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

 

BBC News. The subliminal advertising of vaccines, free vaccine promotion, measles scaremongering, and mandatory drugging

The BBC is the most ardent and effective promotors of pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines.

The BBC's promotion of vaccines and measles scaremongering reached new heights of dishonesty and notoriety yesterday (25 April 2019). The story was covered in much of the British mainstream media, but not with the wall-to-wall coverage made possible by the BBC's continual news and current affairs coverage throughout the entire day. It left their editorial guidelines (accuracy, impartiality, not causing harm or offence, fairness, and independence from external interests) in tatters.

The story the BBC told us throughout the day is simple. It is the tale of the powerful Conventional Medical Establishment, including the NHS, medical science, politicians and government. I do not intend here to go into detail of yesterday's BBC's coverage - beyond outlining these highlights (or lowlights) of the case the BBC made.

• There are epidemics of measles occurring around the world
• Measles is a terrible killer disease
• Measles has been controlled by vaccines since the 1960's
• Too many children are now not being vaccinated
• It is unvaccinated children who are now contracting measles
• Parents who don't vaccinate their children are misguided and misinformed
• Vaccines are entirely safe, medical science has proven this
• No child has ever been hurt of damaged by vaccines
• Anti-vaccine websites are largely to blame for low vaccine take-up (and should be shut down)
• The nonsense 'herd immunity' theory was promulgated
• Homeopathy was attacked, several times, without the right to reply
• Vaccines should be made mandatory

Those who put forward these arguments were exclusively a selection of politicians, government spokespersons, senior NHS officials, conventional doctors, and a parent of a child who had allegedly suffered from measles. They all of whom supported the BBC's position.

No-one who might have challenged any of the above arguments or assertions (all highly challengeable) were asked to give their views. Nobody who disagreed with any of the BBC's arguments were interviewed, but they were abused in their absence.

Worse, without any exception, BBC journalists and presenters vehemently supported these arguments, often pushing the people interviewed to express themselves more aggressively. On the early morning Today programme, one spokesperson from NHS England was criticised by Nick Robinson because she contradicted Simon Stephens, CEO of the NHS, who had earlier emphasised how serious the situation was. She did not believe it was quite as serious as he had suggested. Nick Robinson was clearly in total exasperation with this contradictory idea. He was clearly not looking for discussion, and just asked her to give 'her view' about how important vaccination was for children. She complied, and a little later the Secretary of State for Health was asked to comment on this 'difference of view'. He came down firmly on Nick Robinson's side. It was indeed a deadly serious situation, he confirmed.

This is typical BBC journalism. I have commented on the BBC's refusal to take part in a real health debate many times (do a search on 'BBC' above to find all my previous blogs on the BBC's coverage of health issues), and so I no longer expect any objectivity or fairness in their news coverage.

The main point I wish to make here is that the BBC (a public services broadcaster which is not supposed to involve itself in advertising) is providing the pharmaceutical industry with many hours of free and uncritical advertising.

Moreover, it is subliminal advertising. Most people would not have recognised or understood what they were hearing to be advertising, yet it would still have had a strong and powerful influence on peoples views on the safety and efficacy of pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines.

We are used to advertising. We know when a car, or a washing machine, or a washing-up liquid, (or anything else) is being advertised. We can recognise that what we are being told is promotional, part of selling a product. But not in this situation. No-one from any pharmaceutical company had to say a word. The companies who manufacture and profit from the MMR vaccine were not interviewed, and did not have to pay a penny in order to promote it!

This was all done for them, by BBC journalists, by conventional doctors, by the NHS, by government and politicians.

So to many people this was not advertising - at least not as most people know and recognise it! This is not a car maker, or washing machine manufacturer, or a detergent company selling its wares. The promotion was being done by independent people with no obvious connection with drug companies. This was a news story, and there was no obvious promotion of pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines.

These 'independent' people were telling us that pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines are good, necessary for us all, essential for good health. There were no obvious vested interests - so surely what we are being told must be right. 

Moreover, no-one was arguing against anything that the BBC was saying. Anyone who might have put forward a different view were not interviewed, whilst at the same time, in their absence, their reputation was being routinely undermined!

The primary purpose of this particular day of subliminal advertising soon became obvious. If people could not be persuaded about the rightness of vaccination, if parents continued to refuse to have their children vaccinated, they would have to be forced to do so.

• Mandatory vaccination. 
• Forced medication. 
• The end of any pretence of health freedom, or patient choice 

And perhaps another casualty - any idea that 'press freedom' is alive and well in this country, that indoctrination is a thing of the past, that the public is being properly informed, and that patients have all the information they need to make an informed choice about the medicine they want to use for themselves, or their children.