Covid-19 Vaccines. The MSM Information Blight? A complaint to our 'Public Service' broadcaster, the BBC

I refer you to my previous blog to the UK's Department of Health in which I explain how medical authorities are not informing the general public about the serious adverse reactions, and patient harm, that is being cause by the Covid-19 vaccines. 

The same applies to the mainstream media (MSM) who are failing to inform us about what is being officially reported on the Government website by the UK's drug regulator, the MHRA.

This is the preamble, taken from yesterday's blog.

    "A large, and growing proportion of the UK population has now received either one or two doses of one of the experimental Covid-19 vaccines. I suspect that the vast majority of these people did so on the basis of what they had been told about them - by the Department of Health, the NHS, and the mainstream media (MSM) - that these vaccines were effectively safe, and would not cause serious patient harm.

    "Official statistics, data coming from the UK's drug regulator, the MHRA, and published on the UK Governments website, suggest that this is not the case.

    "The evidence is that the vaccines are causing serious patient harm, with over 1 million side effects being reported by nearly 300,000 patients. This includes reactions such as severe allergic reactions, anaphylaxis, Bell's Palsy, blood clots, cerebral venous sins thrombosis (CVST), Capillary Leak Syndrome, menstrual disorders and vaginal bleeding, Myocarditis and Pericarditis (inflammation of the heart), and fatalities. Indeed the latest MHRA data shows that there have been 1,403 reported deaths of patients shortly after they have been given one of the Covid-19 vaccines.

    "The weekly MHRA review consistently discounts the seriousness of these reported 'side effects', even though its primary function as a drug regulator should be to protect patients from drug and vaccine-induced harm. It is well known that side effects reported to the drug regulator represents only a small proportion of actual side effects - research has shown this to be somewhere between 1% and 10%. So 1,403 death could actually be 14,030 deaths, or as many as 140,300 deaths.

    "I cannot think of any other walk of life where such harm could be caused, or even suspected to be caused, without a serious and immediate "Health and Safety" response. An industry that causes serious harm to its workers, or its customers, would be subject to rigorous examination and inspection. A restaurant suspected of causing food poisoning would be closed down. A road junction where there had been numerous accidents would have been subject to increased traffic regulation.

    "But this does not happen when pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines cause public harm. "All drugs cause side effects" we are told blandly by doctors and drug regulators; and it is left at that. There has been no public warning from government, from the NHS, or from the MSM. They continue to tell us that the vaccines are safe; and urge everyone to take the vaccine, without informing us about these reported side effects.

The BBC is the UK's "public service" broadcaster. It has a primary responsibility to inform the general public, who also funds it through the licence fee, about important official statistics, perhaps more so than any other mainstream media (MSM) outlet. The BBC has totally failed to mention these officially reported 'side effects' for the last 6-7 months. Consequently I have complained to the BBC and asked them to respond to the following questions.

1. Can the BBC confirm that MHRA statistics, relating to Covid-19 vaccines and published on this Government website, comes from official government source, and does not constitute "anti-vaxxer" disinformation?

2. Can the BBC confirm that, up to 23rd June 2021, the MHRA, the UK's drug regulator, has received over 1 million reports of serious side effects, including 1,403 reports of patients dying shortly after receiving one of the Covid-19 vaccines?

3. Can the BBC inform me how many deaths and/or serious adverse reactions, either caused or suspected to be caused by a pharmaceutical drug, it considers necessary before it takes action to inform the general public?

4. Can the BBC tell me when, and how it has been informing the general public of these serious adverse reactions to the Covid-19 vaccines as reported by the MHRA? In particular, can the BBC provide me with the information it has given to its viewers, listeners, readers about these MHRA statistics during the last 6-7 months?

5. Can the BBC tell me how knowledge of these official statistics has modified the BBC's stance on the safety of the Covid-19 vaccines, and its decision to promote them as entirely safe to the general public?

6. How does the BBC seek to ensure that the general public, and licence fee payers, are in future provided with full information about the safety of the Covid-19 vaccines before it recommends and promotes them, so that its viewers, listeners and readers are able to make a balanced and informed decision?

7. Can the BBC inform me about any action it has taken to verify and investigate these serious adverse vaccine reactions, and in particular to interview the family and friends of those people who have died shortly after the Covid-19 vaccination?

8. Can the BBC assure me that before more people receive a Covid-19 vaccine it will begin to inform the general public and licence payers about official reported adverse reactions, and in particular that 1,403 people have died shortly after after taking the vaccine?

Doubtless it will take several weeks for any response to be forthcoming from the BBC. When this is received I will immediately reproduce their response, here, in full; alongside my response to their response!

So watch this space!

14th July 2021

Thank you for watching this space! I have now received a response to my complaint from the BBC, and as promised I am reproducing it here, in full.

    "Thank you for contacting us with your concerns about BBC News coverage of Covid-19 vaccines. We have published a number of articles about the common side effects, such as the one below. The article also contains further links to earlier pieces we have written about side effects:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-56901356

Another article we'd like to highlight is the one below from 3 April. On that day the MHRA published its weekly yellow card report and did not include the data on deaths. We pressed them for further information and it was only then that they revealed that seven people had died after receiving the Astra Zeneca jab and we reported this:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-56620646

Yellow card reports of serious side effects have to be investigated and it isn’t always possible to establish a link with vaccinations. When there is evidence that serious side effects are considered likely to have been caused by the vaccine, we have reported the risks clearly and responsibly.

This piece outlines that it isn’t always easy to establish if a serious illness is coincidence or caused by a vaccine: 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55216047

As we have imported, a member of BBC staff is suspected of dying from vaccine-related causes:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-57267169

You might also be interested in these articles:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-57677606

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-57584775

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-57173286

We do value your feedback about this. All complaints are sent to senior management and we’ve included your points in our overnight report. These reports are among the most widely read sources of feedback in the company and ensures that your concerns have been seen by the right people quickly. This helps inform their decisions about current and future content.

 

So they thanked me for 'sharing my views'. So as I also promised I will now respond to their response! You will see that the BBC Complaints unit has not answered most of my questions.

Q1. The BBC did not confirm that the MHRA statistics came from an official government source, and did not constitute "anti-vaxxer" disinformation.

Q2. The BBC did not confirm that that the MHRA has received over 1 million reports of serious side effects, including 1,403 reports of patients dying shortly after receiving one of the Covid-19 vaccines. They say they knew of 7 deaths in April 2021: but by then the MHRA had reported many, many more than 7 deaths.

Q3. The BBC did not inform me about how many reported deaths and/or serious adverse reactions were necessary before it took action to inform the general public. It appears that they are content that they reported on 7 of the 1,403 deaths.

Q4. The BBC's response outlines what they have done to to inform the general public about these serious adverse reactions to the Covid-19 vaccines. It is clearly inadequate. They referred to 7 published articles which I hope you will take the time to read: not because of the information they contain, but the lack of information, the lack of any understanding of how serious the problems are, and how they constantly discount the seriousness of the data - always content to use the arguments of the conventional medical establishment (CME). The BBC has clearly NEVER the accumulating MHRA statistics on deaths and serious adverse vaccine reactionsthat have been available to them during the last 6-7 months.

• They reported on a BBC staff member who died following a Covid vaccine: please note that they stated in this article (May 2021) that her death would be 'probed': two months later there has been no evidence of any probe!
  
• They have reported on just one death in Northern Ireland.
• They reported on just three deaths in Scotland.
• For each of these the BBC articles have argued that (i) there was no proven link to the vaccine, (ii) the benefits outweigh the risks; (iii) it was still important that people got the vaccine -  and of course they have continued to support and promote the vaccines on behalf of the drug companies.
  
• They continue to discount the seriousness of the potential link between the vaccines and patient harm, content to accept and repeat at face value the usual arguments of the CHE.
  

Q5. The BBC did not respond to whether MHRA's official statistics had modified the BBC's stance on the safety of the Covid-19 vaccines, or its decision to promote them as entirely safe to the general public. So it quite clearly has not done so. According to the BBC the Covid-19 vaccines are safe, and MHRA data does not change their opinion on this.

Q6. Nor did the BBC response say how it sought to ensure that the general public were in future provided with full information about the safety of the Covid-19 vaccines before continuing to recommend and promote them so that people were more able to make a more balanced and informed decision.

• The BBC's response suggests that they believe these 7 articles, published over a period of 8 months, have been sufficient to inform the general public about 1,403 deaths, and over 1 million reports of side effects.
  
• Indeed, the BBC seems content to discount any patient harm caused by the vaccines, and regardless of MHRA data, to continue urging everyone to take the vaccine.

Q7. The BBC did not inform me about any action they had taken to verify and investigate the serious adverse vaccine reactions revealed by the MHRA statistics. Even in the 7 articles they referred to the main focus was clearly to heavily discount even the few deaths, and adverse reactions they have mentioned. Each one of these 'statistics' is a human tragedy, but they have not seen fit to verify, publicise, or investigate the trauma 'side effects' cause; they have made no attempt to interview grieving families, or the friends of the people who have died following vaccination.

Q8. The BBC's response has failed to assure me that it will begin to inform the general public about officially reported adverse reactions - before more people suffer from them.

• When I wrote my complaint 1,403 people had been reported as dying shortly after after taking the vaccine. Since then this figure has risen to 1,440 - with another report due to be made in two days time. So 37 more people have died unaware that the official data that the BBC refuses to publicise.
  
• The BBC is still informing us, each and  every day, about deaths caused by the virus (or more accurately deaths that follow within 28 days after a positive Covid-19 test). They do not discount this figure - no suggestion that most of these deaths are people who had serious underlying health conditions - no caveat linking these deaths to the virus.
  

There is nothing in these 7 BBC articles that constitutes an adequate warning to the general public that 1,440 people have been reported as dying shortly after the vaccination, that far from the vaccine being safe 'death' was a possible side effect. And no mention either that it is well known that only 1% of adverse drug/vaccine reactions are ever reported!

There is nothing in the BBC's response to my complaint that suggests they are aware, or even want to be aware, of the seriousness of this situation. The response is disinterested. It defends their stance without any attempt at justifying it. The BBC are clearly satisfied with the dismissive explanations of the CHE.

The BBC regularly and exclusively interviews and quotes members of the conventional medical profession - the "experts". Yet these "experts" are the very same people who support these vaccines; who encourage people to get vaccinated; who are culpable of telling us that the vaccines are "safe". What, then, is the likelihood of any of these "experts" performing a volte face, agreeing that the vaccines they said were safe are not safe, that they have serious side effects they have not told us about, that 1,440 people have been reported as dying from these 'safe' vaccines?

There is a further concern about the BBC's handling of the pandemic - their feeble acceptance of CME excuses for not informing the general public about official MHRA data. In what other walk of life would the BBC be aware that 1,440 people have died, and many others have suffered serious harm, without looking beyond the explanations given by those who are closely implicated to the situation? There appears to be one rule for the CME, and another for every other industry.

This BBC response to my complaint  is confirmation that it has become the mouthpiece of the CME, the willing promoter of pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines. Conventional medicine can kill, it can cause serious illness and disease; but the BBC meekly accepts any explanation/excuse the CME comes up with. It does not question. It has failed to ask members of the CME who have an alternative (more critical) view. It declines to interview the victims, or their families. It just carries on justify and promote harmful/lethal medical treatments.

I will respond to the BBC's response, but without any expectation that this 'public service' broadcaster will change its mind, and accept its responsibility to the general public. After all, this would mean they would not have to do the same thing as our doctors - admit they have been promoting unsafe, experimental vaccines, that they were wrong, that people have suffered, many have died. And that this has happened as a direct consequence of the BBC's failure to tell us what we needed to know.

MSM. The advertising and promotional arm of the Pharmaceutical Industry

The pharmaceutical industry is not allowed to advertise their drugs in Europe, and most other countries with the exception of the USA and New Zealand. The situation varies, but the advertising of prescription only drugs is not allowed in the UK; but non-prescription, or ‘over-the-counter’ drugs can be advertised. However, this does not worry the drug companies!

• BUT MAKE NO MISTAKE, PHARMACEUTICAL DRUGS AND VACCINES ARE ADVERTISED THROUGHOUT EVERY PART OF THE WORLD.  
• MOREOVER THEY ARE ADVERTISED ENTIRELY FREE OF CHARGE, PERHAPS THE ONLY INDUSTRY IN THE WORLD THAT IS ALLOWED TO DO SO.

So how does this work in the UK, and most of the rest of the world?

• A drug company wants to promote a drug or a vaccine to the public. 
• They write a press release
• They give it to all the mainstream media (MSM) outlets. 
• The press release is dutifully published by a grateful, dependent and compliant MSM.

Moreover, the press release will be published in full, without changes or amendments, without comment, without question, and without further investigation.

• At the same time, the drug company will put the MSM in touch with doctors and specialists from the NHS (not from the drugs company, this would be advertising) who have been ‘primed’ to speak on the subject. The MSM will interview, often at length, they will reinforce the positive message. 
• The drug company will also suggest that the MSM speak to certain patients, or to a patient support group, or health charity (especially those generously funded by drug companies). These people are also interviewed by the MSM.
  

So we have a headline, a lengthy article; or 5–10 minutes of radio or television time, devoted to the drug, or the vaccine, and its benefit to the NHS, and to individual patients. The drug company will appear to be entirely absent, uninvolved, disinterested. This is not Ford advertising their cars, or Indesit advertising their washing machines. It is not advertising at all. It's news. Moreover, it's good news - another medical breakthrough. It's a matter of important public interest.

It's subliminal advertising - at its best and most insidious.

• At no time will the MSM mention, or question, or investigate any adverse drug/vaccine reactions or serious side effects - even when these are already well known, and easily found within the literature of the conventional medical establishment.

So the pharmaceutical industry has no problem advertising their drugs and vaccines in Britain, or anywhere else. In fact this kind of subliminal advertising has a very particular benefit!

When we see an advert for a Ford car we know it is advertised by the Ford Motor Company. It is partial. We know other makes of car are equally good. When we see an Indesit washing machine advertised we know it is promoting a product in order to persuade us to buy one. We know it’s self-interested promotion, and that there are other washing machines available. We can take it, or leave it.

When we see a subliminal advertisement from a pharmaceutical company we don’t realise that the information is coming from a drug company. It's news. Pharmaceutical medicine has done it again. They are ridding the world of illness and disease. We are led to believe that the information is coming from a reputable news source, interviewing independent, disinterested doctors, and patients who  have benefited. It's “good news”; we can all rejoice at this impartial, non-advertising information.

A similar advert within the MSM would cost the advertisers very significant amounts of money. Drug companies are given this subliminal advertising, and it is entirely free. All they have to do is to produce a press release, and to offer up spokespeople who will (be paid?) to corroborate the message. 

This is all Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Moderna, Johnson and Johnson have had to do in order to promote their Covid-19 vaccines. The result is staggering. The majority of people believe they are safe and effective. We have been led to believe they will save and world, and return us to normal life. 

Yet has anyone seen an advert for any of these Covid-19 vaccines?

Indeed, the MSM has done much more than this to promote the Covid-19 vaccines for the drug companies. 

• The MSM was instrumental, alongside government and the NHS, in creating the panic about the virus - a panic that will eventually have to be assessed alongside the seriousness of the pandemic. It was this panic that created an unprecedented demand for the only solution offered against the virus.
• It was the MSM who told us about the solution to Covid-19 - that only vaccines would save us, and return life back to normal.
• The MSM has done all the marketing the drug companies could ever have hoped for.
• And the entire cost has been borne by the taxpayer.
  

So it is unlikely that the pharmaceutical industry will want to rescind the advertising ban of their vaccines and drugs. Why should they? The kind of promotion the MSM has given these drug companies over the last 15 months has been phenomenal. If they had to pay for it would have cost them a prohibitive sum money - for less effective advertising and promotion

 

Covid-19 Vaccines. MSM begins to examine safety, and links with blood clotting

The mainstream media (MSM) in the UK have begun to report on the link between Covid-19 vaccines and blood clots. They have been forced to do so. They can no longer justify telling the public that these vaccines are 'entirely safe' - as they have been doing for months. But welcome as this change may be it needs to be challenged. Let's go over the history of media coverage of these vaccines since they were introduced at the end of December 2020.

• Initially we were told that the vaccines were entirely safe; without reservation or caveat.
• The vaccines would get our lives back to normal.
• Early reports of serious side effects were completely ignored, never mentioned.
  
• As reports of adverse reactions continued to come in they were denied (they were misinformation, fake news, conspiracy theory); even though they were reported by the UK's drug regulator, the MHRA, and published on the official government website.
• Anyone who dared mention them were abused by the MSM as 'vaccine hesitant', 'anti-vaxxers'; their voices were never eard; they never asked to share their views by the MSM; and they were subject to increasing censorship on social media; I was myself banned on both Twitter and Linkedin.
• Then several countries suspended the use of the AstraZeneca vaccine, with blood clots being the cause of concern. The concerns of these countries were dismissed as 'sour grapes', countries whose vaccine rollout was not a 'good' as the UK's. It was an entirely ‘political’ action; it had nothing to do with health.
• Yet the reported links between the vaccines and serious side effects continued to come through; and even the MSM could not ignore the evidence being provided by the MHRA. The MSM have been forced to respond, patient harm had to be addressed.
• It has been addressed in several ways. "There was no proven link". "The numbers were so small". "It was just 'coincidence'" (the patient became ill at the same time as having the vaccine). "All drugs and vaccines had side effects". "These was nothing to worry about".
• Then the MHRA decided that there was a link between the AZ Covid vaccine and blood clotting. So the MSM could no long ignore the information. No-one under 30 were to be given the AstraZeneka vaccine. So there was a link, the conventional medical establishment (CME) had to admit it. But the vaccines still had to be defended - so the public was told that the “benefits of the vaccines outweighed disadvantages”, and we were urged to continue taking the vaccine.

This is where we are now, at the time of writing. It is typical of what happens to pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines - starting life as safe wonder drugs - and as patients in great numbers take them serious adverse reactions are discovered, demonstrating that the drug/vaccine is neither as safe, nor as magical in their treatment of illness. 

The 'disadvantage of the 'benefit'/'disadvantage' equation is the first quiet recognition that the initial claims of drug safety were not true.

The coverage of the MSN has not changed. It still provides the public with the views of the CME, the 'experts' who told us about the safety and effectiveness of Covid-19 vaccines. They were never questioned about this at the time. Now they are not being questioned, called to task, about why they got it wrong. They offer their excuses, and these are never challenged. 

Nor are the critics of the CME approach to vaccines being given any more coverage or credibility. They were right; but they continue to be ignored. Those critics would be telling the public about the gathering evidence about reports of vaccine harm, which continue to appear in the official CHE sources, from the 'experts' themselves, but which continue to be ignored.

The MSM is still not being told the truth by the CME, the so-called experts. And the MSM don't bother to check what they are being told. Nor do they bother to ask anyone who would be prepared to tell them. For instance:

• the problem with Covid-19 vaccines does not begin and end with blood clotting, it goes much further. The MHRA tells us that:

        "The most frequent adverse reactions in trials were pain at the injection site, fatigue, headache, myalgia (muscle pains), chills, arthralgia (joint pains), and fever; these were each reported in more than 1 in 10 people." (My emphasis).

Since the vaccine was rolled out at the end of December 2020, as of 28th March 2021, (about 3 months), "43,491 Yellow Cards have been reported for the Pfizer/BioNTech, 116,162 have been reported for the Oxford University/AstraZeneca vaccine, and 418 have been reported where the brand of the vaccine was not specified."

These are not small numbers. And it does not reflect what the public has been told for the last 3 months, that the vaccines are safe. Yet the MHRA report provides information about the much more serious adverse reactions to the Covid-19 vaccines, including:

• severe allergy, including anaphylaxis.
  
• Bell's Palsy.
• Thrombo-embolic events.
• Death
  

Yes, death; something the MSM has rarely (if ever) mentioned. Both the AstraZeneca and Pfizer vaccines are killing people. This is not an issue just because people are losing their lives - but also because the public are not being told. Do we not need to know? Should we not be told? Ask the government why the public is not being informed. Ask conventional medical experts why they are not telling us, whilst continuing to urge us to get vaccinated. Ask the MSM why they are ignoring the facts, as outlined by the MHRA, the UK's drug regulator, on the official government webpage.

        "The MHRA has received 302 UK reports of suspected ADR;s to the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine in which the patient died shortly after vaccination, 472 reports for the Oxford University/AstraZeneca vaccine, and 12 where the brand of vaccine was unspecified". 

So 786 deaths in the UK, still entirely ignored by the MSM, information kept from the general public most of whom do not read official government websites.

I have watched this figure increase week by week. And week by week people are agreeing to vaccination on the basis that the vaccines are entirely safe - they have never been told otherwise. They certainly don't realise that vaccinated people are dying. They have not been told so they cannot make an informed choice.

It appears that the AstraZenica vaccine is grabbing most MSM attention, but it is difficult to see why this is. UK data, and similar figures in the USA and elsewhere around the world, suggest that this vaccine is no more or less harmful than any other Covid-19 vaccine. All the Covid-19 vaccines are causing serious patient harm, including death. And the public is not being told - by the medical authorities, by government, or by the MSM. Why?

Of course, any mention of 'blood clots' in the MSM is nearly always accompanied with the word 'rare'. This is part of the normal CHE reassurances. The vaccines might be causing blood clots; we might be concerned (if we knew); we might stop giving the vaccine to the under 30's; but don't worry - it is rare. So play the game of Russian Roulette, and hope for the best. And don't think about the fact that only 1% to 10% of drug/vaccine side effects are ever reported - which means that the numbers affected can be multiplied by at least 10, and probably 100. So not so rare, perhaps, but we are still urged to get vaccinated!

The Future - how will this story develop?

So where is this situation heading? On the basis that "the best predictor of the Future is the Past", whenever we predict the future we should learn from the past, in this situation from the history of pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines. If we look at this, what I have outlined above is not new or unusual, it has happened before, time and time again, and it is likely to be repeated here too.

I have written about "The Ages of Drugs" before, describing the decline of the many drugs that start life as ‘wonder drugs’ and which, over the years, become just another failed, ‘banned' drug. Each drug begin life heralded by great claims of conquering disease, overcoming and changing our experience of illness. They all finish their lives when it is decided that cause too much harm to patients to continue using them.

This ageing process is usually slow. The CHE has developed ways of slowing down the process. So the MSM are still talking exclusively to the same pro-vaccine ’experts’, members of the CHE. It is just that in future months the reassurances will sound ever-more hollow to anyone aware of what is happening, or have themselves be harmed by the vaccines.

And those of us who were right about the vaccines, who have been accused of 'misinformation', 'fake news', and 'conspiracy theory' will still be censored. The public cannot hear what we have to say, we excluded from the MSM, and increasingly censored by social media.

What we are witnessing with Covid-19 vaccines is ‘The Age of Drugs’ - the continual drip of information which I predict will ultimately destroy the reputation of these Covid-19 vaccines, and the ill-informed trust the public has in them. 

We have been here before with many other pharmaceutical drugs so there is no reason to believe it will not happen again.

 

Covid-19. BBC News continues to peddle propaganda rather than journalism. The Mainstream Media has failed us completely.

Several homeopathic colleagues awoke recently to a BBC news item on "Fake Covid-19 videos" that "will cost lives". It made us question the quality, and the purpose of journalism in Britain's 'public broadcaster. If you want to hear a short 6-minute piece of rank-bad journalism it is worth a listen. It arose who this.

               "The Royal College of Physicians is urging people not to share and "copycat" "dangerous" videos claiming steam inhalation can prevent Covid-19. The BBC has found that alternative coronavirus treatments are being sent on chat apps like WhatsApp, as well as being widely available on social media."

The video was 'dangerous', apparently, because it did not comply with government policy, or NHS treatment, for Covid-19, or the BBC's editorial policy of not allowing anything to be said or done that does not conform with either.

In truth it was typical of mainstream journalism throughout the Covid-19 crisis, which has been rather like reading/listening/watching the news on Russian newspapers, Izvestia or Pravda whilst growing up in the 1950's. Actually, I never read either paper but I do remember what the BBC, and the rest of the British journalism, said about those news agencies at the time. They were propaganda sheets, controlled by the Russian government, and the Communist party that controlled the government. They were allowed to say only what they were allowed to say. They could not report on anything critical, or question the competence of the government. The Russian people, the BBC said, were not being properly informed. Their journalism was controlled, completely different to 'free press' journalism in Britain.

The news item concerned a video circulating on social media about the treatment of Covid-19. The Royal College said was 'dangerous' because it was stopping black and minority ethic (BAME) communities from taking the new Covid-19 vaccines. This is a perfectly acceptable opinion about the video that suggested breathing in steam was an appropriate treatment. And it is, of course, an opinion shared by the British government, the conventional medical establishment (CME), and (quite clearly) BBC News too.

So how did the bastion of our "free media" deal with the subject? Was this an open and balanced debate? A courteous discussion about a doctor who was suggesting an alternative medical approach to the treatment of Covid-19? Remember (if you need to be reminded) that conventional medicine has had to admit that it had no effective treatment to offer anyone for the last 12 months, during which time over 113,000 people have died.

The piece was nothing of the sort, it was junk journalism, at its very worst. First, the journalist involved, Sima Kotecha, took up a firm and decisive position. It is a stance that has become typical of BBC health reporting: support the side of the dominant player; and attack the side the dominant player disagrees with. So although I am focusing on this one, short, 6 minute piece this is what BBC journalism has been doing for over a year, dealing with Covid-19, and for at least 20 years when dealing with medical issues.

First, the full frontal attack. A video of the doctor was played which showed him advising the inhalation of plain water steam. Immediately alarm bells sounded (literally), and warnings appeared on the screen about 'fake news'. The usual BBC impartiality!

Sima Kotecha then talked to her mother. "You don't believe it, do you?" No, she didn't, but apparently so many other people had received the message. She talked to someone who had tried steam as a treatment, and he thought that it worked. Sima wanted nothing to do with this, and she referred to doctors "around the world" who said steam inhalation was not a preventative measure. He thought that it worked, but he was wrong!

Sima Kotecha then asked three conventional doctors to confirm her view, which of course they did. One opined that such people should be arrested for spreading false news, and false hope. Another said that such messages should be removed from social media. And Sima proudly announced that Facebook had now removed the post, after she had alerted them to it.

So Sima Kotecha spoke to the offending doctor, asking him a loaded question. "Why was he spreading false information?" He tried to explain, but Sima told him that what he was saying was a lie - according to the doctors with whom she had sided, who also told her that he is "doing more harm than good".

So, given such a news item, whose side would you be on? There is, of course, only one answer. The Indian doctor is a charlatan, he is telling lies, and spreading false information. Sima doctors were, of course, speaking the truth, the only truth. 

Was the doctor's approach to breathing steam tested? Was it adequately discussed? Of course not. This was not a news item intended to develop our knowledge, and understanding of the treatment of Covid-19. Sima's doctors, who admit they have no treatment, and have watched on, helplessly, as 113,000 people have died in their hospitals, were correct. There was no treatment, and anyone who said otherwise was spreading misinformation.

And let us not be too critical. Just as with journalists who worked for Pravda and Izvestia, it is not Sima Kotecha's fault. Nor is it Nick Robinson's fault, who hosted the programme. They were both pursuing BBC health policy: support the government: support the conventional medical establishment: and attack anything that might suggest there is an alternative.

• Vaccines are good, and it's important that everyone is vaccinated, including the BAME community who are refusing the vaccine in large numbers,
  
• If there is an alternative treatment it must be dismissed as it might encourage vaccine 'hesitancy', which cannot be supported, and must be attacked.
  

So, unlike the BBC, let's ask a question. Is inhaling steam such a crazy idea? As a young boy my mother would always get me to inhale steam whenever I seemed to be contracting a cold or cough. I think she would put Vic (?) into the water. And are we not aware that Covid-19 virus function better in the cold, and less well in warmth? And that Covid affects mainly our ability to breath?

Another question.... Is steam dangerous? Certainly not in itself! Certainly it is no more dangerous than washing our hands, and less emotionally, socially, and economically dangerous than social distancing and lockdown.

One more..... Why is the BAME community reluctant to accept the Covid-19 vaccines? Is it really thoughtlessness, ignorance, the inability to make up their mind because of the influence on social media videos? Or has it something to do with the failure of conventional medicine to deliver treatment without it causing harm, and more harm to BAME communities?

And yet another. Is there any science to support steam inhalation? Conventional medicine likes to consider itself to be 'scientific'. And medical science is, allegedly, at the heart of BBC's unbounded support for conventional medicine. So where is the science? Has any been done? And if not, why not? Why is the BBC not challenging medical science to do the science? 

And finally, why slag off an Indian doctor who stated that he is only trying to help his patients, perhaps in contradistinction to more conventional doctors who appear content to watch them die, whilst wringing their hands in despair because they have no effective treatment? And is his claim that none of his patients, or his team, has suffered seriously from Covid-19 not worth some consideration?

The role of good journalism is not to support one side of any argument. This is propaganda rather than journalism, particularly when it sides with government and/or the dominant medical establishment. Good journalism is open-mined, it asks questions of both sides, it delves deeper, it investigates, it informs. Unfortunately the BBC, as with Pravda and Izvestia in Soviet Union times, do not appear to be prepared to do this - at least not as far as health issues are concerned.

This is why our mainstream media have failed us over Covid-19. They have not been prepared to question the dominant narrative presented by government and conventional medicine. Instead they have preferred to constantly and unquestioningly repeat their rather hopeless and forlorn message. 

• Why has natural immunity been almost totally neglected? 
• Why has supporting and strengthening our immune system not been central to the advice we have been given to protect ourselves? 
• Why have natural therapists been working in isolation, locked down with the rest of us? 
• What results have they been having with their patients?

The BBC, and the mainstream media generally, have never asked these, and a host of other important and relevant questions. They have sided with a failed, often shambolic government policy, based as it is on a failed medical science, and a dominant medical elite that has always admitted it has no treatment to offer.