Controversy surrounds the Covid-19 Pandemic; and whether we like it or not, the controversy continues, and will continue - unabated.
In most of the world it is a medical matter. In the USA it has also become a political matter. So let's examine both sides of this equation, and see if there is a simple way of determining which side of the argument is "Following the Money", and which side is more interested in health outcomes.
- On one side there is the well known "narrative", promoted by government, conventional medicine, and the mainstream media (MSM): that the virus is deadly; that it is a threat to everyone; that millions of people have died, and are dying of it; that there is no medical treatment for it; that washing hands, social distancing, the wearing of masks, test and trace, and lockdown are the only effective responses to it; that ultimately only Covid-19 vaccines will save us from the virus, that it is essential for everyone to accept the vaccine, and that it is anti-social for anyone to refuse to be vaccinated.
- On the other side there are the arguments that the 'narrative' dismisses and describes as "misinformation": that Covid-19 is not a pandemic; that people are dying 'with' it, not 'of' it; that innate and natural immunity is more effective than vaccines; and that vaccines are causing serious patient harm. In this respect, the 'misinformation campaigns' accuse the official narrative of "information blight" - that is, that information has been censored, that people are not been properly or accurately informed about what is really happening.
So how does "following the money" help us to differentiate between these two polar extremes, and what they are arguing for? Let's do an analysis on this basis.
The virus is (or is not deadly), a threat to everyone alike.
If Covid-19 is a deadly virus, and can strike down anyone at anytime, people will be concerned, fearful, willing to do anything to protect themselves, and so ready to accept whatever treatment is offered to them. Fear of the virus has been one of the major means for selling not only medical treatment, even to the most reluctant patient, but the loss of freedom and liberty that this has entailed.
However, if Covid-19 is not such a deadly virus, if it will not effect everyone, then people will be less concerned, less willing to accept the need for medical treatment, or the loss of freedom and liberty this entails. The absence of fear will sell less medical treatment, patients will be more reluctant to accept it.
- The 'narrative' is better designed to sell pharmaceutical vaccines.
- It is uncertain that the 'misinformation' agenda is selling anything.
Millions of people have die, and are dying, of the Covid-19 virus
A similar argument can be used here, that is, the more people we believe to be dying, the more medical treatment (vaccines) can be sold. Therefore it is in the interests of pharmaceutical medicine to emphasise, even exaggerate, the number of deaths being caused by the virus. Hence, mortality has been counted in a way that have exaggerated the deaths caused by the virus, that is, anyone who tests positive for the virus, and dies within 28 days of that test, is automatically assumed to have died of the virus.
The 'misinformation' agenda has pointed out, from the early days of the pandemic, that initially the government, medical authorities, and the MSM accepted that deaths being attributed to Covid-19 were actually people with "serious underlying health conditions". In other words, the death count included those who died "of" Covid-19, and those who died "with" it. It no longer mentions this.
- Again, the 'narrative' is better designed to sell pharmaceutical vaccines.
- The 'misinformation' agenda appears to be selling anything.
There is no treatment for Covid-19
During the early days of the pandemic conventional medicine admitted that there was "no treatment" for the virus. This further exacerbated the fears the virus generated. There was no protection. This statement was undeniably true, although only if a single word was added. There was no conventional medical treatment for the virus. The lack of effective treatment also contributed to the fear of the virus, and over time, increased the demand for, and people's willingness to take, any treatment that was to be offered later.
The "misinformation" campaign (if it ever had a single voice) pointed to our immune system, that this was capable of protecting people from the virus, and that medicine should be placing more emphasis on supporting and strengthening the innate and natural immunity that we all had.
- The lack of conventional medical treatment increased public fear, and thereby people's willingness to accept the 'narrative', the loss of jobs and livelihoods, the loss of social intreraction, the damage to our emotional lives, and the loss freedom and liberty, etc., and ultimately, of course, to take the vaccines that we were being told would be our only salvation.
- The problem the disinformation argument, when it focused on the immune system, was that it did not sell anything - except perhaps for a few more oranges, some exercise footwear, and some exposure to the sun.
- Natural therapists, homeopaths, naturopaths, nutritionists, acupuncturists, et al, always placed natural immunity at the heart of their treatment. But this was not allowed within the narrative. Natural medicine was never mentioned, nor was any mention allowed. The therapists, by and large, merely got on with their work with their patients, who had in most part accepted the 'misinformation' message of their therapists.
Public Health Measures
The narrative placed its emphasis on public health measures, hand washing, social distancing, the wearing of masks, test and trace systems, and lockdown. They were important, not least to people with a 'compromised' immune system, and they offered conventional medicine an excuse: they may have no treatment, but at least something, however damaging, was being done.
Those people plying "misinformation" however were arguing that whilst these measures were important for some immunocompromised people, people with strong natural immunity should continue leading their lives normally, keeping social life and the economy moving.
- During the lockdown periods the narrative told people that vaccines were on the way, and might be available within a short time. It emphasised that these vaccines would save lives, provide 90% protection, and return life to normal very quickly. It was, therefore, a lengthy promotion campaign for the Covid-19 vaccines.
- The misinformation message pointed out that the measures being adopted by government, on the advice of conventional medicine, was caused damage to business, industry, social life, mental health, and family relationships. Other than having an interest to maintain normal life, whilst protecting the immuno-compromised, it was not selling anything.
The Introduction of Covid-19 Vaccines
The ultimate message of the pandemic narrative was that only Covid-19 vaccines could save us from the Covid-19 virus, that only vaccination would protect us, and return us to normal life. So experimental vaccines were quickly rushed to the market, and offered immediately to the most vulnerable.
- Drug companies are notoriously reluctant to develop new drugs and vaccines, unless and until they know there are large profits to be made. The Covid-19 vaccines were developed, tested, approved, and came to the market within a year of the start of the pandemic, and it was the official narrative, the promotion of vaccines as the means of returning to normal life, that paved the way for their widespread acceptance.
- Those people spreading 'misinformation' were concerned that the vaccines had been introduced too quickly, that they were insufficiently tested, and therefore it was not possible to ensure their effectiveness and safety, and to properly protect the public. They warned of the potential harm that might be caused to those who accepted the vaccines.
The Roll-Out of Covid-19 Vaccines
Once the vaccines became available the narrative engaged in a frantic programme of sales promotion. It was quick to point out that it was essential for everyone
to accept vaccination; indeed, it promoted the novel ideas that it was anti-social for anyone to refuse to be
vaccinated as this would put vaccinated people at risk. We were told that a double vaccination was required, and that this would give people 95% protection from the virus.
The die-hard spreaders of 'misinformation' continued to offer caution, that the vaccines were 'experimental' and had not been properly tested. They wanted to slow, even to stop the roll-out of the vaccines until they were properly tested; and for doing so they were were roundly condemned for continuing to resist the narrative.
- The narrative has been hugely successful in persuading the larger majority of people to accept the Covid-19 vaccines. These vaccines are proving to be a very profitable enterprise for the companies involved in their manufacture and distribution; and the medical staff who put the vaccines into the arms of patients.
- The 'misinformation' campaign was not trying to sell anything, nor was it paid by anyone for its views, or its advice. It gained no financial advantage to from opposing the vaccines. Its only interest, from the beginning, was patient safety, and the use of innate and natural immunity to deal with the virus.
Reports of Serious Adverse Reactions to the Vaccines
The Covid-19 vaccines were rolled out very quickly, supported by the official narrative. However, national drug regulators soon began to publish reports of serious adverse reactions to the vaccines, including a large and growing number of deaths. It was important that the official narrative censored this information. It was, after all, the reason for most people accepting the vaccines. Moreover, the vaccine manufacturers had insisted on government giving them immunity from prosecution for any patient harm caused by the vaccines.
So the drug companies had ensured their own safety; but it meant that the public should not know about the serious adverse reactions being caused by the vaccines. If people knew it would almost certainly restrict future vaccine sales.
For its part, governments would have realised that they had assumed liability for any patient harm caused by the vaccines, so it was in their interests to avoid the public getting to know about them.
So the narrative was not changed. Adverse vaccine reactions have not been mentioned by government, the conventional medical authorities, or the MSM - except on a few occasions when it could not avoid doing so.
- The official narrative continues to censor information about adverse vaccine reactions. They were not good for the promotion and sale of the vaccines. The public would not be told. Medical authorities would discount the seriousness of the reports. The MSM would not question or investigate what was going on. So most people would never know; and the profitable vaccine roll-out could continue, unabated.
- The 'misinformation' campaign continued to threaten the sale of the vaccines, and drug company profitability. It has remained largely unheard. It was not speaking for any vested interest.
The peddlers of misinformation did see the growing number of adverse vaccine reactions in the official reports by national drug regulators. They had the audacity to insist that the public should be warned about them, without realising what this information could do to vaccines sales, and drug company profitability. They continued to criticise the government's narrative, the lack of concern of conventional medical authorities (who either denied or discounted the reports of patient harm), and the refusal of the MSM to inform the public, or challenge the government, or the conventional medical establishment.
Indeed, the misinformation campaign began to talk about information blight, and claimed that their message was being censored, dismissed without justification as 'misinformation'. Their message was not conducive to selling vaccines, or indeed to the reputation of government, the honesty of conventional medical authorities, or the professionalism of the MSM.
So they had to be stopped. They were spreading their misinformation through social media, so it was important that social media organisations, like Facebook, Instagram, Linkedin, YouTube, Twitter, et al., had to be brought into compliance with the official narrative. They must begin to censor the disinformation that was threatening the roll-out of profitable vaccines, and risking the standing of government, public health bodies, and the MSM, alike.
The Need for Boaster Vaccination
The misinformation campaign had been right it's opposition to safety of the Covid-19 vaccines. Then it became apparent that the Covid-19 vaccines were not as effective as previously promised by the narrative. Vaccinated people were going down with the virus. The virus was actually 'spiking' in the most highly vaccinated countries (Israel, Iceland, Singapore, and others).
Suddenly the narrative was telling us that a 'boaster' vaccine was necessary. Again, follow the money! This was not because of the disinformation - that the vaccines were ineffective. A boaster was necessary. Better still, perhaps an annual injection might be necessary. And the narrative would pave the way to the acceptance of this new awareness.
This would, of course, increase the sales of the vaccines, whilst at the same time hiding the ineffectiveness of the vaccines. If the vaccine was to be given annually in future this would certainly be ideal for the profitability of the pharmaceutical industry.
Yet the misinformation peddlers continued to suggest the Covid-19 vaccines were not effective, that if they were failing to stop vaccinated people contracting the virus, or to stop vaccinated people passing the virus on to other people, in what way could they be considered useful? Again, vaccine misinformation was putting vaccine promotion in serious jeopardy.
Vaccine Mandates and Health Passports
Vaccine passports were the ultimate goal of the narrative, and the financial prize for the pharmaceutical industry, and the conventional medical establishment generally. The passports would ensure that more people could be cajoled, obliged, forced to take the vaccines if they wanted to continue their employment, and their social life. The narrative framed them within the guise of 'public health', but they would greatly boast pharmaceutical sales. After all, the vaccine passports would need to be kept up-to-date: first the double dose; then the 'boaster' shots; then annual top-ups - all deemed necessary in order to qualify for the passport. Moreover, other vaccines could be added in time. And then pharmaceutical drugs for other illnesses too. The introduction of vaccine mandates, and health passports was prove to be an unprecedented commercial coup d'etat for the drugs industry.
The 'misinformation' campaign, in contrast, continued to talk about personal liberty, patient choice, health freedom, even mentioning the Nuremberg Trials, and other concepts that made absolutely no money for anyone!
So when we "follow the money", does the narrative, or the disinformation campaign have most to gain from the Covid-19 pandemic? It's really not such a difficult question! Is it?