How many people will agree to take the new COVID-19 vaccines when they become available? Estimates vary but one thing is certain, there is widespread 'hesitancy' to do so. Certainly around 10% will refuse the vaccine outright; and perhaps a further 20%, or so, will be 'reluctant' to accept them. And this so-called 'vaccine hesitancy' exists despite the wall-to-wall fear and panic that our 'free press' has generated during this coronavirus pandemic.
Vaccine hesitancy is now under serious attack. The constant and insistent message of the mainstream media (MSM) is that any opposition to vaccines, their safety or effectiveness, is the result of disinformation campaigns, fake news, and conspiracy theories. Vaccines, according to MSM's persistent message, are life savers, and there are no legitimate arguments that can be put forward to say otherwise. So within the MSM (and increasingly on social media too) no freedom of speech (or even thought), and no right of reply. Health Freedom and Patient Choice are not allowed.
On this basis, this blog is part of this disinformation campaign. It is purveying fake news and conspiracy theories. Yet no argument against pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines has ever been used on this platform that is not either:
- the testimony of people who have been damaged by vaccines,
- part and parcel of government information and statistics,
- evidence that comes directly from the literature of the conventional medical establishment.
However, the purpose of this blog is not to justify my particular stance on vaccines. It is to look more closely at MSM censorship, how it is being imposed, and why. I do this in the hope that it will assist the 20% of people who are uncertain to resolve their uncertainty.
WHERE IS THE CENSORSHIP BEING APPLIED?
- Health is certainly the main area of MSM censorship; and as this blog focuses on health this will be the main focus here. The pharmaceutical industry, the conventional medical establishment, is an immensely strong and influential sector of the national economy.
- Censorship is also evident in other vital industrial sectors of the economy, not least defence, and notably the sale of armaments to foreign governments. Few people will know, for example, that the UK supplies armaments to many parts of the world where there is civil strife, government repression, poverty and human misery - often caused by wars fuelled by the armaments industry. Sometimes, armaments are being sold to both side in a given conflict.
These two main areas in which media censorship is applied provides an important clue about the reason for this censorship. All MSM organisations are funded, and owned by, these powerful industrial elites, or people who support and profit by them. And so MSM editorial policy is controlled by them.
A FREE PRESS?
Much is said about our 'Free Press'. Unfortunately it is a fiction. Initially this term was used with regard to government control of the press; and in the main censorship is no longer the governments of western democratic countries that now control the MSM. Instead censorship is being imposed by large, rich, powerful, multi-national corporations, who are keen for us to hear their message, and wherever this is possible, only their message.
THE NATURE OF HEALTH CENSORSHIP IN WESTERN DEMOCRACIES?
No democratic government would now want to be seen controlling the MSM. So, at worst, there is usually only the lightest government control applied; for example, the pressure the conservative government is applying to the BBC, particularly as the renewal of the BBC Charter is imminent.
Yet government control is not necessary. National governments are usually funded and supported, behind the scenes, by large industrial corporations, largely through political donations, and the lobbying pressures they can apply. So government interests are usually shared with the MSM; they are mutually compliant; so governments can let powerful financial interests to control what we are allowed to know, and what is to be kept from us. In terms of health there are three basic aspects of MSM censorship.
- Positive reporting on any news story that is helpful and supportive to the pharmaceutical medical establishment. So pharmaceutical companies write press releases they know will be published in full, usually without critical comment or examination. So new medical treatments are heralded as 'breakthroughs', new drugs are described as 'wonder cures', and vaccines are the only solution to all infectious diseases.
- The absence of reporting on news that is, in whatever way, unhelpful and detrimental to the pharmaceutical medical establishment. This means that adverse drug reactions are rarely reported. The MSM do not report on serious medical scandals; or if this is not possible, the full impact of the scandal is covered up and/or discounted.
- Alternative and natural medical therapies, like homeopathy, are ignored; except for when they are being gratuitously attacked and ridiculed. The MSM gives them no voice, there is no reporting of the treatment they can offer patients (even when conventional medicine admits it has no treatment, and patients are dying); and when subject to attack they are given no right of reply.
THE MECHANISMS OF HEALTH CENSORSHIP?
Every news organisation has to select the news it reports, and does not report. In doing so every MSM news editor has to be mindful of the interests of the viability of the company, and its relationship to its advertisers, its board of directors, and its shareholders. There will usually be some idea of the 'public interest' of news stories; but these are usually secondary.
So, for example, when the COVID-19 pandemic is reported, the three rules, listed above, are applied, using the following mechanisms. Many readers will recognise these strategies; but for those who don't, observe what is being done from now on in!
- The COVID-19 pandemic could not be ignored, it had to be reported. But the MSM have been careful not to emphasise, or focus on conventional medicine's lack of treatment; or the inadequacy of public health policies, such as hand washing, social distancing, and masks; or the abject and ongoing failure of lockdown policies.
- Any alternative to approved conventional medical policies are largely ignored, mostly on the basis that government policy has been based on medical science, that the science has been proven, and that it is not permitted to question this science.
- Therefore MSM users will not know that there is an alternative to the 'dominant' medical science; for instance, the Barrington Declaration has never been seriously covered; and the open letter from Belgian health authorities; will be unknown to most people.
- Therefore, MSM users will not know that several natural medical therapies have been using their treatments both to prevent, and to treat patients with COVID-19, most notably in India and Cuba.
- MSM discussion on all aspects of the pandemic have been, and continue to be conducted with medical experts who selected exclusively for those who support and agree with the dominant medical science. These experts are the only people invited to discuss political policy, medical treatment, and pubic health measures. What this has meant is that a succession of conventional medical experts have been put in front of the public to repeat, and then repeat again, the same political and medical message.
- Any medical experts who disagree, in are in any way opposed to mainstream medical opinion, policy and science are studiously ignored. They are not invited to give their opinion, their evidence for their opinion, or to argue their alternative position.
- Members of the public who are interviewed regarding their experience of government or medical policies, for instance, on lockdown, the social and economic consequences, or on vaccination, are carefully vetted. Those who get broadcast should not be too critical; and if they are critical at all they should at the end confirm that they understand, and agree in general terms with what is happening, and why the policy is being imposed.
- So anyone who has contrary, or opposed views are either not interviewed, or their interview is not used. They are given no platform on MSM. And when they seek to express and expound their views on social media the main response of government is to threaten sanctions on social media platforms to remove the content.
- Where there are completely different medical opinions, for example, from the natural medical community stressing the important of natural immunity, their views are either ignored completely, discounted or dismissed as 'disinformation', 'fake news', and 'conspiracy theory'.
- If there is a problem with official policy, for instance, the futility and failure of lockdown policy, or issues about the take-up of new vaccines, more medical experts are brought in to emphasise, and re-emphasise their importance, their safety, their effectiveness, and the necessity for everyone to conform to what they are being told.
- Where there is non-compliance to government/medical policy; where people who not comply with social distancing or lockdown; where there is distress about not being able to visit sick relatives in hospital, or in residential care homes; or attend the funerals of close friends; there is no understanding about the reasons for non-conformity. Instead the MSM attacks people for their 'ignorance'; they have not remained enclosed, isolated, alone in their one bedroom flat, without a garden; they have been too close at the beach on a hot sunny day; and neighbours have reported people who have broken the rules. And these people, who have acted out of frustration, cannot defend themselves because in most cases they do not know what the 'defence' for the actions might be.
- Press freedom is not the only victim of what is happening in the MSM. Health Freedom and Patient Choice are also being attacked, undermined, put at risk - without these terms ever being mentioned.
- When it appears that compliance to government/medical policy is not as it should be, there is no discussion about why this is, why people have different opinions, whether they can justify what they are thinking and doing, as might be expected in a 'free' press. Instead yet more experts are introduced to reinforce the dominant message - as if this was not already ingrained in people's minds!
- so the experts are now allowed to put forward views about why it is necessary to pursue health policies that are undermining mental health, social values, and economic well-being; all without any danger of contraction.
- why people should be forced to conform, why they should be heavily fined for non-compliance with lockdown rules; all without any danger of contradiction.
- and if people suggest that they will refuse to have the vaccine, they are accused of succumbing to misinformation, fake news; so vaccination should be made mandatory; all without any danger of contradiction.
MSM censorship, their abject refusal to operate as a free press, has two main consequences
- Up to 70% of the population are living in a world dominated that MSM fear and panic; in the belief that 'there is no alternative', on the basis that government, medical science, and the MSM, are informing them fully and honestly about what is happening. They are not. They are unable to engage in debate because they do not believe there is a debate to be had. They cannot make an informed choice because they are not had the information they need to enable them to make a choice. So they do what they are told, they comply, the conform.
- Up to 30% of the population watch this going on, and they recognise that censorship is happening around them.
- They eat their food, rich in vitamin C, and take their vitamin C supplements; and whilst doing so they question why people are not being advised to protect themselves by doing likewise.
- They sit in the sunshine, soaking up the vitamin D; and wonder why others are not being advised to do the same thing.
- They take their homeopathic remedy, they wish other people were aware of the powerful protective ability of the remedy to avoid infections.
And this 30% know the mainstream media is not telling the truth about health, certainly not the whole truth. So does the MSM tell the truth about armament sales? Or indeed about anything else?
It must be doubtful.
And the 30% have relatives, friends, and work colleagues; they talk to them on a regular basis; and they listen; and will understand; they are not hearing the truth from the 'experts'.
