During the Covid-19 pandemic, everyone was constantly urged/cajoled by the National Health Service, the Government, and the entire mainstream media, to get vaccinated against the virus. This recommendation, so regularly repeated, became known by many as "The Narrative" such was its uniformity and persistence.
Most people in the UK who were vaccinated in 2021were given the Oxford University AstraZeneca vaccine which has now been withdrawn, effectively banned because of the harm it caused to patients. We were told, via the Narrative, that this vaccine was "safe and effective", indeed more, that the vaccine was the only thing that could save us from the virus.
One of the most important elements of the "The Narrative" was a string of doctors who regularly appeared on the media, reinforcing the pro-vaccine message. They told us we must all get vaccinated, not just to protect ourselves, but to protect other people too. Vaccination became A civic duty.
Now it has been discovered the drug companies were paying doctors: "AstraZeneca pays doctors to promote vaccines on ITV". This Expose article examined information from the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry, which is required to disclose all money that has been paid to healthcare professionals. It found that 2022 disclosures revealed that AstraZeneca had paid doctors for "contracted services". These doctors then appeared on ITV to promote the 'safe vaccine' Narrative, and to downplay concerns about vaccine injuries that quickly arose.
The figures show that AstraZeneca paid "UK healthcare professionals, and other relevant decision makers" over £7 million! They
were the most generous company of all, but certainly not the only drug company that paid for
these "contracted services". In total drug companies paid out nearly £63 million! The Expose article is well worth reading, in full. The figures appear to be genuine, and to date no-one appears to have refuted them (or indeed even mentioned them).
Most people who watched the testimony of these doctors on ITV, and no doubt other broadcasters too, would have assumed that they were medical professionals who were providing us with the benefit of their clinical experience, giving their considered and unbiased opinions on the vaccines. What they told us, repeatedly, would certainly have persuaded large numbers of people that they should take the vaccine. Indeed it would have been an important part of the information on which the vaccinated based their decision, their "informed consent". Most people still trust their doctors. They believe what they are told, in good faith.
- However, I never heard one of these doctors mention that they had a conflict of interest, that they had received money from the industry for "contracted services".
- Nor did I hear any interviewer ask whether they might have a conflict of interest.
- Nor do I know why mainstream news channels asked only these same doctors, time and time again, for their views, but none of the doctors who expressed concern about their safety and effectiveness.
Nor are my expectations high about getting any future information. I do I expect the doctors involved, ITV, or indeed any other news channel, to answer these questions. I doubt whether there will be any apologies. I doubt whether anyone will even to mention it. I have written about this before, over 15 years ago. We are dealing with a dangerous industry that routinely harms patients - yet they are capable of keeping this from the general public!
Yet there is more. Another Expose article, looking at the same (publicly available) data, has discovered that "Big Pharma have paid UK healthcare organisations £404 million during 2020-2022". So what is this huge some of money for?
According to the ABPI Code of Practice, healthcare organisations are "either a healthcare, medical or scientific association or organisation such as a hospital, clinic, foundation, university or other teaching institution or learned society whose business address, place of incorporation or primary place of operation is in Europe or an organisation through which one or more health professionals or other relevant decision makes provide services".
Apparently the beneficiary organisations do not have to be declared, as Health Care Organisations are not considered to be 'personal data', therefore "a lawful basis is not required to publish organisation names and addresses on Disclosure UK".
- But it is perhaps not unreasonable to suppose that organisations that benefit from this pharmaceutical largesse are expected to be supportive, and certainly not too critical, of the industry.
- And it is not unreasonable to assume that the beneficiaries will include organisations that supply information about pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines to the general public, like media news organisations, Health Charities, and Patient Support groups.
That is, any organisation which might be expected to provide important health information, who might be persuaded to promote their produce, and who might otherwise be critical of them.
The pharmaceutical industry is certainly prepared to spend a large part of its income and wealth on ensuring that the general public is given only 'positive' information, that what we hear about its products is good, rather than bad news. For an industry that has done so much patient harm over the years this appears to be a good strategy. - however much harm they might cause.
In return for this funding, drug companies gain organisations that are supportive of pharmaceutical approaches to health care, uncritical of any adverse reactions treatment may cause, and dismissive or any suggestion that the illness they support might have an iatrogenic, or 'doctor-induced' cause.
The pharmaceutical industry has long been adept at applying huge amounts of their income and wealth on restricting the health information available to us. Indeed, doing so is an important, indeed crucial element in the success of conventional, drug-based medicine. The industry recognises that without controlling what the public is told about the dangers of pharmaceutical medicine, their credibility would soon be fatally damaging.
And it is for this reason that they are prepared to spend very large amounts of money to ensure we are all getting the 'right' message!
