A Health Debate: "disinformation", "anti-vaxxer", "conspiracy theorist"

Twelve years ago I wrote a series of 7 article that argued we needed a serious health debate. The problem in having such a debate, since then and before, has been that one side, the Pharmaceutical Medical Establishment (PME), has not wanted to take part in any such discussion. And since the so-called Covid-19 pandemic their refusal to engage has been considerably worse.

Instead the PME has done its best to close down all discussion on important health issues. One of its principle weapons to end debate has been the simple strategy of using certain dismissive words/phrases - such as "disinformation", "anti-vaxxer", "conspiracy theorist", et al.

All these terms are used to stand down discussion on the basis that the best form of defence is attack! The best way of avoiding discussion is to disparage and dismiss anyone, and everyone who disagrees with you.

Essentially, this position happens mainly when one side of an argument, usually the dominant side, but which, for whatever reason, is losing the argument. Why risk a discussion when it might risk undermining the power dynamic, the status quo? It happens regularly, for instance, when a politician, ahead in the polls, refuses to debate with an election rival. It happens when an employee asks an employer for a raise.

Yet it has become commonplace within the field of health, dominated by an immensely powerful pharmaceutical industry. Why should the medical establishment want to risk its dominance? Why should it waste time on anyone who has the audacity to suggest that their drugs and vaccines are neither "safe or effective"? Why should they engage with anyone who suggests that diet and exercise are more important than popping their pills? And there is certainly nothing to gain from speaking to anyone who believes in natural medical therapies, like homeopathy.

So shut down discussion by dismissing all such people who are spreading "disinformation", "anti-vaxxers", or "conspiracy theorists". End of argument, end of discussion.

One ongoing problems is that whilst these terms are used by an elite they are picked up by those who have a closed mind, or those who do not want to consider anything outside what they are being told. Conventional wisdom rules! Leave things as they are. We are busy people, we have other matters to deal with. Those in power must surely know best; they are the experts.

Perhaps the use of "conspiracy theory" is the worst of these repudiating terms. After all there are some very peculiar, even laughable conspiracy theories, ranging from the Flat Earth Society, to Holocaust denial, to fake moon landings, to the assassination of J.F. Kennedy, and the destruction of the twin towers in 9/11.

Yet if and when we come across any of these alleged conspiracy theories it is incumbent upon each of us to consider them, and make up our own minds about their validity. We should not dismiss any one of these, completely out of hand! We should examine the evidence, we should listen to both sides of the argument and reach our own conclusions. This is what intelligent, informed people do.

This is especially important when it comes to health issues. Whether the earth is flat, or the Holocaust did not happen, etc., etc., they are not relevant to our day-to-day lives. They may be interesting, but they are not of immediate concern to our future lives. Health is relevant to each one of us, right now, today, tomorrow - and the medical treatment that we are offered and accept can have a devastating affect on our future wellbeing.

The PME has been telling us for over 200 years that their drugs and vaccines are “safe and effective”, that they have overcome, even vanquished many former 'killer' diseases. Indeed, in the last 4-5 years we have been pummelled with these argument regarding the Covid-19 virus. It was a dangerous pandemic that would kill millions, only the vaccine could save us, and then only if we all took it. And no contrary view or argument being allowed to interfere with the pharmaceutical narrative.

So much of what most people believe and understand about health, and medical treatment, comes entirely from pharmaceutical promotion, and this system of medicine's very specific approach to health. Alternative views are not well known or understood, not least because neither government, conventional medicine, or the mainstream media, are prepared to discuss them with us.

For most people, the health debate is just not happening. The pharmaceutical message reigns supreme, largely unchallenged, dismissed as "misinformation". 

And this at a time when national health services, around the world, are being "broken" by unprecedented epidemics of chronic sickness and disease.

The result is that all our politicians can think of doing is to throw yet more money at the same, old, failed pharmaceutical medical treatment!

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".

VACCINES. Disinformation? Fake News? Conspiracy Theories? Or is it Uncovering a Cover Up?

In my last blog I discussed the censorship of health news by the mainstream media (MSM). This censorship can be seen, in its clearest manifestation, in their attitude towards vaccines and vaccination. The MSM, alongside conventional doctors, routinely tell us that vaccines are 'entirely safe' and extraordinarily effective. Any one who disagrees with this position is accused of spreading disinformation, fake news, and conspiracy theory. Yesterday, Andrew Marr interviewed the man behind the new Pfizer COVID-19 vaccines for his BBC programme, and described him as "the saviour of the world" - or words to that effect!

As someone who is convinced that vaccines are both unsafe (positively dangerous in fact), and have an effectiveness that is consistently over-hyped by the MSM, the MSM presumably consider me to be an "anti-vaxxer". 

By contrast, I consider myself to be someone in favour of SAFE MEDICINE. 

Disinformation? Fake News? Conspiracy Theory? Or Conventional Medical Literature?

I will give readers of this blog a guarantee. The information that will be used in this blog about the safety and effectiveness of vaccines (and pharmaceutical drugs, and all conventional medical treatment generally) will come mainly from these two sources.

1. The literature of the conventional medical establishment itself; including Patient Information Leaflets (PILs), and websites owned by pharmaceutical interests, such as Drugs.com. Patients should never agree to any vaccination without first reading the PIL; and most of these PILs can be found on this website. Read the side effects for yourself, and then decide if the vaccine is safe.
   
2. Vaccine compensation schemes for the few patients who have been able to prove that damage to their health has been caused by vaccination. These include the UK's Vaccine Damage Payment scheme; and the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program in the USA. Both schemes pay out enormous sums of money for people who have been damaged by 'safe' vaccines.
   

So conventional doctors tell us routinely that vaccines are safe. Yet the literature of conventional medicine, and the medical science it says underlies it, is sufficient to prove otherwise. Vaccines are harmful, many more people are damaged every year who cannot prove the link. And yet our doctors tell us they are safe; they are not telling us the truth.

In addition, I will report on evidence that appears on social media that conventional medicine should take seriously, investigate thoroughly, and come to a conclusion - but which is usually ignored or rejected outright without investigation.

1. Evidence that comes from vaccine victims; patients who have taken them, been damaged by them, have had their lives changed for the worse; and have not been believed by conventional medicine. Such links are usually dismissed by conventional medicine as 'anecdotes', with no causal effect proven; but real-life tragedy for families.
   
2. Investigative journalism, studies and reports of vaccine concern that have not been properly investigated, or which are  being discounted or dismissed by the conventional medical establishment. Two examples of these, concerning vaccines, and already in my in-tray, are as follows:

Lawsuits begin over SARS-CoV-2 Laboratory Leak. This concerns the persistent rumour that the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic was a leak from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, the Wuhan Center for Disease Control, and the EcoHealth Alliance. An application for information from the National Institute of Health made by the US Right to Know organisation was met with silence. 'Conspiracy Theory' is one thing; refusal to provide information in response to a legitimate request for information is another, and is suggestive of a cover up. It is our right to know this information.

Flu Shot Deaths in South Korea said to be 'coincidental'. More than 80 people have died in South Korea following influenza vaccination. This was investigated by South Korean health authorities who dismissed this as 'coincidence', and decided to contine promoting the vaccine "despite public anxiety'. One death following vaccination might be a coincidence; even two; at a stretch three. But dismissing 80 deaths as a 'coincidence' is not a satisfactory response.

In both these examples, people are looking only for the truth; a reasonable explanation; some semblance that genuine concerns are being considered, and a determined and rigorous application of the precautionary principle. Silence (ignoring the issues), and dismissal (discounting the importance of the issue) is insufficient. As long as the conventional medical establishment responds to genuine concern in this inadequate way people will be dissatisfied, patients will ask questions, and expect reasonable answers.

Disinformation? All that's necessary, then, is open access to the real information.

Fake News? If so, all that's required is access to the real news.

A Conspiracy Theory? Or is it really about uncovering a Cover Up?