The BBC is the most ardent and effective promotors of pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines.
The BBC's promotion of vaccines and measles scaremongering reached new heights of dishonesty and notoriety yesterday (25 April 2019). The story was covered in much of the British mainstream media, but not with the wall-to-wall coverage made possible by the BBC's continual news and current affairs coverage throughout the entire day. It left their editorial guidelines (accuracy, impartiality, not causing harm or offence, fairness, and independence from external interests) in tatters.
The story the BBC told us throughout the day is simple. It is the tale of the powerful Conventional Medical Establishment, including the NHS, medical science, politicians and government. I do not intend here to go into detail of yesterday's BBC's coverage - beyond outlining these highlights (or lowlights) of the case the BBC made.
- There are epidemics of measles occurring around the world
- Measles is a terrible killer disease
- Measles has been controlled by vaccines since the 1960's
- Too many children are now not being vaccinated
- It is unvaccinated children who are now contracting measles
- Parents who don't vaccinate their children are misguided and misinformed
- Vaccines are entirely safe, medical science has proven this
- No child has ever been hurt of damaged by vaccines
- Anti-vaccine websites are largely to blame for low vaccine take-up (and should be shut down)
- The nonsense 'herd immunity' theory was promulgated
- Homeopathy was attacked, several times, without the right to reply
- Vaccines should be made mandatory
Those who put forward these arguments were exclusively a selection of politicians, government spokespersons, senior NHS officials, conventional doctors, and a parent of a child who had allegedly suffered from measles. They all of whom supported the BBC's position.
No-one who might have challenged any of the above arguments or assertions (all highly challengeable) were asked to give their views. Nobody who disagreed with any of the BBC's arguments were interviewed, but they were abused in their absence.
Worse, without any exception, BBC journalists and presenters vehemently supported these arguments, often pushing the people interviewed to express themselves more aggressively. On the early morning Today programme, one spokesperson from NHS England was criticised by Nick Robinson because she contradicted Simon Stephens, CEO of the NHS, who had earlier emphasised how serious the situation was. She did not believe it was quite as serious as he had suggested. Nick Robinson was clearly in total exasperation with this contradictory idea. He was clearly not looking for discussion, and just asked her to give 'her view' about how important vaccination was for children. She complied, and a little later the Secretary of State for Health was asked to comment on this 'difference of view'. He came down firmly on Nick Robinson's side. It was indeed a deadly serious situation, he confirmed.
This is typical BBC journalism. I have commented on the BBC's refusal to take part in a real health debate many times (do a search on 'BBC' above to find all my previous blogs on the BBC's coverage of health issues), and so I no longer expect any objectivity or fairness in their news coverage.
The main point I wish to make here is that the BBC (a public services broadcaster which is not supposed to involve itself in advertising) is providing the pharmaceutical industry with many hours of free and uncritical advertising.
Moreover, it is subliminal advertising. Most people would not have recognised or understood what they were hearing to be advertising, yet it would still have had a strong and powerful influence on peoples views on the safety and efficacy of pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines.
We are used to advertising. We know when a car, or a washing machine, or a washing-up liquid, (or anything else) is being advertised. We can recognise that what we are being told is promotional, part of selling a product. But not in this situation. No-one from any pharmaceutical company had to say a word. The companies who manufacture and profit from the MMR vaccine were not interviewed, and did not have to pay a penny in order to promote it!
This was all done for them, by BBC journalists, by conventional doctors, by the NHS, by government and politicians.
So to many people this was not advertising - at least not as most people know and recognise it! This is not a car maker, or washing machine manufacturer, or a detergent company selling its wares. The promotion was being done by independent people with no obvious connection with drug companies. This was a news story, and there was no obvious promotion of pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines.
These 'independent' people were telling us that pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines are good, necessary for us all, essential for good health. There were no obvious vested interests - so surely what we are being told must be right.
Moreover, no-one was arguing against anything that the BBC was saying. Anyone who might have put forward a different view were not interviewed, whilst at the same time, in their absence, their reputation was being routinely undermined!
The primary purpose of this particular day of subliminal advertising soon became obvious. If people could not be persuaded about the rightness of vaccination, if parents continued to refuse to have their children vaccinated, they would have to be forced to do so.
- Mandatory vaccination.
- Forced medication.
- The end of any pretence of health freedom, or patient choice
And perhaps another casualty - any idea that 'press freedom' is alive and well in this country, that indoctrination is a thing of the past, that the public is being properly informed, and that patients have all the information they need to make an informed choice about the medicine they want to use for themselves, or their children.