Search This Blog

Friday, 13 August 2021

The Myths of Conventional Medical Success. Eradicating Smallpox.

This is the second of a series of blogs on "The Myths of Conquering Disease". The first blog concerned Measles, and the alleged success of the MMR vaccine in the virtual elimination of this killer childhood disease. (The third has subsequently been published, on the Polio vaccines).

This blog investigates the alleged 'eradication' of smallpox by a vaccine, but it will do more than this. At the time of writing the UK government, on the advise of conventional medical science, is threatening to impose vaccine passports, essentially forced vaccination, mandatory drugging, on the people of Britain. This is aimed, initially, at forcing everyone to take the Covid-19 vaccines.

This may appear to be bad news for those of us who love freedom and liberty, and/or those who use natural medical therapies and the immune system to protect from viruses. Yet this historical survey of smallpox should encourage us. 

This is not the first time our government, in its wisdom, has tried to force harmful vaccines on us. It was also an integral part of the conventional medical establishment (CME's) attempts to treat smallpox back in the 19th century.

The Eradication of Smallpox

This myth about the 'eradication' of smallpox by vaccination is particularly important. When the effectiveness and/or safety of vaccines is questioned the automatic response of the CME is to refer to smallpox. This was a killer disease - and it was conquered by vaccines. Such has been the propaganda success of this story, most people now believe it; unquestioningly. Over the last 70 years it has become one of the enduring myths successfully generated by a failing medical system.

Smallpox has been with us for many centuries. It is believed to date back to Egypt in the 3rd century BCE. Since then, as civilizations grew and expanded, the disease spread all over the world, and smallpox epidemics left devastation in its wake on many, many occasions.

Smallpox was certainly a killer disease in the 17th and 18th century. And although it has not been eradicated (as the CME usually claim) its incidence is now extremely rare. But the decline of smallpox had little, if anything, to do with a vaccine. It was the result of a raft of social reforms and public health measures that improved the impoverished and deeply unhealthy lives of many millions of people during that time. The last serious smallpox epidemic occurred in 1949, and the link between smallpox and vaccines has been more about clever propaganda by the rich, powerful and influential drug companies that historical fact.

Smallpox was at its zenith in the 17th, 18th and early 19th century. The background to this can be simply explained. The Agrarian Revolution removed large numbers of people from their tough, meagre, but relatively healthy existence in rural communities. It separated poor families from their natural element. The displaced people were removed from the villages to the growing urban towns. Here they faced multiple problems, all of which naturally led to ill-health, and a greater vulnerability to infectious disease. There is an excellent book (that you should read) that graphically illustrates the relationship between people's living conditions and the incidence of killer infectious disease.

Humphries and Bysrtianyk. Dissolving Illusions: disease, vaccines, and the forgotten history.     (ISBN 1480216895 or 13:978-1480216891)

I will refer to this book through most of this blog. It provides a graphic description of the living and working conditions these new town dwellers had to endure, and how it inevitably affected their health. They can by simply highlighted here.

  • Towns with a high density population with no amenities.
  • Squalid, damp and overcrowded housing.
  • Abject poverty produced by what were effectively slave labour conditions.
  • Non-existent sewerage.
  • Poor, inadequate and often diseased food supplies.
  • Contaminated drinking water.
  • Diabolically inhumane working conditions, and excessively long working hours, including very young children whose growth and development was stunted by having to work in mines, sweeping chimneys, and similar environments.

These were ideal breeding ground for disease. So there were regular epidemics that killed thousands of people, too weak to resist infection. It was not just smallpox. There were many other killer diseases.

  • Typhoid fever
  • Cholera
  • Dysentary
  • Diphtheria
  • Whooping Cough
  • Typhus
  • Scarlet fever
  • Measles
  • Yellow fever
  • Consumption (TB)

There was little or no protection from these diseases. No-one, certainly not the conventional medics of the day, knew what was causing the epidemics. Epidemics were almost annual events, and people were helpless when they struck their community.

The scourge of smallpox; the introduction of the vaccine; and medical disagreement

Smallpox was just one of these diseases,. It was greatly feared. The cause was unknown. There was no medical treatment. And even if treatment had been available most people would not have been able to afford it.

The 18th century saw many doctors looking for a solution. Variolation was tried in Asia, where people with deliberately infected with smallpox (by blowing dried smallpox scabs into the nose). The individual would get smallpox, a milder form, and if they recovered they were thought to be slightly more more immune to the disease. It was not a great success.

Then in 1796 Edward Jenner developed his vaccine. The story is well known. He used a similar, but less dangerous pox - cowpox - to infect his patients. Jenner believed that this protected people from the more serious smallpox. He pronounced that this procedure gave life-time protection from smallpox. Yet from the earliest days there was no widespread acceptance of this.

    "The accounts from all quarters of the world, wherever vaccination has been introduced ..... the cases of failures are now increased to an alarming proportion".

Humphries and Bystrianyk (H&B) found numerous contemporaneous medical journals that detailed how smallpox could still infect those who previously had smallpox and also these those who had been vaccinated.

    "It attacked many who had had smallpox before, and often severely; almost to death; and of those who had been vaccinated, it left some alone, but fell upon great numbers".

    "In hundreds of instances, persons cow-poxed by JENNER HIMSELF have taken the real smallpox afterwards, and have either died from the disorder, or narrowly escaped with their lives".

H&B described a pattern that is has become familiar to this day within conventional medicine. A battle began between those who believed in the vaccine, but could not (or would not) recognise the dangers of the procedure, and those who were willing to see the dangers of the vaccine, but had no alternative treatment to offer.

Frightened people, threatened by a killer epidemic, will always look for solutions. And Jenner was the only person at the time who was offering a solution. And the medical profession could offer something only if they supported the vaccination process. So it was this side of the battle that came to the fore.

(This was not entirely true; Samuel Hahnemann was developing homeopathy at the same time as Jenner was developing his vaccine. He came up with both safer, and more effective treatments. But that is another story.)

Mandatory Vaccination

This situation continued like this until 1853. During this time H&B noted that 'vaccine hesitancy began. Again, it is a familiar story that is being repeated today: doctors promoting and recommending vaccination, often quite forcibly: and patients recognising that the vaccines were causing serious harm, whilst not preventing reinfection. So a growing number of people recognised the dangers, and questioned the value. of the vaccine.

So in 1853 the UK government imposed mandatory vaccination for smallpox. This was despite the continuing debate about the safety and effectiveness of vaccination. Mandatory vaccination was also imposed in the USA, and elsewhere around the world. In Britain the law was tightened in 1867. The result was that little changed.

    "Compulsory vaccination laws did nothing to curb the problem of smallpox. Boston data begins in 1811 and shows that, starting around 1837, there were periodic smallpox epidemics. Following the 1855 mandates, there were smallpox epidemics in 1859-1860, 1864-1865, and 1867, culminating with the infamous epidemic in 1872-1873. These repeat smallpox epidemics showed that the strict vaccination laws instituted by Massachusetts had no beneficial effect".

H&B outlines considerable contemporaneous evidence that similar outcomes persisted in many other parts of the 'vaccinated' world.

    "Bavaria (Germany) in 1871 of 30,742 cases 29,429 were in vaccinated persons, or 95.7%, and 1,313 in the unvaccinated, or 4.3% . In some of the small local outbreaks of recent years the victims have been nearly all vaccinated (e.g., at Bromley (England) in 1881, a total of 43 cases... (were) all vaccinated".

    "Official returns from Germany show that between 1870 and 1885 one million vaccinated person died from smallpox".

So despite forced vaccination, smallpox epidemic continued to happen regularly, and a large proportion of those who died had been vaccinated. It is a familiar story! H&B reported on a 1970 study that suggested the vaccine was actually causing smallpox infection and death.

    "Because of poor surveillance and vaccine reaction under-reporting, the authors of a 1970 study suspected that the number of smallpox vaccine-related deaths was higher than the reports reflected. This study only examined deaths from 1959 to 1968 in the United States. If the deaths were this high in a country with a modern health-care system, what was the total number of deaths from smallpox vaccination from 1800 to the present across the entire world?"

Again, it is a familiar finding that is likely to be repeated if there is mandatory Covid-19 vaccination, with death figures arising from these vaccines now rising rapidly, they (rather than the virus) will be the cause of patient harm and death.

The Decline of Smallpox

The smallpox death rate began to decline from about 1872 onwards in most parts of the world. This was, of course, during the time of mandatory vaccine. But it was also the time that social and public health reforms were beginning to bear fruit.

So which of these two factors caused the reduction in the incidence of smallpox? First, it is important to note that vaccination was declining from this time to, and the use of vaccination was to continue decline alongside the incidence of smallpox.

    "...after 1872 vaccination coverage rates slowly declined from a high of nearly 90%. Coverage rates plummeted to only 40% by 1909. Despite declining vaccination rates, smallpox deaths remained low, vanishing to near zero after 1906. Smallpox vaccination has always correlated positively to epidemics in the countries that collected data in the vain hope of proving the vaccine's worth". (My emphasis).

The Great Demonstration in Leicester

The decline in vaccination did not arise from by a reassessment by government, or a revaluation by conventional medicine, that the vaccines were not only ineffective, but instrumental in causing smallpox outbreaks. It happened because people lost confidence in vaccination. It was the people who made the decision - and particularly the people of Leicester, England, where, in 1885 'The Great Demonstration' took place.

    "Despite the actions taken by the government to ensure a very high vaccination rate, a massive smallpox epidemic hit not only Leicester but all of England and other parts of the world in the early 1970's. The epidemic in Leicester resulted in thousands of cases of smallpox and hundreds of deaths, shaking to its core many people's belief in the protective power of vaccination".

The Leicester Mercury in July 1884 said that "it must strike the reflective observer as rather singular that all the recent smallpox outbreaks have made their appearance among populations where the laws enforcing vaccination have  been rigorously and systematically carried out". 

Clearly, this paper was speaking during a time when press freedom was still operational! 

The 'Great Demonstration' was, in effect, a Great Revolt against the smallpox vaccine. It was inspired by the recognition of the harm it was causing, and the penalties handed out to people who had the courage to refuse it. H&B gives a full account of the event, describing "fearless people who wanted to be able to make their own decisions for their health and the health of their children, and thus fought for self-determination."

    "Thousands of brave people set off a historical rebellion that successfully countered a prevailing medical belief and heavy-handed government rule."

The Conventional Medical Establishment were horrified, and in their arrogance (not untypical of the arrogance of the CME today) proclaimed that Leicester residents would suffer greatly for their decision to turn their backs on vaccination.

    "They prognosticated that this unvaccinated town with its "highly flammable material" would suffer with the "dread disease" that would spread like "wild-fire on the prairie" and decimate the population".

CME's worst fears never happened. Vaccine supporters were already claiming responsibility for the fall in smallpox numbers, and they believed their own propaganda. They predicted doom but "...the leaders of Leicester held steadfast to what they knew was right and successfully implemented their plan of sanitation, hygiene, and isolation - instead of vaccination.Their grand experiment would test the very notions of freedom of choice, self-determination, and the heart of a flawed medical belief". (My emphasis).

Even 30 years later H&B found that many still believed Leicester would eventually face disaster, quoting a 1914 article in the New York Times, which sounds astonishingly similar to the kind of coverage our mainstream media is using today in relation to the Covid-19 pandemic.

    "Those who openly oppose vaccination or who tell everybody to wait until they come to the bridge of danger before crossing it, are taking a heavy responsibility on their souls".

The Sanitation Revolution

Leicester backed the Sanitation Revolution which was proceeding apace around the world, where action was taken to improve housing, living and working condition, the amelioration of poverty, improved nutrition, and similar. This progress did not come from the CME, it was done for political and social reasons. And it was this social progress that reduced the incidence of smallpox.

It also produced another piece of evidence to prove that vaccines had not vanquished smallpox. During these years epidemics of other killer diseases also declined - typhoid, cholera, dysentery, diphtheria, whooping cough, typhus, scarlet fever, measles, yellow fever, consumption - diseases for which there were no vaccines, and no other conventional medical treatment. 

The early 20th century saw the continuing decline in both the incidence of all these killer infections, which H&P describe as "The Amazing Decline". During this decline smallpox vaccination continued to decline, and their were increasingly fewer cases of smallpox, usually of a much milder nature.

    "By the 1920's it was recognised that the new form of smallpox produced little in the way of symptoms even though few people had been vaccinated.... As the classic and deadly variety of smallpox declined, so did the rate of vaccination".

In the 1920's and 1930's only the mild form of smallpox was evident. The death rate fell close to zero, and by 1946 smallpox had all but vanished. Compulsory vaccination ended in England in 1948. The last smallpox death in the USA was in 1948, even though vaccination continued until 1963.

    "This resulted in an estimated 5,000 unnecessary vaccine-related hospitalisations from generalised rash, secondary infections, and encephalitis".

The rising power of the pharmaceutical industry

Yet throughout the 20th century conventional medicine also became more powerful, largely due to the general belief that science would soon triumph in medicine, curing illness and disease, just as science had produced motorcars, aeroplanes, telecommunications and the like. Indeed, the discovery of insulin, anaesthetics, (leading to the development of surgery) plus other 'hopeful' developments, led to an optimism that has never materialised.

The pharmaceutical industry has become the most profitable in the world, and it has not been shy to use its influence, and its wealth, to take control of governments, monopolise medical organisations, and pay for the mainstream media. Therefore - vaccines eradicated smallpox!

So whilst conventional medicine lost the battle against smallpox it eentually won the wider war. And it is always the victor that writes history. This is why so many people believe that it was the smallpox vaccine that overcame smallpox. This is propaganda, it is not reality. Conventional medicine is a confidence trick. This is why it is properly referred to as "ConMed" - its propaganda has been brilliant.

 The Myths of Conventional Medicine. Conquering Measles.

 

Would you like to read more information about the propaganda myth surrounding the eradication of smallpox as a 'killer' disease? If so, please read this brilliant and insightful book. It provides a comprehensive historical and statistical account of the decline of the disease, and the role of the vaccine.

Dissolving Illusions: Disease, Vaccines, and the Forgotten History: Suzanne Humphries & Roman Bystrianyk. ISBN 1480216895.



Tuesday, 10 August 2021

Conspiracy Theory. Disinformation. Fake News. And Medicine?

Conspiracy theory is defined by Britannica as "an attempt to explain harmful or tragic events as the result of the actions of a small powerful group. Such explanations reject the accepted narrative surrounding those events; indeed, the official version may be seen as further proof of the conspiracy."

Misinformation is defined by Oxford Reference as "a form of propaganda involving the dissemination of false information with the deliberate intent to deceive or mislead."

 Fake News is simply and very succinctly defined by Reuters International and the University of Oxford as "the news you don't believe".

So when we hear someone, anyone, compounding a theory, an idea, or a concept, that runs counter to the 'dominant' or 'official' view we need to listen carefully before we either believe or dismiss it. This is especially so when it concerns health. We need to ask pertinent questions - to both those who are putting forward the idea, and those who are summarily dismissing it.

  • Does the idea make sense to our experience/understanding of what is happening in the world?
  • Is the idea well argued, supported and justified with sound evidence?
  • Who is putting the new idea forward, what are their motives in doing so, and who do they represent? 
  • Who is dismissing the idea as a conspiracy theory, disinformation, or fake news?
  • What do each side have to gain from the acceptance, or the rejection of the idea?
It is always important to remember that just because an idea/concept/theory does not comply with the dominant, or 'official' view, it does not necessarily make it fake news, disinformation, or a conspiracy theory.

Lots of ideas that are routinely dismissed as conspiracy theories/disinformation/fake news, many deservedly so; they sound like nonsense, they make little sense, and they do not begin to meet any of the above criteria. Many can, and should be dismissed as such. Yet before we ever do so we should ensure that we have applied these criteria.

  • Just because something is dismissed as "disinformation", "fake news", or "conspiracy theory" does not necessarily mean that it is!

For instance, some people call the concept of mad-made climate change a conspiracy theory. Climanate change has become the dominant or official version of what is happening to our weather. Yet many people deny this view - and because they question the dominant view they are usually dismissed as 'conspiracy theorists'. In such a situation we need to examine both sides. What are the vested interests of climate change theorists? What are the vested interests of those who are denying climate change? How sound is the science behind climate change? Is the case for man-made climate change properly argued and evidenced? And above all, is there evidence on the ground of climate change - desertification, melting ice caps, rising sea levels, extreme weather events, extensive forest fires, flash flooding, and the like. You don't need to be a scientist to see what is happening in the world!

When we examine an idea that is being dismissed as a conspiracy theory it's always important to understand that even non-scientists can ask questions, not least when these questions are based on our experience and understanding of the world. Does the dominant view, or the 'conspiracy theory', best explain what we see happening to the world? 

Moreover, when we have asked all these questions we can make up our own mind. We are not slaves either science or governments - both of which can be noted for their arrogance. Indeed, we all have a responsibility to look at the evidence and to make up our minds. Did mankind really got to the moon in the 1960's, or was it all staged and filmed on earth? Did 9/11 really happen, or were the twin towers deliberately blown up? You decide!

Health, Disinformation, Fake News and Conspiracy Theory

So let's consider what has become the most important area of 'conspiracy theory' at this present time - the issue of health, and in particular, what is happening to us in relation to the Covid-19 pandemic. The 'conspirators' amongst us claim a variety of things that are being summarily dismissed by conventional medicine - here are just a few.

  • The excessive fear the CME (Conventional Medical Establishment) health campaign has generated about the Covid-19 virus.
  • The clear and deliberate exaggeration of the numbers of Covid-19 cases, and Covid-19 deaths over the last 18 months. 
  • The ongoing failure of hand washing, social distancing, the wearing of masks, and lockdowns, as effective preventative measures against the virus.
  • The emotional, social, economic and medical harm brought about by the policy of the CME.
  • The CME's failure/refusal to advise people about how they can support and strengthen their natural immunity against the virus. 
  • The over-emphasis placed on the logistical success of the Covid-19 vaccine roll-out, and the under-emphasis on their abject failure to prevent infection, or hospitalisation, or death. 
  • The growing evidence that the Covid-19 vaccines are causing serious adverse reactions, including a growing number of deaths; allied with the failure (refusal) of the government, medical authorities and the MSM to inform the general public about this. 
  • The CHE's censorship and punishment of any conventional medical doctor or scientist who opposes or disagrees with the dominant CHE message. 
  • And the MSM's ongoing refusal to acknowledge the work of natural medical therapists with their patients both to prevent and treat the condition.

This is all opposed to the 'dominant' CME view. Information about health is largely controlled by pharmaceutical medicine, and the 'science' on which it claims to be based. Pharmaceutical (or conventional) medicine is now so powerful it controls most national health provision in the UK, and in most countries around the world. It dominates most national governments. It has infiltrated and taken over most of the mainstream media (MSM). 

This domination is part of what I usually refer to, in this blog and elsewhere, as the CME. So what is the agenda of the CME? It has told us, persistently, for many years, that it is winning the war against illness and disease; that it is based on medical science, and that pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines are keeping us healthy. And at the same time it dismisses other natural medical therapies, like homeopathy, acupuncture, herbalism, chiropractor, et al, as 'unscientific'; and so they do not work. 

Anyone who contradicts this dominant CME agenda, for example over the Covid-19 pandemic, and the life-saving importance of the Covid-19 vaccines, is now routinely dismissed as peddling fake news, disinformation. We are conspiracy theorists!

Are they right? Let's apply the rules. First, is the CME winning the battle against illness and disease, as it claims; and more specifically how well is it doing in its battle with the Covid-19 virus?

1. Does the idea make sense of our experience/understanding of what is happening in the world?

The CME is very clearly not winning the war against illness and disease. To determine this we have only to examine the rapidly growing incidence of chronic disease, any chronic disease, to discover that more people are now being affected, more seriously, than ever before. It is undeniable fact that we are facing epidemic levels of allergy, arthritis, autism, cancer, dementia, heart/lung/kidney/liver disease, et al, never before experienced.

And after 18 months the CME's response to Covid-19 is still struggling to make any impact on the virus, even after massive vaccination campaigns. In time, all epidemics subside, even the Black Death, the Great Plague, and Spanish flu, etc. But it will be different this time; it will not be a natural decline - the CME taking credit for it!

Yet to question either of these assumptions is considered to be disinformation, fake news; and anyone doing so is dismissed by government, by official health organisations, and by the MSM, as conspiracy theorists. We are described and dismissed as 'vaccine hesitant', as 'anti-vaxxers'  - but without any attempt to explain or discuss with us what our position is. 

And any mention of this 'disinformation' is now being routinely censored by social media organisations. Why does the CME need censorship to win their argument? It is necessary for the MSM to ensure that most people continue to think and believe it is winning the battle against illness and disease, and the war against Covid-19.

2. Is the idea well argued, and supported and justified with sound evidence?
The CME's treatment of illness and disease, its effectiveness and safety, is never seriously questioned or challenged; and hasn't been for the last 100+ years. Most people get their medical information from two sources, doctors and the MSM, and both usually toe the CME's line. So most people continue to believe the repeated assertions that conventional medicine is both safe and effective. Yet there is precious little evidence to support the claims.

I have argued most of the 'conspiracy' theories in this blog, not least during the Covid19 pandemic. They offer an alternative explanation about what has happened to us, and what can be readily observed in the world. 

  • The Covid-19 campaign has generated high levels of fear amongst the general population. 
  • The overall mortality rate has not increased significantly during the months of the Covid-19 outbreak, and does not warrant this level of fear.
  • Hand washing, social distancing, the wearing of masks, and lockdowns, has neither significantly prevented or reduced the incidence of the disease.
  • It harm to our emotional, social, economic and medical lives cannot be denied; and the harm has been caused by CME policies, and will have to be dealt with in the months and years to come.
  • The CME'has rarely, if ever, advised us about the importance of the immune system in protecting us from the Covid-19 virus, or indeed any other virus.
  • Even with the emphasis placed on the logistical success of the Covid-19 vaccine roll-out, the CME remains reluctant to allow vaccinated people to resume their lives; and vaccinated people continue to contract the virus, they are being hospitalised, and are still dying. 
  • The Covid-19 vaccines themselves are now causing serious adverse reactions, and the number of reported deaths are increase every week. Yet neither government, the CME authorities, or the MSM have mentioned this to the general public. It can be found in official data; but we are not being told about it.
  • The MSM is involved heavily in censorship. They put forward the government/CME position exclusively; and anyone who disagrees are not given a platform.
  • The CME is disciplining and punishing any conventional medical doctor or scientist who disagrees with their dominant message. 
  • And the MSM continues to neglect, and refuses to acknowledge the work being done by natural medical therapists with their patients.
3. Who is putting the idea forward, what are their motives, and who do they represent? 
One of the problems with the medical 'conspiracy theorists', those who do not comply with the dominant medical explanation of the Covid-19 pandemic, is that there are very few organisations sufficiently strong to get its message across. Nor is there any significant co-ordination between them. Indeed, about the only thing that unites the so-called 'conspiracy theorists' is their genuine concern about the harm that the CME is causing by it's response to the virus - to the economy, to our mental health, to social life, to children's education, and to personal freedoms and liberty. 
 
So it is difficult to see any major vested interest that is backing this 'disinformation' campaign!
 
4. Who is dismissing the idea as a conspiracy theory?
Clearly, the CME is currently dominant in health care provision. The pharmaceutical industry ,which leads and controls the CME, is immensely rich, powerful and influential. It has used its position to control national governments, most medical provision, and the mainstream media - indeed, most of the sources of information that the public can use to inform itself about health, illness, disease, and medical treatment. And it is now seeking to extend its control to the information that can be put on social media outlets.
 
So those claiming the existence of "a conspiracy" are back by powerful and influential vested interests. It is understandable that the CME wishes to maintain its dominant position. It has a lot to lose and a lot to protect. It is losing its battle with illness and disease, and is desperate to attack and condemn anyone and everyone who is not 'on message', or who speaks against them.

So the health 'conspiracy theorists' are facing an enormously powerful vested interest, whose very credibility is under threat by its ongoing failure to treat illness and disease successfully, the chronic disease that its drugs and vaccines have cause over the last 70-80 years.

5. What do the two sides have to gain from the acceptance, or the rejection of the idea?
There is only one side of this dispute that can point to any "gains" from the routine dismissal of the dominant message of the CME. It is the CME. Rather than responding to the criticism they condemn it as a 'conspiracy'. Rather than discussing the issues they deny that there are any issues.

It is becoming palpably clear that the "disinformation" is coming from just one side of this health argument. Consider just a few aspects of the so-called 'conspiracy theory':

  • the "fake news" is that Covid-19 has been a major health crisis; the correct news is that average mortality rates have not increased significantly during this so-called pandemic.
  • the "fake news" is that the Covid-19 vaccines are effective and safe, and will enable social life to return to normal
  • the information that demonstrates the vaccines are ineffective and harm comes from the data published by the government and conventional medical authorities
  • the failure to provide that information to the general public is 'disinformation' of the very highest order.
In brief, those who are being accused being "conspiracy theorists" are the people who are more accurately describing what is happening, and what can be seen to be going on in the world. Indeed, it is a more convincing explanation than that given by CME's dominant message. It is the government who is providing "disinformation". The MSM are the purveyors of "fake news". It is the CME who represents the "conspiracy theorist".