The Censorship of Health Information. MSM offers no freedom of speech; no right of reply. Do we still have a free press?

How many people will agree to take the new COVID-19 vaccines when they become available? Estimates vary but one thing is certain, there is widespread 'hesitancy' to do so. Certainly around 10% will refuse the vaccine outright; and perhaps a further 20%, or so, will be 'reluctant' to accept them. And this so-called 'vaccine hesitancy' exists despite the wall-to-wall fear and panic that our 'free press' has generated during this coronavirus pandemic.

Vaccine hesitancy is now under serious attack. The constant and insistent message of the mainstream media (MSM) is that any opposition to vaccines, their safety or effectiveness, is the result of disinformation campaigns, fake news, and conspiracy theories. Vaccines, according to MSM's persistent message, are life savers, and there are no legitimate arguments that can be put forward to say otherwise. So within the MSM (and increasingly on social media too) no freedom of speech (or even thought), and no right of reply. Health Freedom and Patient Choice are not allowed.

On this basis, this blog is part of this disinformation campaign. It is purveying fake news and conspiracy theories. Yet no argument against pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines has ever been used on this platform that is not either:

• the testimony of people who have been damaged by vaccines,
• part and parcel of government information and statistics,
• evidence that comes directly from the literature of the conventional medical establishment.

However, the purpose of this blog is not to justify my particular stance on vaccines. It is to look more closely at MSM censorship, how it is being imposed, and why. I do this in the hope that it will assist the 20% of people who are uncertain to resolve their uncertainty.

WHERE IS THE CENSORSHIP BEING APPLIED?

1. Health is certainly the main area of MSM censorship; and as this blog focuses on health this will be the main focus here. The pharmaceutical industry, the conventional medical establishment, is an immensely strong and influential sector of the national economy.
   
2. Censorship is also evident in other vital industrial sectors of the economy, not least defence, and notably the sale of armaments to foreign governments. Few people will know, for example, that the UK supplies armaments to many parts of the world where there is civil strife, government repression, poverty and human misery - often caused by wars fuelled by the armaments industry. Sometimes, armaments are being sold to both side in a given conflict.
   

These two main areas in which media censorship is applied provides an important clue about the reason for this censorship. All MSM organisations are funded, and owned by, these powerful industrial elites, or people who support and profit by them. And so MSM editorial policy is controlled by them.

A FREE PRESS?

Much is said about our 'Free Press'. Unfortunately it is a fiction. Initially this term was used with regard to government control of the press; and in the main censorship is no longer the governments of western democratic countries that now control the MSM. Instead censorship is being imposed by large, rich, powerful, multi-national corporations, who are keen for us to hear their message, and wherever this is possible, only their message.

THE NATURE OF HEALTH CENSORSHIP IN WESTERN DEMOCRACIES?

No democratic government would now want to be seen controlling the MSM. So, at worst, there is usually only the lightest government control applied; for example, the pressure the conservative government is  applying to the BBC, particularly as the renewal of the BBC Charter is imminent. 

Yet government control is not necessary. National governments are usually funded and supported, behind the scenes, by large industrial corporations, largely through political donations, and the lobbying pressures they can apply. So government interests are usually shared with the MSM; they are mutually compliant; so governments can let powerful financial interests to control what we are allowed to know, and what is to be kept from us. In terms of health there are three basic aspects of MSM censorship.

1. Positive reporting on any news story that is helpful and supportive to the pharmaceutical medical establishment. So pharmaceutical companies write press releases they know will be published in full, usually without critical comment or examination. So new medical treatments are heralded as 'breakthroughs', new drugs are described as 'wonder cures', and vaccines are the only solution to all infectious diseases.
2. The absence of reporting on news that is, in whatever way, unhelpful and detrimental to the pharmaceutical medical establishment. This means that adverse drug reactions are rarely reported. The MSM do not report on serious medical scandals; or if this is not possible, the full impact of the scandal is covered up and/or discounted.
3. Alternative and natural medical therapies, like homeopathy, are ignored; except for when they are being gratuitously attacked and ridiculed. The MSM gives them no voice, there is no reporting of the treatment they can offer patients (even when conventional medicine admits it has no treatment, and patients are dying); and when subject to attack they are given no right of reply.
   

THE MECHANISMS OF HEALTH CENSORSHIP?

Every news organisation has to select the news it reports, and does not report. In doing so every MSM news editor has to be mindful of the interests of the viability of the company, and its relationship to its advertisers, its board of directors, and its shareholders. There will usually be some idea of the 'public interest' of news stories; but these are usually secondary.

So, for example, when the COVID-19 pandemic is reported, the three rules, listed above, are applied, using the following mechanisms. Many readers will recognise these strategies; but for those who don't, observe what is being done from now on in!

• The COVID-19 pandemic could not be ignored, it had to be reported. But the MSM have been careful not to emphasise, or focus on conventional medicine's lack of treatment; or the inadequacy of public health policies, such as hand washing, social distancing, and masks; or the abject and ongoing failure of lockdown policies.
• Any alternative to approved conventional medical policies are largely ignored, mostly on the basis that government policy has been based on medical science, that the science has been proven, and that it is not permitted to question this science.
• Therefore MSM users will not know that there is an alternative to the 'dominant' medical science; for instance, the Barrington Declaration has never been seriously covered; and the open letter from Belgian health authorities; will be unknown to most people.
• Therefore, MSM users will not know that several natural medical therapies have been using their treatments both to prevent, and to treat patients with COVID-19, most notably in India and Cuba.
  
• MSM discussion on all aspects of the pandemic have been, and continue to be conducted with medical experts who selected exclusively for those who support and agree with the dominant medical science. These experts are the only people invited to discuss political policy, medical treatment, and pubic health measures. What this has meant is that a succession of conventional medical experts have been put in front of the public to repeat, and then repeat again, the same political and medical message.
  
• Any medical experts who disagree, in are in any way opposed to mainstream medical opinion, policy and science are studiously ignored. They are not invited to give their opinion, their evidence for their opinion, or to argue their alternative position.
• Members of the public who are interviewed regarding their experience of government or medical policies, for instance, on lockdown, the social and economic consequences, or on vaccination, are carefully vetted. Those who get broadcast should not be too critical; and if they are critical at all they should at the end confirm that they understand, and agree in general terms with what is happening, and why the policy is being imposed.
• So anyone who has contrary, or opposed views are either not interviewed, or their interview is not used. They are given no platform on MSM. And when they seek to express and expound their views on social media the main response of government is to threaten sanctions on social media platforms to remove the content.
• Where there are completely different medical opinions, for example, from the natural medical community stressing the important of natural immunity, their views are either ignored completely, discounted or dismissed as 'disinformation', 'fake news', and 'conspiracy theory'.
• If there is a problem with official policy, for instance, the futility and failure of lockdown policy, or issues about the take-up of new vaccines, more medical experts are brought in to emphasise, and re-emphasise their importance, their safety, their effectiveness, and the necessity for everyone to conform to what they are being told.
• Where there is non-compliance to government/medical policy; where people who not comply with social distancing or lockdown; where there is distress about not being able to visit sick relatives in hospital, or in residential care homes; or attend the funerals of close friends; there is no understanding about the reasons for non-conformity. Instead the MSM attacks people for their 'ignorance'; they have not remained enclosed, isolated, alone in their one bedroom flat, without a garden; they have been too close at the beach on a hot sunny day; and neighbours have reported people who have broken the rules. And these people, who have acted out of frustration, cannot defend themselves because in most cases they do not know what the 'defence' for the actions might be.
  
• Press freedom is not the only victim of what is happening in the MSM. Health Freedom and Patient Choice are also being attacked, undermined, put at risk - without these terms ever being mentioned.
• When it appears that compliance to government/medical policy is not as it should be, there is no discussion about why this is, why people have different opinions, whether they can justify what they are thinking and doing, as might be expected in a 'free' press. Instead yet more experts are introduced to reinforce the dominant message - as if this was not already ingrained in people's minds!
• so the experts are now allowed to put forward views about why it is necessary to pursue health policies that are undermining mental health, social values, and economic well-being; all without any danger of contraction.
• why people should be forced to conform, why they should be heavily fined for non-compliance with lockdown rules; all without any danger of contradiction.
  
• and if people suggest that they will refuse to have the vaccine, they are accused of succumbing to misinformation, fake news; so vaccination should be made mandatory; all without any danger of contradiction.
  

MSM censorship, their abject refusal to operate as a free press, has two main consequences

1.  Up to 70% of the population are living in a world dominated that MSM fear and panic; in the belief that 'there is no alternative', on the basis that government, medical science, and the MSM, are informing them fully and honestly about what is happening. They are not. They are unable to engage in debate because they do not believe there is a debate to be had. They cannot make an informed choice because they are not had the information they need to enable them to make a choice. So they do what they are told, they comply, the conform.
2. Up to 30% of the population watch this going on, and they recognise that censorship is happening around them.
   

• They eat their food, rich in vitamin C, and take their vitamin C supplements; and whilst doing so they question why people are not being advised to protect themselves by doing likewise.
• They sit in the sunshine, soaking up the vitamin D; and wonder why others are not being advised to do the same thing.
• They take their homeopathic remedy, they wish other people were aware of the powerful protective ability of the remedy to avoid infections.

And this 30% know the mainstream media is not telling the truth about health, certainly not the whole truth. So does the MSM tell the truth about armament sales? Or indeed about anything else?

It must be doubtful.

And the 30% have relatives, friends, and work colleagues; they talk to them on a regular basis; and they listen; and will understand; they are not hearing the truth from the 'experts'.

"What Doctors Don't Tell You" magazine is under attack - because doctor's don't want you to know!

Please would you note the date this blog was originally published! 

October 2013! 

Nearly 10 years ago!

Amazingly, after all this time, Blogger has now seen fit to censor it! It contains, I was told today (16th March 2023) "sensitive material"!

Please read it, and see if there is anything written here that is untrue. The WDDTY magazine is still being published, but the campaign to remove it from the shelves of newsagents was eventually successful. Which makes the latter part of the blog out-of-date! Read through it to find any 'hate' speech - you won't find any in this blog, or any other blog that I have written since 2009!

WE LIVE IN AN AGE OF CENSORSHIP; a censorship community that Blogger has apparently now joined.

I am disappointed, but not entirely surprised. Pharmaceutical medicine is to powerful, too wealthy to criticise. Big Pharma controls the mainstream media, and no doubt Blogger is now dancing to their tune.

I will not, and cannot change the content of this blog.

Within 10 minutes of challenging this decision by Blogger, the post has been reinstated.

However, the entire incident confirms that no-one can, or should, have any confidence about anything appertaining the conventional/pharmaceutical medicine; and that media organisations are now quite willing to breach our freedom of speech, and freedom of information - given enough 'incentive' to do so by the pharmaceutical industry.

I thank Blogger for reinstating this post; but have to inform them that I no longer trust them, and can no longer believe that they can be trusted to allow the public to be informed about the harm being caused to patients by conventional medicine.

The magazine "What Doctors Don't Tell you is coming under attack - for daring to tell us things doctors are refusing to tell us!

To prevent a magazine being sold by pressurising distributors not to sell it is a major threat to our freedom of speech, and in particular, to our health freedom.

Please read the article - it shows just how 'nasty' the conventional medical establishment has become, how opposed it is to safe, natural treatment, and the steps they will take to ensure their medical monopoly is maintained.

AND WHEN YOU GET TO THE END, PLEASE WRITE IN SUPPORT OF THE DISTRIBUTORS, AS REQUESTED.

The WDDTY wars: why they don’t want you to read all about it Two days ago we woke up to find ourselves and our magazine What Doctors Don’t Tell You the subject of a national scandal. On Tuesday October 1, the Times ran with an article about how there was a ‘call to ban’ our journal What Doctors Don’t Tell You over ‘health scares’. The original Times article alleged that a group of ‘experts’, including ‘scientists, doctors and patients’ were ‘condemning’ shops for carrying our magazine, The article also said that we’d claimed that vitamin C ‘cures’ HIV, that homeopathy could treat cancer, that we’d implied the cervical cancer vaccines has killed ‘hundreds’ of girls and that we’d told parents in our latest (October 2013) issues not to immunize their children with the MMR. The Wright Stuff on channel 5 quickly followed suit with a television debate, flashing up a picture of me, Five Live followed up with a television debate about our magazine.  By Thursday, when the Press Gazette were onto it, the headlines had escalated to:  ‘Warning that claims in alternative health mag could prove fatal.’ In all of the furore, not one of the newspapers, radio shows or television stations bothered to contact us, even to solicit a comment – which is Journalism 101 when you intend to run a story on someone, pro or con. It’s also apparent from the information published in The Times and in all the media following that not one journalist or broadcaster has read one single word we’ve written, particularly on the homeopathy story, and for very good reason: the article and the magazine containing it in fact have not yet been published. Here is what the Times said, and here is what we actually published: The Times stated: we said vitamin C cures HIV.   We had written: “US internist Robert Cathcart…devised an experiment with around 250 inpatients who tested positive for HIV.  In a letter to the editor of The Lancet, he wrote that his regime of giving oral doses of vitamin C close to “bowel tolerance” had “slowed, stopped or sometimes reversed for several years” the depletion of an HIV patient’s CD4+ cells. The Times says we tell parents not to immunize their children with the MMR. We interviewed – and simply quoted – a medical doctor called Dr Jayne Donegan, who had carried out her own research into the MMR, and concluded that a child with a strong immune system shouldn’t have the vaccine.  This was the considered view of Dr Donegan, not us. We were simply quoting her. The Times says we said that we implied that the cervical cancer vaccine has killed ‘hundreds’ of girls’.  We had said that, up to 2011, the American Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System had received notification of 68 deaths and 18,727 adverse reactions to the vaccine. The figure has now risen to 27,023 events. The Times said we referred to a study in India in which girls had died following the vaccine but had not mentioned that one girl had drowned and one died from a snake bite. We said that seven children died and 120 suffered debilitating side effects so bad that the trial was stopped following protests from parents, doctors, public health organizations and health networks.  The Times also omitted to mention that, in 2010, an official Indian government report discovered huge lapses in the study’s design, which resulted in gross under-reporting of serious side effects. The Times said that we ‘suggest homeopathy could cure cancer’.  In the ‘Coming Next Month’ column in our October issue we wrote the following (and this is all we wrote: ‘The US government has carried out impressive studies into homeopathy as a treatment for cancer, and a clinic is India is actually using it. We report on their findings about homeopathy as a cancer treatment.’ The Times story - and all the stories that follow -  are entirely the work of Simon Singh, and his organization Sense About Science, a protracted skirmish that’s been going on for about a year, ever since we went launched our magazine in September 2013.  Singh, you may know, is the self-proclaimed guardian of all things ‘scientific’ with the pharmaceutically backed organization he fronts, ‘Sense About Science’. Singh contacted our distributor, and then all our outlets (like Smiths and the supermarkets) and tried to persuade them to stop carrying us (they refused).  He then relentlessly pestered the Advertising Standards Association with complaints about our advertisers, to try to prevent them from advertising. Singh is also associated with the Nightingale Collaboration, a ragtag group who meet in a pub of the same name, also allegedly wedded to ‘true’ science. After our launch, dozens of anonymous trolls began writing hateful and fairly libellous stuff on our Facebook pages. Last autumn the Guardian ran an online story claiming that our distributor was threatening to ‘sue’ Singh (they are not and never have threatened, nor have we).  We also got ‘interviewed’ by a Glaswegian doctor named Margaret McCartney, also associated with Singh, who writes for the BMJ. Recently, a doctor called Dr. Matthew Lam began contacting supermarkets, and informing them that he was calling for complaints to be made to customer service teams at all the supermarkets who carry us.  He said he was spearheading this campaign with Singh, McCartney and Alan Henness of the Nightingale Collaboration. Please allow me to join the dots. Sense About Science publishes online as its sponsors the British Pharmaceutical Association, the official trade body for the UK’s drug companies.  Another one of its sponsors is The Guardian. The next interesting aspect of this episode is the sheer hypocrisy of News International, which published the original story about us. That company, which owns The Times, is owned by the Murdoch organization. The Murdoch organization also owns HarperCollins.  HarperCollins published three of my books, including a book entitled What Doctors Don’t Tell You, a culmination of many years of research for WDDTY the newsletter. Harper liked the book so much they published it twice, first in 1996 after paying a team of lawyers at Carter-Ruck, the UK’s top libel firm, to spend hundreds of hours of legal time carefully sifting through all of the scientific evidence supporting statements I made in the book to ensure the material was rock solid. It was only published after they were satisfied that every last statement was correct. WDDTY was a bestseller for Harper – so much so that they asked me to update it and published the new version in 2006.  It’s also been an international bestseller, currently in some 20 languages around the world. At one point, I was also a columnist for the Times and ran a story highly critical of the MMR vaccine. Besides being a demonstration of how shoddy journalism has become, what interests me about this episode is that it offers evidence of the enormous shift that has occurred in the press’s notion of its role in society. The Times seems to be suggesting that their role is to ‘protect’ the public by censoring information that departs from standard medical line. Determining what is fit for public consumption, or indeed how its readers should treat their illnesses, is emphatically not a newspaper’s job – ours or anyone else’s. Our job as journalists is simply to inform – to report the facts, even when they are inconvenient truths, as they are so often in medicine, particularly with such things as vaccines or alternative cancer therapy. For despite all the grandstanding and pink ribbons and prettily turned phrases, the fact remains that the whole of modern medicine’s arsenal against cancer  is both blatantly unscientific and ineffective.  When not manipulated, the bald statistics reveal that chemo only works 2 per cent of the time .The War on Cancer from the orthodox perspective is decisively being lost. Nevertheless, hundreds of thousands of people are being cured by other methods of cancer treatment. Millions of others who have cancer or whose loved ones have cancer want to know ways to treat cancer that are less dangerous and more effective. That qualifies as news, and it’s our duty as the press to report that.  It’s my job to deliver well researched information, and that’s supposed to be the Times’ job too. Several months ago, I met Patricia Ellsberg, the wife of Daniel Ellsberg.  Back when I was a student, deciding whether or not to be a journalist, Ellsberg, an employee of the CIA, came across hundreds of pages of documents revealing America’s shameful role in the Vietnam war. Ellsberg felt this was news and it was his duty to leak these papers to the New York Times.  The Times felt it was their duty to publish these revelations, these inconvenient truths.  Then President Nixon attempted to censor these leaks by attempting a legal embargo on The Times – a blatant attempt at government censorship. The Ellsbergs (faced with life imprisonment – was anybody ever so brave?) turned on a photocopy machine, made multiple copies and leaked the documents to the Washington Post. And when Nixon went after the Post, the Ellsbergs smuggled the papers to 17 other newspapers.  Not one paper blinked.  Not one paper decided this information wasn’t fit to print – or that the public needed to be ‘protected’ from a lying presidency. But these days, the press – far less ‘free,’ now largely owned by huge corporations, including in the pharmaceutical industry (Murdoch’s son was on the board of one such drug company) – has now become the party with powerful vested interests to protect. Today the press is the Richard Nixon of the piece. Back when the NY Times was publishing The Pentagon Papers and the Washington Post published the Watergate disclosures, newspapers wouldn’t be caught dead being associated with some industry backed body, especially one with the track record of carnage enjoyed by Big Pharma, as the Guardian now is. But today newspapers are haemorrhaging money, and so have to have industry backing and its consequent influence. The public, which wants the truth, knows this and rejects this industry public relations by boycotting newspapers.  Presently, the Guardian is losing £100,000 a day, and the Times is losing £80,000 a day.  People don’t believe newspapers anymore. They know they have to go elsewhere for their news. That’s why they come to publications like ours. As Deep Throat once told Woodward and Bernstein, when they were investigating Watergate:  If you want to find out the truth, just follow the money. If you’d like to support WDDTY and a free press, and you haven’t yet voiced your support of the stores for stocking the title, let the following Customer Service departments know: WH Smith Customer.Relations@WHSmith.co.uk Sainsbury’s customerservice@sainsburys.co.uk Tesco customer.service@tesco.co.uk And with the weekend coming up, show your support by buying a copy.  It’s available in Tesco, Sainsbury’s, WH Smiths, and over 8000 independent retail outlets. And you can subscribe through www.wddtysubscribe.com