In my last blog I discussed the censorship of health news by the mainstream media (MSM). This censorship can be seen, in its clearest manifestation, in their attitude towards vaccines and vaccination. The MSM, alongside conventional doctors, routinely tell us that vaccines are 'entirely safe' and extraordinarily effective. Any one who disagrees with this position is accused of spreading disinformation, fake news, and conspiracy theory. Yesterday, Andrew Marr interviewed the man behind the new Pfizer COVID-19 vaccines for his BBC programme, and described him as "the saviour of the world" - or words to that effect!
As someone who is convinced that vaccines are both unsafe (positively dangerous in fact), and have an effectiveness that is consistently over-hyped by the MSM, the MSM presumably consider me to be an "anti-vaxxer".
By contrast, I consider myself to be someone in favour of SAFE MEDICINE.
Disinformation? Fake News? Conspiracy Theory? Or Conventional Medical Literature?
I will give readers of this blog a guarantee. The information that will be used in this blog about the safety and effectiveness of vaccines (and pharmaceutical drugs, and all conventional medical treatment generally) will come mainly from these two sources.
- The literature of the conventional medical establishment itself; including Patient Information Leaflets (PILs), and websites owned by pharmaceutical interests, such as Drugs.com. Patients should never agree to any vaccination without first reading the PIL; and most of these PILs can be found on this website. Read the side effects for yourself, and then decide if the vaccine is safe.
- Vaccine compensation schemes for the few patients who have been able to prove that damage to their health has been caused by vaccination. These include the UK's Vaccine Damage Payment scheme; and the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program in the USA. Both schemes pay out enormous sums of money for people who have been damaged by 'safe' vaccines.
So conventional doctors tell us routinely that vaccines are safe. Yet the literature of conventional medicine, and the medical science it says underlies it, is sufficient to prove otherwise. Vaccines are harmful, many more people are damaged every year who cannot prove the link. And yet our doctors tell us they are safe; they are not telling us the truth.
In addition, I will report on evidence that appears on social media that conventional medicine should take seriously, investigate thoroughly, and come to a conclusion - but which is usually ignored or rejected outright without investigation.
- Evidence that comes from vaccine victims; patients who have taken them, been damaged by them, have had their lives changed for the worse; and have not been believed
by conventional medicine. Such links are usually dismissed by conventional medicine as 'anecdotes', with no causal effect proven; but real-life tragedy for families.
- Investigative journalism, studies and reports of vaccine concern that have not been properly investigated, or which are being discounted or dismissed by the conventional medical establishment. Two examples of these, concerning vaccines, and already in my in-tray, are as follows:
Lawsuits begin over SARS-CoV-2 Laboratory Leak. This concerns the persistent rumour that the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic was a leak from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, the Wuhan Center for Disease Control, and the EcoHealth Alliance. An application for information from the National Institute of Health made by the US Right to Know organisation was met with silence. 'Conspiracy Theory' is one thing; refusal to provide information in response to a legitimate request for information is another, and is suggestive of a cover up. It is our right to know this information.
Flu Shot Deaths in South Korea said to be 'coincidental'. More than 80 people have died in South Korea following influenza vaccination. This was investigated by South Korean health authorities who dismissed this as 'coincidence', and decided to contine promoting the vaccine "despite public anxiety'. One death following vaccination might be a coincidence; even two; at a stretch three. But dismissing 80 deaths as a 'coincidence' is not a satisfactory response.
In both these examples, people are looking only for the truth; a reasonable explanation; some semblance that genuine concerns are being considered, and a determined and rigorous application of the precautionary principle. Silence (ignoring the issues), and dismissal (discounting the importance of the issue) is insufficient. As long as the conventional medical establishment responds to genuine concern in this inadequate way people will be dissatisfied, patients will ask questions, and expect reasonable answers.
Disinformation? All that's necessary, then, is open access to the real information.
Fake News? If so, all that's required is access to the real news.
A Conspiracy Theory? Or is it really about uncovering a Cover Up?