Covid-19 Vaccines. Increased Illness and Death since their introduction. Misinformation? Cause for concern? Or a matter for the attention of conventional medical authorities?

The increase in illness and death since the Covid-19 vaccine roll-out has been widely publicised in the non-mainstream media in recent months.

Is it true?

The mainstream media, alongside governments and the conventional medical establishment either do not mention this, or dismiss such reports as "fake news" or "misinformation".

Yet is it misinformation? And is calling such reports 'misinformation' a sufficient response?

At the centre of this 'disinformation' campaign has been the Daily Expose, and here are just four links to some of their recent claims.

Covid-19 Vaccines increase risk of miscarriage by 1518%

Covid-19 Vaccines: study shows they have increased risk of stroke by 11361% 

Death rates are higher after mass vaccinations

Covid-19 increase risk of death by 4800%

Each article refers to data that has been taken from government and official medical sources, and the statistical analysis of this data has been undertaken by Daily Expose staff. It is not alone. There are many other such reports, coming from the Children's Health Defense, the White Rose, the Daily Sceptic, the Vaccine Reaction, and many others.

So is this all about statistics? - "Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics"?

I am not a statistician, and in all honesty statistics usually leave me cold. So what am I, indeed all of us, to believe? Several thoughts pass through my mind when I see these, and similar articles. 

• It could be disinformation, like governments, medical authorities, and the mainstream media tell us.
• It could be the application of an inaccurate or misguided statistical analysis. 
• Or it could be the truth. 

Yet to determine whether such reports are factor fiction, we would all need to have an advanced degree in statistics in order to examine the methodology that is being used! The only other alternative is to decide, like most other people do, that it would be simpler to dismiss these alarming reports as 'misinformation', to meekly accept what we are being told - and get on with it.

I don't believe we should do this. Instead, I recommend using certain other criteria to ascertain the truth.

First, we should "follow the money". Who gains from, what are the vested interests behind, both sides of this argument? 

• The 'misinformation' response is clearly in the interests of the conventional medical establishment, not least the drug companies, and those those who have been promoting, and benefiting from the promotion the mass vaccination campaigns. 
• It is more difficult to see how the Daily Expose benefits, financially or in any other way, from publishing this information. They are small, independent news organisation with a relatively small readerships. They are not large companies that generates large sums of money and income from such reports, their findings are not profitable.

So let's examine the 'disinformation' response in more detail. Why is it disinformation? Why should it be summarily dismissed? 

And it is when I ask these questions that I become sceptical of the 'misinformation responses  of the conventional medical establishment - it is not an argument - it is not backed up by an explanation - or by any discernable counter argument. Just dismissing something as 'disinformation' seems to be nothing more than an uncorroborated statement of denial.

When faced with evidence/allegations that the Covid-19 vaccines have caused serious harm to people there appears to be little (actually no) explanation or argument coming from either the pharmaceutical industry, the government, conventional medicine, or the mainstream media, about why the evidence is 'misinformation'. 

• Is the data being used incorrect or inaccurate?
• And if so, why?
  
• Is the statistical analysis being use to reach these conclusions flawed? 
• And if so, why?
  
• Or do we just have to believe that it is "misinformation" because we are told it is misinformation!

When something like a vaccine, or any other pharmaceutical drug, is subject to criticism or attack an appropriate response would be to counter this with information and evidence. Instead, we are greeted with a deafening silence; and if not silence, with a single-word dismissal.

Disinformation!

The Covid-19 Pandemic. How can the disinformation be stopped? If there is a dispute how can we determine who is correct? "Follow the money"?

Controversy surrounds the Covid-19 Pandemic; and whether we like it or not, the controversy continues, and will continue - unabated.

In most of the world it is a medical matter. In the USA it has also become a political matter. So let's examine both sides of this equation, and see if there is a simple way of determining which side of the argument is "Following the Money", and which side is more interested in health outcomes.

• On one side there is the well known "narrative", promoted by government, conventional medicine, and the mainstream media (MSM): that the virus is deadly; that it is a threat to everyone; that millions of people have died, and are dying of it; that there is no medical treatment for it; that washing hands, social distancing, the wearing of masks, test and trace, and lockdown are the only effective responses to it; that ultimately only Covid-19 vaccines will save us from the virus, that it is essential for everyone to accept the vaccine, and that it is anti-social for anyone to refuse to be vaccinated.
• On the other side there are the arguments that the 'narrative' dismisses and describes as "misinformation": that Covid-19 is not a pandemic; that people are dying 'with' it, not 'of' it; that innate and natural immunity is more effective than vaccines; and that vaccines are causing serious patient harm. In this respect, the 'misinformation campaigns' accuse the official narrative of "information blight" - that is, that information  has been censored, that people are not been properly or accurately informed about what is really happening.
  

So how does "following the money" help us to differentiate between these two polar extremes, and what they are arguing for? Let's do an analysis on this basis.

The virus is (or is not deadly), a threat to everyone alike.

If Covid-19 is a deadly virus, and can strike down anyone at anytime, people will be concerned, fearful, willing to do anything to protect themselves, and so ready to accept whatever treatment is offered to them. Fear of the virus has been one of the major means for selling not only medical treatment, even to the most reluctant patient, but the loss of freedom and liberty that this has entailed.

However, if Covid-19 is not such a deadly virus, if it will not effect everyone, then people will be less concerned, less willing to accept the need for medical treatment, or the loss of freedom and liberty this entails. The absence of fear will sell less medical treatment, patients will be more reluctant to accept it.

• The 'narrative' is better designed to sell pharmaceutical vaccines.
• It is uncertain that the 'misinformation' agenda is selling anything.
  

Millions of people have die, and are dying, of the Covid-19 virus

A similar argument can be used here, that is, the more people we believe to be dying, the more medical treatment (vaccines) can be sold. Therefore it is in the interests of pharmaceutical medicine to emphasise, even exaggerate, the number of deaths being caused by the virus. Hence, mortality has been counted in a way that have exaggerated the deaths caused by the virus, that is, anyone who tests positive for the virus, and dies within 28 days of that test, is automatically assumed to have died of the virus.

The 'misinformation' agenda has pointed out, from the early days of the pandemic, that initially the government, medical authorities, and the MSM accepted that deaths being attributed to Covid-19 were actually people with "serious underlying health conditions". In other words, the death count included those who died "of" Covid-19, and those who died "with" it. It no longer mentions this.

• Again, the 'narrative' is better designed to sell pharmaceutical vaccines.
• The 'misinformation' agenda appears to be selling anything.
  

There is no treatment for Covid-19

During the early days of the pandemic conventional medicine admitted that there was "no treatment" for the virus. This further exacerbated the fears the virus generated. There was no protection. This statement was undeniably true, although only if a single word was added. There was no conventional medical treatment for the virus. The lack of effective treatment also contributed to the fear of the virus, and over time, increased the demand for, and people's willingness to take, any treatment that was to be offered later.

The "misinformation" campaign (if it ever had a single voice) pointed to our immune system, that this was capable of protecting people from the virus, and that medicine should be placing more emphasis on supporting and strengthening the innate and natural immunity that we all had. 

• The lack of conventional medical treatment increased public fear, and thereby people's willingness to accept the 'narrative', the loss of jobs and livelihoods, the loss of social intreraction, the damage to our emotional lives, and the loss freedom and liberty, etc., and ultimately, of course, to take the vaccines that we were being told would be our only salvation.
  
• The problem the disinformation argument, when it focused on the immune system, was that it did not sell anything - except perhaps for a few more oranges, some exercise footwear, and some exposure to the sun. 
• Natural therapists, homeopaths, naturopaths, nutritionists, acupuncturists, et al, always placed natural immunity at the heart of their treatment. But this was not allowed within the narrative. Natural medicine was never mentioned, nor was any mention allowed. The therapists, by and large, merely got on with their work with their patients, who had in most part accepted the 'misinformation' message of their therapists.
  

Public Health Measures

The narrative placed its emphasis on public health measures, hand washing, social distancing, the wearing of masks, test and trace systems, and lockdown. They were important, not least to people with a 'compromised' immune system, and they offered conventional medicine an excuse: they may have no treatment, but at least something, however damaging, was being done.

Those people plying "misinformation" however were arguing that whilst these measures were important for some immunocompromised people, people with strong natural immunity should continue leading their lives normally, keeping social life and the economy moving.

• During the lockdown periods the narrative told people that vaccines were on the way, and might be available within a short time. It emphasised that these vaccines would save lives, provide 90% protection, and return life to normal very quickly. It was, therefore, a lengthy promotion campaign for the Covid-19 vaccines.
• The misinformation message pointed out that the measures being adopted by government, on the advice of conventional medicine, was caused damage to business, industry, social life, mental health, and family relationships. Other than having an interest to maintain normal life, whilst protecting the immuno-compromised, it was not selling anything.
  

The Introduction of Covid-19 Vaccines 

The ultimate message of the pandemic narrative was that only Covid-19 vaccines could save us from the Covid-19 virus, that only vaccination would protect us, and return us to normal life. So experimental vaccines were quickly rushed to the market, and offered immediately to the most vulnerable. 

• Drug companies are notoriously reluctant to develop new drugs and vaccines, unless and until they know there are large profits to be made. The Covid-19 vaccines were developed, tested, approved, and came to the market within a year of the start of the pandemic, and it was the official narrative, the promotion of vaccines as the means of returning to normal life, that paved the way for their widespread acceptance.
  

• Those people spreading 'misinformation' were concerned that the vaccines had been introduced too quickly, that they were insufficiently tested, and therefore it was not possible to ensure their effectiveness and safety, and to properly protect the public. They warned of the potential harm that might be caused to those who accepted the vaccines.

The Roll-Out of Covid-19 Vaccines

Once the vaccines became available the narrative engaged in a frantic programme of sales promotion. It was quick to point out that it was essential for everyone to accept vaccination; indeed, it promoted the novel ideas that it was anti-social for anyone to refuse to be vaccinated as this would put vaccinated people at risk. We were told that a double vaccination was required, and that this would give people 95% protection from the virus.

The die-hard spreaders of 'misinformation' continued to offer caution, that the vaccines were 'experimental' and had not been properly tested. They wanted to slow, even to stop the roll-out of the vaccines until they were properly tested; and for doing so they were were roundly condemned for continuing to resist the narrative.

• The narrative has been hugely successful in persuading the larger majority of people to accept the Covid-19 vaccines. These vaccines are proving to be a very profitable enterprise for the companies involved in their manufacture and distribution; and the medical staff who put the vaccines into the arms of patients.
• The 'misinformation' campaign was not trying to sell anything, nor was it paid by anyone for its views, or its advice. It gained no financial advantage to from opposing the vaccines. Its only interest, from the beginning, was patient safety, and the use of innate and natural immunity to deal with the virus.
  

Reports of Serious Adverse Reactions to the Vaccines

The Covid-19 vaccines were rolled out very quickly, supported by the official narrative. However, national drug regulators soon began to publish reports of serious adverse reactions to the vaccines, including a large and growing number of deaths. It was important that the official narrative censored this information. It was, after all, the reason for most people accepting the vaccines. Moreover, the vaccine manufacturers had insisted on government giving them immunity from prosecution for any patient harm caused by the vaccines. 

So the drug companies had ensured their own safety; but it meant that the public should not know about the serious adverse reactions being caused by the vaccines. If people knew it would almost certainly restrict future vaccine sales. 

For its part, governments would have realised that they had assumed liability for any patient harm caused by the vaccines, so it was in their interests to avoid the public getting to know about them.

So the narrative was not changed. Adverse vaccine reactions have not been mentioned by government, the conventional medical authorities, or the MSM - except on a few occasions when it could not avoid doing so.

• The official narrative continues to censor information about adverse vaccine reactions. They were not good for the promotion and sale of the vaccines. The public would not be told. Medical authorities would discount the seriousness of the reports. The MSM would not question or investigate what was going on. So most people would never know; and the profitable vaccine roll-out could continue, unabated.
• The 'misinformation' campaign continued to threaten the sale of the vaccines, and drug company profitability. It has remained largely unheard. It was not speaking for any vested interest.
  

Information Blight

The peddlers of misinformation did see the growing number of adverse vaccine reactions in the official reports by national drug regulators. They had the audacity to insist that the public should be warned about them, without realising what this information could do to vaccines sales, and drug company profitability. They continued to criticise the government's narrative, the lack of concern of conventional medical authorities (who either denied or discounted the reports of patient harm), and the refusal of the MSM to inform the public, or challenge the government, or the conventional medical establishment. 

Indeed, the misinformation campaign began to talk about information blight, and claimed that their message was being censored, dismissed without justification as 'misinformation'. Their message was not conducive to selling vaccines, or indeed to the reputation of government, the honesty of conventional medical authorities, or the professionalism of the MSM. 

So they had to be stopped. They were spreading their misinformation through social media, so it was important that social media organisations, like Facebook, Instagram, Linkedin, YouTube, Twitter, et al., had to be brought into compliance with the official narrative. They must begin to censor the disinformation that was threatening the roll-out of profitable vaccines, and risking the standing of government, public health bodies, and the MSM, alike.

The Need for Boaster Vaccination

The misinformation campaign had been right it's opposition to safety of the Covid-19 vaccines. Then it became apparent that the Covid-19 vaccines were not as effective as previously promised by the narrative. Vaccinated people were going down with the virus. The virus was actually 'spiking' in the most highly vaccinated countries (Israel, Iceland, Singapore, and others). 

Suddenly the narrative was telling us that a 'boaster' vaccine was necessary. Again, follow the money! This was not because of the disinformation - that the vaccines were ineffective. A boaster was necessary. Better still, perhaps an annual injection might be necessary. And the narrative would pave the way to the acceptance of this new awareness. 

This would, of course, increase the sales of the vaccines, whilst at the same time hiding the ineffectiveness of the vaccines. If the vaccine was to be given annually in future this would certainly be ideal for the profitability of the pharmaceutical industry.

Yet the misinformation peddlers continued to suggest the Covid-19 vaccines were not effective, that if they were failing to stop vaccinated people contracting the virus, or to stop vaccinated people passing the virus on to other people, in what way could they be considered useful? Again, vaccine misinformation was putting vaccine promotion in serious jeopardy.

Vaccine Mandates and Health Passports

Vaccine passports were the ultimate goal of the narrative, and the financial prize for the pharmaceutical industry, and the conventional medical establishment generally. The passports would ensure that more people could be cajoled, obliged, forced to take the vaccines if they wanted to continue their employment, and their social life. The  narrative framed them within the guise of 'public health', but they would greatly boast pharmaceutical sales. After all, the vaccine passports would need to be kept up-to-date: first the double dose; then the 'boaster' shots; then annual top-ups - all deemed necessary in order to qualify for the passport. Moreover, other vaccines could be added in time. And then pharmaceutical drugs for other illnesses too. The introduction of vaccine mandates, and health passports was prove to be an unprecedented commercial coup d'etat for the drugs industry.

The 'misinformation' campaign, in contrast, continued to talk about personal liberty, patient choice, health freedom, even mentioning the Nuremberg Trials, and other concepts that made absolutely no money for anyone!

So when we "follow the money", does the narrative, or the disinformation campaign have most to gain from the Covid-19 pandemic? It's really not such a difficult question! Is it?

Covid-19. How do we sort "information" from "misinformation" from Government Propaganda from vested Pharmaceutical interests? Or is 'Big Brother' in control?

There is a complexity of information coming through, mainly on the internet, about the origins of the Covid-19 virus, the seriousness of the pandemic, and the safety and effectiveness of the new Covid-19 vaccines. I have given links to some of the more recent information I have seen below - just an example of the questions that are being raised. 

But first, I want to consider the reason for doing so, and particularly to ask the questions we all need to ask about each one of these links, and why they are being ignored, or dismissed as 'disinformation by government, the medical establishment, and the mainstream media (MSM).

By sharing these links, I suspect I will be accused of peddling "misinformation" and perhaps even censored now by social media.

My general concerned about this situation are as follow:.

• Do all these articles constitute "misinformation", or "fake news"? Are they to be routinely dismissed in this cavalier way, with examination or investigation?
• Why is the official information, provided by government, the medical establishment, the MSM, and now Social Media, so monotonously identical?
• How can the general public distinguish between what is "real information" and what is "misinformation"? Can they rely on what the government, the medical hierarchy, and the MSM tell us? Is it telling us the whole truth?
  
• Indeed, why does government, the medical establishment, and the MSM routinely dismiss any article that is even critical of their message?
• Why is the general public not being informed about the reasons WHY these, and similar articles, are considered to be "disinformation"?
• Why does the MSM not investigate such articles in order to discover whether they are true, and if false, tell us about the reasons they have arrived at this decision?
• Why does the MSM, who like to describe themselves as 'the free press', never investigate or report to us any information that is contrary to the message of government, and the conventional medical establishment?
• Does the MSM believe that the only information the public is allowed to have is the information that government, and the conventional medical establishment, wants us to know? If so, is this the proper role of a 'free press' within a democratic society.
• Why are people who are 'vaccine hesitant' dismissed out of hand, and abused as being over-influenced by 'fake news' and 'misinformation', and never given a voice.

Does it not all sound a little like "BIG BROTHER"?

As someone who has always questioned what I am being told, particularly when it is the message of  powerful governments and big, influential corporations, I wonder why the information in these articles are either being ignored, or never mentioned, or if mentioned just dismissed "disinformation" without any reasons being given. 

In the past I have always noted that such a strategy has more to do with the propaganda of powerful and influential vested interests, commercial and political groups who don't want to be questioned, and have sufficient control to avoid questioning. It is a strategy that has more to do with partial propaganda, or cover-up than it is good government, or good health care provision, or good journalism. So let's have a look at just a few of the articles that are being ignored, and dismissed as 'misinformation'.

Investigation links Fauci to controversial experiments that may have led to Pandemic

• Has this investigation been investigated? Did it happen or is it misinformation? Why does the MSM not discuss it's findings, notably that the origins of the virus came from a USA funded Chinese laboratory? Has anyone questioned Fauci about the allegation, has he been asked to respond?
  

Why Covid-19 vaccine testing is a farce

• Is it true that the control group in vaccine tests were given another vaccine rather than a placebo? Can this allegation be confirmed? Why has there been no investigation? Why has the MSM debated the criticism of vaccine testing, why has this been ignored, why have we not been told? Is it really misinformation?
  

UK (Government) Data show 402 reports of deaths following Covid-19 vaccines

• Does this data exist? If so why has government not informed us? Why has the medical establishment not responded, what is their view about what happened? Why has the MSM not investigated or told us about this data? Is the failure to do so the result of it being 'misinformation', or is it a medical cover-up?
  

Numbers of injuries reported to CDC after Covid-19 vaccines climbs by nearly 4,000 in one week.

• Is this true? This is an official USA government body so surely it can be verified? Yet it has not been mentioned by any official governmental, medical or MSM channel. Why is this? If it is true can the vaccines be described as "safe"? Are patient outcomes not a matter of public concern?
  

Tanzanian government skeptical about safety of Covid-19 vaccines

• Is it sceptical? What is the basis of the scepticism? Why are the reasons for scepticism dismissed as 'misinformation' rather than forming a basis for discussion about vaccine safety?
  

Whistleblower. 25% of residents in German nursing home died after Pfizer vaccine.

• Is this true? Can the story be corroborated or not? Why has the news, true or false, not been made public? Why has there been no official mention of this, or even a denial? Is it sensible that we just believe it is 'disinformation'? Are older people in residential and nursing homes safe? Do we need to know what is happening?
  

Israeli Health Ministry. Pfizer vaccine killed "about 40 times more elderly than the disease would have killed"

• Is this true? Can the information be verified? Why has there been no investigation by MSM? Why have they not mentioned this claim? Has this information just been dismissed as disinformation? Is this not something the general public should be told about?
  

Surgeon dies weeks after Covid-19 vaccination of multi-organ system failure

• This should be easy enough to substantiate? Did the surgeon die? Was the vaccine the cause of his  multi-organ failure? Why is this not reported by the MSM?
  

 Man dies 25 minutes after getting Covid-19 vaccine in New York?

• Can this be substantiated? Did the man die? Was the vaccine the cause of his death? Why is this not reported by the MSM?
  

Elderly man dies shortly after receiving Covid-19 vaccine....

• Is this correct? Did the man die? Was the vaccine the cause of his death? Why was it not reported by the MSM?
  

Why is death after Covid-19 vaccination always assumed to be coincidental?

• Is it? I have seen several deaths discounted by doctors as being 'coincidental' to the vaccination. Is it appropriate for MSM not to question the medical authorities about the link? Is it not important to investigate whether people are dying after taking the vaccine? Why are deaths not being reported? Is there a cover-up going on that the public needs to know about?
  

Stats on Covid-19 vaccine injury and death don't add up

• Why is this? Why are all the concerns about numbers not being examined and discussed? Why is government and medical information never questioned by MSM, but routinely accepted without any questioning?
  

Coronavirus Fact Check. Why are 'new cases' plummeting?

• Are 'new cases' plummeting? And is the reason given in this article correct? Does the claim need to be examined and discussed? Or is it disinformation? And why is the general public not being told, one way or another?

Twitter to permanently ban users who spread Covid-19 misinformation

• So which of these internet articles, if  'spread' on this blog, will result in followers of Twitter, and other social media platforms, being banned? Who makes the decision about what is, and what is not misinformation? Why is social media meekly following government, the conventional medical establishment, and the MSM, in not allowing discussion of these issues?

So before I get de-platformed by social media for referring to these articles, or further abused by the MSM for not automatically accepted what I am being told, perhaps they would have the professional integrity to answer these questions. It is undemocratic not to do so. It is against what we are supposed to believe about personal liberty, individual freedom, free speech and the freedom of information. This is not just about these particular articles, but the many other reports that question, or are critical of how we are being informed about the virus, the pandemic, and the way governments are dealing with it, and the unwillingness of the MSM to respond to it fairly and equitably.