Solid writeup. Another element that is just as bad (if not worse) is the stealth edit of information. I'm thinking of NY times articles where they change what was written w/ no attribution/notes/whatever. As well as when the CDC changes the definition of words like immunity and vaccines. You can also see this in dictionary.com type sites where they change the definition of words like racism. Impossible to communicate accurately when the same word means different things to different people. maybe that's the goal.
Unfortunately, the gaslighting of vaccine critics goes back to Jenner, and while we have lived with this all our lives it took on a new dimension in 2017 when Seth Berkeley the director of GAVI - the vaccine industry alliance - called in on-line Spectator for “anti-vaxxers” to be excluded from social media in effect meaning all criticism the industry, policy or products (which certainly makes sense if you are the industry but ought to seem absurd for society at large). Also, of course, this was being espoused by politicians of all shades - notably Boris Johnson - before Covid.
What was not evident to a lot of people who ought to have known better was that this was the lynch pin of a strategy to tag the world’s population by ruthless globalist racketeers who are also after the contents of your bank account.
World Economic Forum: "You'll own nothing, and you'll be ...
This is a powerful reason why the Canadian government’s treatment of its citizens - closely allied as it is with the WEF - should send much greater shock round the world than Putin annexing Ukraine as Western governments foment trouble there, except of course that thanks to the complicity of the legacy media almost no one is aware of it.
One further thought is that if you lose the say of what is injected into your body and the state can inject what it wants when it wants and it happens at the behest of global racketeers or people like Trudeau, Biden, Macron, Johnson, Ardern, Morrison etc then this is a peculiarly terrifying and unsatisfactory situation…
This last paragraph is an example of distortion and misinformation by itself.
People can control what is or isnt injected into their body. There is no global conspiracy though this claiming one exists is the last resort of the ignorant.
Universal mandatory vaccination is unenforceable. What IS enforceable are laws and restraints for people who REFUSE vaccination and assert the right to
spread disease to anyone and anywhere they please (i.e. refuse to make, refuse to socially distance, object to vaccination passes, etc.)They are socially irresponsible. Anyone refusing vaccination to curb disease spread must face
CONSEQUENCES, just as those who run red lights, drive drunk, steal, rape,
murder or commit crimes face them. So anti vaxxers do have freedom of choice! But there is no free lunch. You cant defy the rule of law (or even civil society practices) and go scott free. Freedom does not allow freedom to
deprive others of their lives, health and property. This reaction is just another
example of blind uninformed rebellion that asserts the rights of the individual to be put before the rights of others and society. This is anarchy, nothing less, and based on irrationality and ideology, not on logic, reason or science .
The mRNA vaccines do not curb disease spread. Whether or not I am vaccinated is no more your or the government's business than whether or not I get a colonoscopy. When you catch Covid, it will not matter whether you got it from a vaccinated person or an unvaccinated person.
And Austria did indeed attempt universal mandatory vaccination, until the facts on the ground (Omicron, the "natural vaccine" that, according to Bill Gates, will "sadly" end the pandemic) caused them to reconsider.
The reality is that many people face both coercive measures and lack of informed consent - informed consent is in fact impossible since even the data which has accumulated is substantially embargoed, while Paul Thacker’s work exposes the manufacturer’s cynical attitude to truthful trial data - even what’s in the product is controversial. Even more absurd the mandates are for a product against a virus which ceased to exist many months ago - this is purely about compliance with a regime and not about a disease. We do not understand why governments are pushing this but we also cannot see what is in the contracts. Lorna insists that people can control what goes into their bodies but obviously they cannot if they have to starve, lose their home, services etc. They may be able to resist for a bit but the outlook is bleak.
What we are creating are the conditions for unlimited state abuse of the individual, in which the state can inject you with what it wants when it wants and without proper accounting for what is in it or what it will do, can prevent you having employment, can seize your savings, prevent you expressing opinions, monitor your every movement, beat you to a pulp for peacefully protesting, incarcerate you in your own home or in camps, farm your organs and execute you. This is where you go once you begin to surrender civil liberties and your freedom to control what goes into your body is critical.
Last time people tried to force experimental interventions we declared it crime against humanity and I executed a bunch of them, but continue to educate us how it's totally different this time.
Misinfo and Disinfo are words used to try to justify censorship by calling it something else. Censorship is akin to fecal matter. One can call it perfume but that doesn't change the smell.
I am a journalist who wrote an article on my age discrimination blog about the obscene amount of money the AARP earns by licensing its name to various products and services. I showed how the AARP has become a philanthropic entity, contributing to D.C. arts organizations (that have nothing to do with older Americans), black women's sororities, road races, etc. The article disappeared down a black hole. It was throttled. I had fewer readers than I normal after I published it! I have no idea how they did it. I consider this to be a form of censorship.
Notably absent even from the articles that agree the WIV engages in bioweapons research is the information the US has channeled funding to it for "gain of function" bypass research for same.
Thanks for this valuable article. For a long time I have been trying to point out the dissembling nature of the term “misinformation”. The term “misinformation” covers information which is not necessarily false but which powerful interests do not want people to know - people are warned against misinformation as something which will harm them, and indeed in a totalitarian societal context it very well might: this has been creeping for years and is now suffocating us - catastrophic events in Canada which can barely be mentioned, let alone accurately explained, in the legacy media are the latest manifestation. It is good at least that BMJ is making a limited attempt to address the issue and it may be interesting to recall my on-line letter to it 15 May 2019:-
An appeal to authority is not the same as an appeal to knowledge
I read the article by Martin McKee and John Middleton [1] with dismay, and ask what sense there can be in the fundamental attitude that all opinion favorable to vaccine products is correct (apparently by virtue of being favorable) and all opinion unfavorable to vaccine products malicious. The world they describe is very far from one I am familiar with. In the world I see people share bona fide information on-line, obtained from official sources, scientific articles, Patient Information Leaflets etc. And by ordinary standards they have a right: these are materials which belong in the public domain. I have never encountered anything on the web which plausibly could be identified as state misinformation or espionage about vaccine (it may occur in some territory of cyberspace which I have never visited): what we are talking about by and large is material which is well sourced, but not necessarily favorable to the industry and its apologists. Most troubling is that it is impossible to verify McKee and Middleton's claims that people are spreading false information, let alone deliberately. As with anything there must be some level of error but I am very far from sure that this is the main problem: what I see is people pasting and linking to materials of genuine concern, and which is not being addressed by our governments or officials. However much they may want to marginalise such data under the rubric "the benefits greatly outweigh the risks" or even the grandiose "vaccines are safe" a lot of it is not trivial.
Earlier this year I was lamenting with McKee the "hidden power of corporations" and concluded my short letter with comment [2,3]:
"But still we do not learn. Readers might like to view the list of the CDC Foundation corporate partners (motto: "Together our impact is greater") which includes the Coca-Cola Company but also virtually every other major corporation, and every major pharmaceutical company ... At least Coca Cola was not supposed to improve your health."
Neither has the World Health Organization been historically above suspicion [4], and I have written about problems with measles data over a number of years [5-10] . Whatever the concerns about the spread of measles it should not be at the expense of truth.
I could write at much greater length but what we should have is not an "information war" but an honest discussion about the limits of science and knowledge, and decent respect for people who report harm, rather than the hostility which seems to be the currency. This way we will progress.
[1] McKee & Middleton, 'Information wars: tackling the threat from disinformation on vaccines',
[9] John Stone, 'Re: Measles cases rise 300% globally in first few months of 2019 - how long is a piece of string?' , 17 April 2019, https://www.bmj.com/content/365/bmj.l1810/rr
“I could write at much greater length but what we should have is not an "information war" but an honest discussion about the limits of science and knowledge, and decent respect for people who report harm, rather than the hostility which seems to be the currency. This way we will progress.“
Yes, of course, I cannot remember now where my thoughts were running at the time but I did leave lots of references. 2019 was the year in which the the WHO were turning up the pressure - “the vaccine hesitant” were named in a new year document as a threat to world health.
The more optimistic side of me feels that those who seek and speak truth will provide enough of a floatation device to keep open scientific inquiry above water long enough for a meaningful cultural shift to occur, or new institutions to form.
The more despairing part of me, in contrast, feels like we are witnessing a civilization sink into a bizarre technicoloured abyss. A sort of swirling kaleidoscope of nonsensical hedonism and shallow tribalism where we either no longer know what shared objective "truth" even means or don't care to know.
I don't think he is referring to those, since probably no one is taking hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin against their will. Also, they are known to be very safe, so probably not so experimental.
Solid writeup. Another element that is just as bad (if not worse) is the stealth edit of information. I'm thinking of NY times articles where they change what was written w/ no attribution/notes/whatever. As well as when the CDC changes the definition of words like immunity and vaccines. You can also see this in dictionary.com type sites where they change the definition of words like racism. Impossible to communicate accurately when the same word means different things to different people. maybe that's the goal.
Yes. The other obvious one is "anti-vaxxer" which was expanded in the last couple of years to also mean "opposed to mandates."
Unfortunately, the gaslighting of vaccine critics goes back to Jenner, and while we have lived with this all our lives it took on a new dimension in 2017 when Seth Berkeley the director of GAVI - the vaccine industry alliance - called in on-line Spectator for “anti-vaxxers” to be excluded from social media in effect meaning all criticism the industry, policy or products (which certainly makes sense if you are the industry but ought to seem absurd for society at large). Also, of course, this was being espoused by politicians of all shades - notably Boris Johnson - before Covid.
https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m3099/rr-5
https://www.ageofautism.com/2019/05/who-is-misinforming-british-politician-makes-a-fool-of-himself-attacking-social-media.html
What was not evident to a lot of people who ought to have known better was that this was the lynch pin of a strategy to tag the world’s population by ruthless globalist racketeers who are also after the contents of your bank account.
World Economic Forum: "You'll own nothing, and you'll be ...
Search domain youtube.comhttps://www.youtube.com › watch?v=ER04dbt5p74
This is a powerful reason why the Canadian government’s treatment of its citizens - closely allied as it is with the WEF - should send much greater shock round the world than Putin annexing Ukraine as Western governments foment trouble there, except of course that thanks to the complicity of the legacy media almost no one is aware of it.
One further thought is that if you lose the say of what is injected into your body and the state can inject what it wants when it wants and it happens at the behest of global racketeers or people like Trudeau, Biden, Macron, Johnson, Ardern, Morrison etc then this is a peculiarly terrifying and unsatisfactory situation…
This last paragraph is an example of distortion and misinformation by itself.
People can control what is or isnt injected into their body. There is no global conspiracy though this claiming one exists is the last resort of the ignorant.
Universal mandatory vaccination is unenforceable. What IS enforceable are laws and restraints for people who REFUSE vaccination and assert the right to
spread disease to anyone and anywhere they please (i.e. refuse to make, refuse to socially distance, object to vaccination passes, etc.)They are socially irresponsible. Anyone refusing vaccination to curb disease spread must face
CONSEQUENCES, just as those who run red lights, drive drunk, steal, rape,
murder or commit crimes face them. So anti vaxxers do have freedom of choice! But there is no free lunch. You cant defy the rule of law (or even civil society practices) and go scott free. Freedom does not allow freedom to
deprive others of their lives, health and property. This reaction is just another
example of blind uninformed rebellion that asserts the rights of the individual to be put before the rights of others and society. This is anarchy, nothing less, and based on irrationality and ideology, not on logic, reason or science .
The mRNA vaccines do not curb disease spread. Whether or not I am vaccinated is no more your or the government's business than whether or not I get a colonoscopy. When you catch Covid, it will not matter whether you got it from a vaccinated person or an unvaccinated person.
And Austria did indeed attempt universal mandatory vaccination, until the facts on the ground (Omicron, the "natural vaccine" that, according to Bill Gates, will "sadly" end the pandemic) caused them to reconsider.
A moment of silence, please, for poor Mr Gates.
The reality is that many people face both coercive measures and lack of informed consent - informed consent is in fact impossible since even the data which has accumulated is substantially embargoed, while Paul Thacker’s work exposes the manufacturer’s cynical attitude to truthful trial data - even what’s in the product is controversial. Even more absurd the mandates are for a product against a virus which ceased to exist many months ago - this is purely about compliance with a regime and not about a disease. We do not understand why governments are pushing this but we also cannot see what is in the contracts. Lorna insists that people can control what goes into their bodies but obviously they cannot if they have to starve, lose their home, services etc. They may be able to resist for a bit but the outlook is bleak.
What we are creating are the conditions for unlimited state abuse of the individual, in which the state can inject you with what it wants when it wants and without proper accounting for what is in it or what it will do, can prevent you having employment, can seize your savings, prevent you expressing opinions, monitor your every movement, beat you to a pulp for peacefully protesting, incarcerate you in your own home or in camps, farm your organs and execute you. This is where you go once you begin to surrender civil liberties and your freedom to control what goes into your body is critical.
That last paragraph is just fear mongering and absolute rubbish. You are a well known antivaxer.
All ad hominem, no argument - once you concede that amount of power to the state there is no way back https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m3099/rr-5
Last time people tried to force experimental interventions we declared it crime against humanity and I executed a bunch of them, but continue to educate us how it's totally different this time.
It's always totally different this time.
Misinfo and Disinfo are words used to try to justify censorship by calling it something else. Censorship is akin to fecal matter. One can call it perfume but that doesn't change the smell.
I am a journalist who wrote an article on my age discrimination blog about the obscene amount of money the AARP earns by licensing its name to various products and services. I showed how the AARP has become a philanthropic entity, contributing to D.C. arts organizations (that have nothing to do with older Americans), black women's sororities, road races, etc. The article disappeared down a black hole. It was throttled. I had fewer readers than I normal after I published it! I have no idea how they did it. I consider this to be a form of censorship.
https://www.agediscriminationinemployment.com/aarp-donates-to-groups-with-no-apparent-link-to-aging/
When I worked on the Hill in Senate Finance, we ran a couple different AARP investigations. They are incredibly shady. https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/aarp-suspends-marketing-and-sales-limited-coverage-health-plan-response-grassley
Great interview on Attkisson!
Thanks. I was a bit close up in the camera, however.... : )
Notably absent even from the articles that agree the WIV engages in bioweapons research is the information the US has channeled funding to it for "gain of function" bypass research for same.
But I think that has only become clear since around June. It took awhile to get through all the denials and disinformation put out by the NIH.
Thanks for this valuable article. For a long time I have been trying to point out the dissembling nature of the term “misinformation”. The term “misinformation” covers information which is not necessarily false but which powerful interests do not want people to know - people are warned against misinformation as something which will harm them, and indeed in a totalitarian societal context it very well might: this has been creeping for years and is now suffocating us - catastrophic events in Canada which can barely be mentioned, let alone accurately explained, in the legacy media are the latest manifestation. It is good at least that BMJ is making a limited attempt to address the issue and it may be interesting to recall my on-line letter to it 15 May 2019:-
https://www.bmj.com/content/365/bmj.l2144/rr-0
An appeal to authority is not the same as an appeal to knowledge
I read the article by Martin McKee and John Middleton [1] with dismay, and ask what sense there can be in the fundamental attitude that all opinion favorable to vaccine products is correct (apparently by virtue of being favorable) and all opinion unfavorable to vaccine products malicious. The world they describe is very far from one I am familiar with. In the world I see people share bona fide information on-line, obtained from official sources, scientific articles, Patient Information Leaflets etc. And by ordinary standards they have a right: these are materials which belong in the public domain. I have never encountered anything on the web which plausibly could be identified as state misinformation or espionage about vaccine (it may occur in some territory of cyberspace which I have never visited): what we are talking about by and large is material which is well sourced, but not necessarily favorable to the industry and its apologists. Most troubling is that it is impossible to verify McKee and Middleton's claims that people are spreading false information, let alone deliberately. As with anything there must be some level of error but I am very far from sure that this is the main problem: what I see is people pasting and linking to materials of genuine concern, and which is not being addressed by our governments or officials. However much they may want to marginalise such data under the rubric "the benefits greatly outweigh the risks" or even the grandiose "vaccines are safe" a lot of it is not trivial.
Earlier this year I was lamenting with McKee the "hidden power of corporations" and concluded my short letter with comment [2,3]:
"But still we do not learn. Readers might like to view the list of the CDC Foundation corporate partners (motto: "Together our impact is greater") which includes the Coca-Cola Company but also virtually every other major corporation, and every major pharmaceutical company ... At least Coca Cola was not supposed to improve your health."
Neither has the World Health Organization been historically above suspicion [4], and I have written about problems with measles data over a number of years [5-10] . Whatever the concerns about the spread of measles it should not be at the expense of truth.
I could write at much greater length but what we should have is not an "information war" but an honest discussion about the limits of science and knowledge, and decent respect for people who report harm, rather than the hostility which seems to be the currency. This way we will progress.
[1] McKee & Middleton, 'Information wars: tackling the threat from disinformation on vaccines',
BMJ 2019; 365 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l2144 (Published 13 May 2019)
[2] John Stone, 'Re: The hidden power of corporations', 23 January 2019, https://www.bmj.com/content/364/bmj.l4/rr-3
[3] https://www.cdcfoundation.org/partner-list/corporations
[4] John Stone, 'Fear of the disease is not a reason for confidence in the product...', 21 March 2019, https://www.bmj.com/content/364/bmj.l1259/rr
[5] John Stone, 'Re: MMR, measles, and the South Wales Evening Post' 4 May 2013, https://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.f2598/rr/644022
[6] John Stone, 'Re: Measles: Europe sees record number of cases and 37 deaths so far this year', 6 September 2018, https://www.bmj.com/content/362/bmj.k3596/rr-24
[7] John Stone, 'Re: Measles: Europe sees record number of cases and 37 deaths so far this year', 11 September 2018, https://www.bmj.com/content/362/bmj.k3596/rr-29
[8] John Stone, 'Information and Misinformation: the Global Health Security Agenda' 5 March 2019, https://www.bmj.com/content/364/bmj.l981/rr
[9] John Stone, 'Re: Measles cases rise 300% globally in first few months of 2019 - how long is a piece of string?' , 17 April 2019, https://www.bmj.com/content/365/bmj.l1810/rr
[10] John Stone, 'Re: Measles cases rise 300% globally in first few months of 2019', 23 April 2019, https://www.bmj.com/content/365/bmj.l1810/rr-3
“I could write at much greater length but what we should have is not an "information war" but an honest discussion about the limits of science and knowledge, and decent respect for people who report harm, rather than the hostility which seems to be the currency. This way we will progress.“
Well said! Please write at much greater length.
Yes, of course, I cannot remember now where my thoughts were running at the time but I did leave lots of references. 2019 was the year in which the the WHO were turning up the pressure - “the vaccine hesitant” were named in a new year document as a threat to world health.
The more optimistic side of me feels that those who seek and speak truth will provide enough of a floatation device to keep open scientific inquiry above water long enough for a meaningful cultural shift to occur, or new institutions to form.
The more despairing part of me, in contrast, feels like we are witnessing a civilization sink into a bizarre technicoloured abyss. A sort of swirling kaleidoscope of nonsensical hedonism and shallow tribalism where we either no longer know what shared objective "truth" even means or don't care to know.
Thanks a another great piece Paul (I think 😝).
ukrainegate.info nice summary of Bidens' corrupt rule in Ukraine (found the link in Comments – never seen it before)
https://ukrainegate.info/short-part-1-a-not-so-solid-prosecutor/
What "experimental interventions" today are you referring to? The prescribing of
hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin to Covid patients?
I don't think he is referring to those, since probably no one is taking hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin against their will. Also, they are known to be very safe, so probably not so experimental.
"2003 and 20016" looks like an extra 0 crept in there.
Viruganda is already censorship and kills by Coercion of hacksxxxine from big Harma