination charge. Separately, the EEOC indicated that the president's email constituted cause to find retaliation and was "intended to produce a 'chilling effect' on the campus and to create an environment where faculty and staff would hesitate before filing complaints against the college."

"Belmont Abbey did not discriminate against its employees based on religion, as the EEOC determined, despite outrage among many that might suggest otherwise," the professors wrote. "However, in publicly disclosing the names of the eight faculty members who sought to utilize the process established for asserting employee rights against discrimination, the college may have sought to discourage other employees from taking similar actions, the news release explained. "The facts of Belmont Abbey demonstrate a doctrinal gap in the competing interests of employers and employees."

While public disclosures can discourage employees from exercising rights established under Title VII, the authors also noted the need for a balance that includes the interests of employers in appropriate disclosures

"We recommend a standard for retaliatory disclosure that considers disclosure an adverse action unless a 'need to know' defense exists," they said, according to the news release. The authors noted that disclosure of very personal information, such as an employee's allegation of sexual harassment, may be retaliatory, as well as when the disclosure will directly lead to threats and punitive actions from co-workers or the community. An employee's vulnerability within an organization also should be a factor.

The form and tone of the disclosure is another consideration

Unlike in the Belmont Abbey case, sometimes word may get out inadvertently, because one of the parties involved does not keep the matter confidential. The paper, which was chosen as the best paper of 2012 by the Pacific Southwest Academy of Legal Studies in Business, noted that companies do maintain a right to disclose that there are employee complaints in order to report the matter to shareholders or expose a perceived injustice.

"It was an interesting case," Magid said, according to the news release. "We've adopted what we hope to be a balanced approach in order to understand the employer's interest in furthering their ability for communication, transparency and work-related issues while recognizing an employee's legal rights. It really has important implications, and I'm glad we were able to present a new way of approaching it."

Who speaks for the patient: The whistle-blowers? And who with the authority to make changes listens?

According to two whistle blowing former Merck virologists who filed a 2010 Federal False Claims Act complaint two years ago in 2010 when the Act first passed, as of June 28, 2012, the scientist's complaint at last has been unsealed. The complaint reports that the corporate pharmaceutical vaccine manufacturer, Merck allegedly "knowingly falsified its mumps vaccine test data, spiked blood samples with animal antibodies, and sold a vaccine that actually promoted mumps and measles outbreaks."

The complaint accuses Merck of allegedly ripping off governments and consumers who bought the vaccine thinking it was "95% effective, according to the June 28, 2012 Natural News article, "Merck vaccine fraud exposed by two Merck virologists; company faked mumps vaccine efficacy results for over a decade, says lawsuit," by Mike Adams. Also check out yesterday's June 27, 2012 Forbes article, "Merck Whistleblower Suit A Boon to Vaccine Foes Even As It Stresses Importance of Vaccines."

Of course Merck denies all alleged accusations to today's breaking news report. Readers may want to know about a study published in 1998 in the medical journal Lancet by Dr. Andrew Wakefield that reported a link between the MMR vaccine and the incidence of autism in children.

There are two sides to the vaccine debate. Today you have breaking news focused on the sudden unsealing of a whistleblower suit against Merck, filed back in 2010 by two former employees accusing the drug maker of overstating the effectiveness of its mumps, measles, and rubella vaccine. What's a fresh new angle on the news is that another company, Chatom Primary Care, also is suing Merck for monopolization of the vaccine industry at the same time as the whistleblowing scientists allegedly are accusing Merck of falsifying its mumps vaccine test results to fabricate a "95% efficacy rate."

In the June 28, 2012 article by Natural News, readers are referred to the False Claims Act document site which contains a PDF file article, "Merck False Claims Act." NaturalNews is continuing to investigate further news about Merck and the vaccine industry

Locally, in the past two years Sacramento, San Francisco, and Berkeley, CA have experienced growing mumps outbreaks, including a mumps outbreak on the UC Berkeley campus, among Sacramento children, and on several San Francisco college campuses. But what happens when the vaccine doesn't work, as court claims have recently been made?

Check out the news reports, Mumps Outbreak Reported On Cal Campus « CBS San Francisco, Mumps outbreak may be spreading to L.A. -, and UC Berkeley hit by mumps, students receive vaccinations - Los Angeles Times.

Courthouse news reports that the virologists complained Merck allegedly spiked the vaccine with animal antibodies

Adams reports in the June 28, 2012 Natural News article that virologists Stephen Krahling and Joan Wlochowski, who formerly worked for Merck, blew the whistle and revealed how Merck knowingly falsified its mumps vaccine test results to fabricate a "95% efficacy rate." How the alleged falsification happened, according to the virologists, focused on Merck allegedly spiking the blood test with animal antibodies.

Those animal antibodies artificially inflated the appearance of immune system antibodies. You can read the original case which is reported in Courthouse News. Merck, of course, denies it ever happened.

The main point that the virologists emphasize of this alleged accusation is that the laboratory antibodies never corresponded to real life situations such as the way viruses 'neutralize' in people getting vaccinated. Read the virologist's complaint filed in Court House News.

The Court House News also reports that Merck's scientists added antibodies to blood samples. This alleged faking of data produced results showing more favorable test results. The alleged problem is that human immune systems don't produce those types of antibodies.

The news report by Adams revealed that Merck used the falsified trial results to (the article actually uses the word 'swindle' and report to the U.S. government the results. The measurable result of the incident meant that the U.S. government spent "hundreds of millions of dollars for a vaccine that does not provide adequate immunization."

Did the alleged fraud contribute to outbreaks of mumps across the USA between 2010 and the present?

Then Adam's article reports that Merck's vaccine fraud has actually contributed to the continuation of mumps across America, causing more children to become infected with mumps. The issue with this conclusion when examined is that consumers are going to believe that outbreaks are caused by contaminated and/or problematic vaccines.

Years ago, you heard in mainstream and niche health media about the monkey virus found in polio vaccine during the late 1950s. Now in 2012 it's the mumps vaccine that's allegedly problematic and/or contaminated causing more cases of mumps.

The average consumer is more likely to conclude that vaccines keep outbreaks happening in order to make more money. If a disease is entirely wiped out such as smallpox was in the 1940s, then nobody's going to buy the vaccine for a particular disease anymore, and a company can't make money unless a new outbreak appears of other diseases or old diseases come back again.

Is one company trying to allegedly monopolize the vaccine market?

Whether this idea is urban myth or real, it's only known by virologists who develop the vaccines. On one hand you have Merck claiming 95% effectiveness of it's vaccines. The company, after all makes a living developing vaccines that work. On the other hand, consumers may be saying that one company is trying to monopolize the vaccine market so there will be fewer competing companies.

According to the former Merck virologists, the alleged 'fraud' began in the late 1990s. The virologists report that tests were falsified. But before any scientists can allegedly point a finger at Merk, it has to be proven that testing of Merck's vaccine was never done against "real-world" mumps viruses in the wild. You can read the court case report to see whether in a court of law any test results were actually proven to be falsified to achieve the desired outcome.

Senior management testified they were never aware of what the tests revealed

On the other hand, Merk's senior management were never aware of what the tests revealed and had no idea about the alleged fraud accusation. The Adams article reported that it was the Merck scientists who knew about the testing and data and whether or not anything was falsified.

The motive, according to Adam's article notes that Merck allegedly inflated the vaccine's test results. The source for the June 28, 2012 Natural News article is court documents. You can check out the court documents yourself at the Court House News site.

The 2010 False Claims Act is a federal consumer protection law

Federal contractors are not allowed by law to defraud governmental programs. Consumer protection laws exist at the federal level. Consumers need to know what the 2010 False Claims Act reports about liability for specific claims and acts, persons, and companies that defraud governmental programs.

Check out the sites, False Claims Act Cases - Department of JusticeTAF- Federal False Claims Act. The Act is about liability. The False Claims Act, also known as 31 U.S.C. §§ 37293733, is sometimes referred to as the Lincoln Law. The Act is an American federal law that imposes liability on persons and companies (typically federal contractors) who defraud governmental programs.

There's also another law suit filed against Merck by Chatom Primary Care, which is mentioned at the Natural News site. Check out the article, "Chatom Primary Care sues Merck for Sherman Act monopolization, breach of warranty, violation of consumer protection laws." Check out the original article on the Chatom Lawsuit against Merck.

What the Qui Tam provision covers

You can file actions on behalf of the government as a whistleblower even if you're not working for the government or affiliated with the goverenment. Also called the whistleblower law, the 2010 False Claims Act is a law that includes a "qui tam" provision that allows people who are not affiliated with the government to file actions on behalf of the government (informally called "whistleblowing").

Persons filing under the 2010 False Claims Act stand to receive a portion (usually about 15–25 percent) of any recovered damages. Readers need to be aware that claims can affect both sides, and usually it's about following the money.

You can check out the Fraud Statistics Overview

Claims under the law have typically involved health care, military, or other government spending programs. The government has recovered nearly $22 billion under the False Claims Act between 1987 (after the significant 1986 amendments) and 2008, according to the Fraud Statistics Overview 1986-2008 website. Comprehensive information regarding FCA statistics may be found at the False Claims Act Legal Center site. Check out the "One Click Statistics Sheet."

The site shows a simple one-page presentation of official Department of Justice False Claims Statistics for the years 1987-2011. To see the statistics for false claims from the Dept. of Justice, click here. But this table doesn't include recoveries to the states in Medicaid cases. You can also see the Department of Justice False Claims Statistics including information regarding recoveries in individual cases for thoses years.

There's also a site you can check out to see a discussion of GSA Best Price Qui Tam claims, in which government contractors violate the False Claims Act by failing to give the Government the “best price” they charge private sector purchasers, according to the False Claims Act - Wikipedia, website explaining the 2010 False Claims Act.

To know both sides of the issue, Merck has denied all allegations. You really need to hear or read both sides of the issue to know all the facts and evidence, since the senior executives at Merck testified that they did not know of any alleged fraud going on in the company.

The conclusion will come with validated evidence and weighing both sides of the issue, hearing fairly and equally from both sides. This is a case that is not relative to opinions, just to the facts presented as evidence and to the credibility of the evidence. In the meantime, whistleblowers do have legal recourse if they have reliable evidence.

NaturalNews derived its data from that covered the alleged Merck information about the complaint of the two whistle blower scientists. Check out the original article at You may wish to check out other information sources such as: Chatom Lawsuit against Merck, Natural News article: 2010 False Claims Act against Merck, by two Merck virologists, Forbes article: Merck Whistleblower Suit A Boon to Vaccine Foes Even As It Stresses Importance of Vaccines, Natural News. On another note, there's the issue of whistle-blowers who allegedly blow the whistle on their government bosses.

Did you know that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is being sued for keeping tabs on its employee's email?

Check out the January 29, 2012 Washington Post article by Ellen Nakashima and Lisa Rein, "FDA staffers sue agency over surveillance of personal e-mail." Six researchers say they were fired after being harassed because they warned Congress that the FDA was approving risky medical devices. These doctors and scientists wanted to protect millions of patients from potential harm. They should be called heroes.

Did the FDA's employees actually think their email at work on government computers would remain private? After all, the startup screen on FDA computers warns employees, “you have no reasonable expectation of privacy,” including any communication accessed or sent from the machine. It's nothing new. They saw this message for at least the past two years.

The law firm suing the FDA represents whistleblowers on behalf of the National Whistleblower Center, as part of the lawsuit against the agency. This specific message has appeared since at least December 2010. The screenshot and other materials were compiled by Kohn, Kohn & Colapinto, LLP, the law firm representing the whistleblowers. Kohn, Kohn & Colapinto is a leading American whistleblower protection law firm based in Washington DC.

What happened as a result of the whistleblowing is that the FDA continued to monitor the personal e-mail of several of its own scientists and doctors. The doctors warned Congress about the FDA because the FDA was approving or about to approve medical devices that those doctors and scientists believed posed unacceptable risks to patients, government documents show.

Should the doctors have tried to protect the public from harmful products? Did the FDA agree the products were defective?

Those six doctors and scientists complained. The result of their 'whistleblowing' then contributed to the harassment or dismissal of all six of the FDA employees, the suit alleges. All had worked in an office responsible for reviewing devices for cancer screening and other purposes, according to the Washington Post article, "FDA staffers sue agency over surveillance of personal e-mail."

Read the article for the details about these whistleblower complaints. See copies of the e-mails. Of course the FDA was listening and and photographed electronic snapshots of the computer desktops of those FDA employees. The FDA then reviewed the documents the doctors and scientists saved on the hard drives of their government computers.

The doctors and scientists have a duty to protect the public from any product, device, or pill that is defective. Did the scientists and doctors share information without permission? No. Protecting the public from gadgets and devices isn't a crime.

FDA doctors and scientists do have a right to complain to Congress or journalists. Who else can they complain to? If they complain to the general consumer, the shopper or patient as an average person with no authority or power to make changes isn't going to do much other than go to the media. But at least Congress can take some action in their voting power.

Is the mission of the FDA undermined by whistleblowers?

Check out the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health. Any time a doctor or scientist working for the FDA finds problems when reviewing devices for cancer screening or other situations such as a device giving off too much radiation per patient, they have a duty to protect the public from harm.

That's what a doctor's oath is about--first do no harm. Who comes first, the patient or the FDA? Do some doctors and scientists have to choose between getting fired if they complain to Congress (whistleblowing) or protecting millions patients? Is the problem about going over the head of the FDA to Congress?

Is it about ego in government? Or is it more about protecting the public from defective gadgets that were about to be approved unless somebody did some whistleblowing to a higher power in government. What other higher powers are there to complain to on the globe?

The problem focused in part on the doctors complaints about the FDA being on the verge of approving at least a dozen devices that posed risks to millions of patients--radiological devices, for example. So the doctors went to Congress, the White House, and the HHS inspector general. Should the doctors and scientists be fired or punished for looking out for the safety of the public?

Do they have the right to sue the FDA when coming across, for example, a device that falsely diagnosed bone loss? What about that device that created a risk of causing cancer in healthy people because it was defective?

It's time the public learned about those devices and the doctors who fought to protect the public

Or what about the gadget made for colon cancer screening that had such high doses of radiation that they raised the risk of cancer in healthy people? Would you be a whistleblower if you worked for the FDA and found questionable devices about the be approved? Read the Washington Post article and find out all the details. There's no reason why these six researchers who worked for the FDA should have been harassed or fired.

Who speaks for the average patient if not doctors and scientists hired to look at products or evaluate them for the FDA before approval? And is Congress the only source of help these professionals could go to as whistleblowers?

After all, you can sue any given corporation, but it's a lot harder to sue the government without getting fired or harassed, especially when government jobs usually are thought to be lots more secure than jobs in private industry. What course of action do you think the doctors and scientists could have had when they saw something not working right?

War on whistle-blowers documentary film

The War on Whistleblowers is a new documentary film that shows how much 'trouble' the whistleblowers can fall into by telling the truth about issues, problems, or corruption in their place of work or what they witnessed. Check out the trailer of the film on YouTube. The sub-title of the film is "Free Press and the National Security State."

The new film is directed by Robert Greenwald. What the documentary emphasizes is how four whistleblowers nearly had their lives ruined because they had the 'nerve' to inform the media and to "go to press" carrying validated evidence of government wrongdoing.

You can obtain a free copy of the DVD if you agree to throw a party or meeting of your neighbors, friends, or relatives and take a photo of the showing of the documentary in your home. Or you can make a donation of any amount at the website. For more information, read the PDF article "Action Guide" from the Project on Government Oversight.

Have you heard about the 2012 Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act? It addresses various loopholes in the original Whistleblower Protection Act. Check out the biographies of the whistleblowers and the experts at the website of the documentary film, The War on Whistleblowers. If you click on the icon there to get a free DVD, you can see the documentary and send the DVD on to your friends.

The whistleblowers in the documentary include the following, Michael DeKort, Whistleblower, Project Manager, Daniel Ellsberg, Whistleblower, Former Official of the State and Defense Departments, Daniel Ellsberg, Whistleblower, Former Official of the State and Defense Departments, Thomas Drake, Whistleblower, Former Senior Executive of the National Security Agency, Franz Gayl, Whistleblower, Deputy Branch Head for the Space and Information Operations Integration Branch, Thomas Tamm, Whistleblower, Criminal Defense Litigation Attorney.

Check out the information on the website about the experts in the film, such as Steven Aftergood, Director of the Project on Government Secrecy at the Federation of American Scientists, and the journalists connected with the film. The experts also include Tom Devine Legal Director of the Government Accountability Project Danielle Brian, Legal Director of the Government Accountability Project, Ben Freeman, National Security Investigator at the Project on Government Oversight, William Hartung, Director of the Arms and Security Project at the Center for International Policy, J. William Leonard, Former Director of the Information Security Oversight Office, Jesselyn Radack, Director of National Security and Human Rights at the Government Accountability Project, Pete Sepp, Executive Vice President for National Taxpayers Union, Pierre Sprey, Weapons Designer and Analyst, and Winslow T. Wheeler, Director of the Straus Military Reform Project of the Project on Government Oversight .

Also check out the biographies of the journalists. You can click on the names of each journalist for more information. Journalists listed work at the New York Times, Michael Isikoff, National Investigative Correspondent for NBC News, the New York Post, the Guardian, USA Today, and the New Yorker. Journalists listed also include Lucy Dalglish, Dean of the Philip Merrill College of Journalism, University of Maryland, journalist Seymour Hersh, Jane Mayer, staff writer, The New Yorker. When you click on the journalists icon at the website, you can click on links to more information about each of the journalist's biographies. Examples include Bill Keller and Eric Lipton, who write for the NY Times and Dana Priest, investigative reporter for the Washington Post.

Check out the biographies of the experts, journalists, whistleblowers, and producers

The list of experts and journalists and their biographies listed on the website links is outstanding. Then there's also the biographies of the production team. Click on production to read about the producers. For example, Jeff Cole is the executive producer for "War on Whistleblowers: National Security State and the Free Press." Previously he was the Executive Producer for Brave New Foundation's critically claimed "Koch Brothers Exposed." Before joining BNF he was a producer, director and writer for “Modern Marvels” on the History Channel, a Show Producer for NBC’s "The Apprentice" and West Coast Bureau Chief/Senior Producer for the nationally syndicated program "Inside Edition."

Natalie Kottke is the Co-Producer for Brave New Foundation’s documentaries, War Costs and Koch Brothers Exposed. She’s produced for E! Networks, CBS, and worked in books, crafting the skill of ghostwriting as Associate Editor for New York Times best-selling author, Linda Sivertsen and her agency, Book Mamma.

Jim Miller is the producer of the documentary film, "The War on Whistleblowers." For the past seven years, Jim has been the Executive Director for Brave New Foundation. He joined the company when the Foundation was initially formed by putting together the coalition of over 100 groups (including Amnesty International, MoveOn, True Majority, and Voters For Peace) to push our unique system of distribution and house screenings for Iraq For Sale. Jim produced the documentary Koch Brothers Exposed.

His film experience began 25 years ago working on the film Bull Durham and includes being the Director of Development for The Shooting Gallery, an independent film company which produced ‘Sling Blade‘ and ‘You Can Count on Me‘, and Head of Acquisitions for Cinema Park Distribution. Immediately prior the BNF, Jim produced four star-studded ‘Les Girls’ charity benefits for the National Breast Cancer Coalition.

If you want a free DVD, click on the War on Whistleblowers free DVD site.

You'll see a link there where you can click on the "I want it free" part, or you can make a donation of any amount you want, should you want to make a donation, but you are not required to make a donation for the free DVD, the website reads. It's your choice.

You can read the biographies of the producers, experts, and journalists, and see whether your political and cultural values agree with theirs, what type of whistleblowing was done, and how you can help by sharing the DVD. The site suggests having a gathering in your home showing the DVD to a group of people, taking a photo of the crowd viewing the DVD, and sending (or emailing) the photo to the website's email address, should you want to share in the privacy of your home by opening your home to many to offer entertainment with your friends and stir up those public emotions.

Perhaps you'd want to view the documentary in private if you enjoy the serenity of meditation and relaxation complemented with thinking about whistleblowing as motivational observation?

Perhaps introverts would prefer to view the DVD alone so as to reflect and think how to be of help without involving the loudness of the crowd as in speak softly and write, photograph, or film suggested in depth problem-solving approaches to thinking outside the box (and away from the cacaphony of theatrics seen in numerous viewers when in public.)

Basically, this leaves out introverts who really want to watch documentaries alone, especially those married to someone who has an opposite point of view and doesn't want to start a controversial conversation, for example, a multigenerational family with several differing outlooks and opinions. But, if you're a home-based senior who really never gets out to meet people due to low mobility and lack of transportation, you still might enjoy viewing it yourself and thinking about whistleblowers. Is there something you want to blow a whistle about in your neck of the woods?

If you see something really is wrong, speak up

People may be scared of the war on whistleblowers. They'd like to whistleblow, but are frightened into silence by the spectre of a war on their careers where the threat of poverty and its consequences looms in their images of "what if" worry, rising cortisol levels, or merely thinking about being reprimanded in their careers. A number of people will be afraid of the consequences of breaking silence, particularly those who are used to living in an environment where keeping silent meant keeping serenity. And others focused on individualism and creativity may feel it's their duty to speak up and 'whistleblow' to make the world kinder, gentler, and safer for all of us.

Whatever your preferences, the documentary is an eye-opener for you to get a handle on what whisteblowing and investigative reporting is about. Perhaps you'd like to be an investigative reporter or documentary producer who observes whistleblowers and their outcomes. Or maybe you have something to whistleblow. Should this film be called the war on whistleblowers?

After you view it, think about that consequence of what happens to people who do whistle-blow regarding their jobs, reputations, serenity, and how those who were helped by whistle-blowers speaking out for the truth can be upheld by the communities they helped. We are all problem-solvers.

Report this ad