Disease-mongering AKA Fear-mongering

Fear-mongering is a form of manipulation which causes fear by using exaggerated rumours of impending danger. It is used by many but often those who use this manipulation don't know they are being played by an insidious industry who hire some of the most ingenious marketing teams in the world.

Unfolding in the UK at present is a manipulation, make no bones about it.

England, Scotland and Wales have pre-ordered a product, they did so based on what scientists told them. That product has to be used by a certain date, in as much in the same way as the food you buy in the supermarket does. It was not purchased under 'sale or return' terms.

When all goes to plan, the product rolls out, in this instance the vaccine (even though it's not actually a vaccine I will use this term to avoid confusion)

The initial fear-mongering started with the Chinese media. How can we forget the images of the streets of Wuhan and also surrounding hospitals with citizens laying dead on the floor. The whole world saw those images - they were meant to. Unbeknownst to many this was probably the second phase which had been triggered by a disease escaping from a laboratory in the Hubei Province. There are still some that argue this isn't true and that it came from an infected Pangolin or Bat purchased, or indeed handled, in a wet market, ironically situated in the capital of the Hubei Province, Wuhan.

Any mystery surrounding a virus leak gives the real origins of the virus valuable time. Whilst everyone was focused on the Wuhan wet-market, the players could cover their tracks so to speak. It's a bit like hearing the police want to interview you for a crime you committed, you hear this second-hand so it gives you time to find a reliable person who will lie for you (an alibi)

The virus coming from inside a lab was, at first, deemed conspiratorial. Sky News Australia's documentary, 'What Really Happened in Wuhan', put the conspiracy theory slur to bed when it premiered in Australia on Sep 28, 2021

The lab leak was Phase 1, prior to the leak there would have been plans put in place as one has to prepare for all possibilities.

Disease-Mongering

Phase 2 was the daily media coverage - this needed to be out there 24/7. Cast your minds back to early 2020. You were around the TV soaking it all up, right? The 24/7 coverage showed us all the images coming out of Wuhan. Citizens, we were told, were keeling over in the streets and dying. Wuhan residents, we were told, were being confined to their own homes, in some instances the media told us many residents were being boarded up in their own homes. This gave us the illusion that this deadly virus was our worst nightmare come true.

Next Slide Please

There is nothing more powerful that images to spark a reaction. The body plummeting from one of the Twin Towers, the young immigrant boy washed up on a beach, the man lying dead on the street in Wuhan whilst being surrounded by men in Hazmat suits 

Nothing more powerful, right. This virus is real, it's killing people and now, according to whatever news media you followed, it's here.

Images like the one above had to be shown, as did much of the video footage in Wuhan hospitals. If footage wasn't shown then compliance would have been much more difficult to sell.

But sell it they did and we were all soon locked down in our homes - and what did we all do during those initial lockdowns? Well, we tuned in to fear, our human voyeurism wanted to take a look inside the window of each UK county - who were being responsible, who were ignoring the social distancing rules that had been implemented?

Well, our voyeur instincts were quenched by Prof. Chris Whitty who, just like the mainstream media had done in Phase 2, used imagery to reel in the viewers. It was bad in North East England but no so bad in South West England. There were a rise in cases in Merseyside but a fall in cases in Wiltshire. It all made for great theatre, it also caused a divide. (Phase 4)

The Great Divide

University of Illinois history professor Peter Fritzsche wrote the book “Hitler’s First Hundred Days - When Germans Embraced the Third Reich". In it, he highlights how in the spring of 1933, Germany became a one-party dictatorship. This whole process, according to Fritzsche, took just 100 days. Here's part of the blurb from his book:

"Fritzsche examines the events of the period — the elections and mass arrests, the bonfires and gunfire, the patriotic rallies and anti-Jewish boycotts — to understand both the terrifying power the National Socialists exerted over ordinary Germans and the powerful appeal of the new era they promised."

Sound familiar?

From the get-go we have been told we need to help flatten the curve by washing out hands, social distancing and staying indoors. This, we were told, would, in essence, make the virus go away. The 'science' behind this, we were told, was robust. We all watched as the daily death toll was announced on TV, not only in the UK but in Europe too where Italy and Spain seemed to be taking the brunt of deaths, particularly their elderly residents. It was harrowing TV. Slowly but surely news was coming out that the elderly in the UK were dropping like flies, it was all very grim indeed and, we were told, we had a vital role to play in keeping away from our elderly relatives. We, for the most part, complied.

The curve eventually flattened, we know this because Prof. Chris Whitty showed us images. It was, indeed, great news. Alas, the great news soon turned sour as the curve began to rise again. Something else was needed to help flatten it.

Vaccines

And here we are today. Promises were made with the vaccines - two jabs and the curve will flatten, the NHS won't be so under pressure, the elderly will be protected. At every corner we were being gently massaged - we would be rolling our sleeves up to protect others, not really to protect ourselves...but it does protect you as well, we were told. What we wasn't told, from the get-go, was the actual truth. You can still transmit the virus after two jabs and you can still fall foul of the virus. People, in the main, seem to have forgot that.

The scientists advising the decision-makers are, once again, painting a bad scenario with the newest strain of the virus, Omicron. We are now seeing a repeat on our TV screens and news resources of what happened when the original virus broke, allegedly from an infected Pangolin or Bat. The fear-mongering has been ramped up again but many have had enough. Constant calls for mandates are making the natives restless - the govt and their advisors have been fully aware of this, in fact, they were probably fully aware of any outcome before Phase 1 kicked in to action.

Now, we are told, restrictions will be placed on people who don't comply. Non-agreeable citizens of Australia, Germany, Austria, Greece, and Canada are having revolvers pointed in their direction - if you don't comply, you will suffer as a result, not because of the 'Pangobat' virus, but we, as your leaders will make it tough for you. Celebrities have joined in, announcing on their weekly chat shows or column inches that the unvaccinated should be punished. Most, if not all, give out wrong data to their viewers, listeners, and/or readers. When challenged they use what drug company marketing teams use, they belittle those questioning their position with negative terms such as 'anti-vaxxer', tin-foil hat' and/or 'conspiracy theorist'. Morning red sofa TV shows fair no better as they roll out the key opinion leaders, no tough questions from the likes of Holly Willoughby and Phillip Schofield or Lorraine Kelly. The target audience for these shows is the wimpish, the type that prefer a Posh and Becks story or like to look at Hollywood celbs who are aging, this makes them feel better about themselves. Those, who despite being shown evidence to the contrary, will roll up their sleeve on a whim whilst proclaiming, "We are doing it to protect the NHS." The nauseating compliant.

Drug companies are not allowed to advertise their wares in the UK, in fact the only two counties that allow Direct-to-consumer advertising (DTC) is the US and New Zealand. Drug companies have always found ways around this, often hiring spokespersons of celebrity status to talk about an illness, at the same time dropping in the name of a product that can 'help' that illness.

Rest assured, Pfizer are very much behind a lot of what we see unfolding in the UK. Many of the scientists advising parliament will have some sort of historic association with Pfizer, many will hold shares in the company. It's hardly an even playing field is it?

Who needs drug company adverts when the British press and celebrities or washed-up newsreaders are doing the job for the likes of Pfizer, Moderna and, to an extent Astra Zeneca (We don't hear about them anymore) - 'Reporters Expose Pfizer Misinformation And Power To Demand Eye-Popping Vaccine Profits' tells us more about this.

Also, bear in mind that almost every single 'scientific data' you read about in scientific journals wasn't actually written by the author who added his/her name to it. Chances are it was written by a PR firm hired by the likes of Pfizer, just as we saw with GSK and Paxil.

If you want to continue rolling your sleeves up then I'm fine with that. I'm not so fine with parents being hoodwinked by the 'science' and then dragging their kids to get jabbed though. Again, it's not really my business but it deeply saddens me that grown-ups just can't admit that they've been duped. Cognitive dissonance, perhaps, or maybe a strong case of Stockholm syndrome?

If the non-boostered are counted as unvaccinated, which is happening in many other countries, then expect more hospitalizations of the 'unvaccinated'. This will, in turn, be 'evidence' to show the boosters are working.

You see what they're doing yet?

Disease-mongering AKA Fear-mongering is a tactic whereby politicians, celebrities, and mainstream media outlets widen the catchment area of a disease on behalf of the drug industry so they can entrap more consumers with what people deem to be a cure for the disease. Many politicians, celebrities and mainstream media outlets don't know they're being used as advertising tools for the drug industry, who have some of the most genius marketing teams in the world. The drug industry has never been interested in finding a cure, to do so would be financial suicide. Don't fall into the trap of thinking a particular pharmaceutical product saved your life, chances are you are still taking that product - that is not a cure, it's a product that is making a very handsome profit for the industry. The drug industry is, basically, an insidious profiteering racket that has mastered the art of manipulation.

~ Bob Fiddaman, Researcher of Drug Company and Regulatory malfeasance for over 16 years

Are Nurses Conspiracy Theorists?

 

In the mid 1800s, Florence Nightingale co-created a Royal Commission into the health of the military. Along with leading statisticians of the day, William Farr and John Sutherland, they analysed mortality data and found that 16,000 of the 18,000 deaths were from preventable diseases—not battle.

Fast forward to the 21st Century

Erik Mortensen (Republican Party) is a member of the Minnesota House of Representatives, representing District 55A. He assumed office on January 5, 2021. His current term ends on January 2, 2023.

On Aug 27, 2021, Mortensen hosted a town hall meeting for nurses and other healthcare professionals after he became concerned at the number of healthcare workers who were contacting him about COVID-19 vaccine mandates. Most who contacted him were under threat of losing their jobs after refusing to receive a COVID-19 shot.

Previously, the nurses in the video (below) had been hailed as heroes as they stepped up to the frontline to help in the COVID-19 wards.

As the vaccines were rolled out they have witnessed how these shots have killed and injured people, including family members.

The mainstream media have reported that most healthcare workers are now fully vaccinated but the discussion in the video below disputes this.

One key question put forward by a nurse in this discussion got me thinking:

“Why aren’t people asking the nurses why they don’t want to take the shots?”

Why indeed.

Most people who have had the shots may think this discussion isn't applicable to them. They received slight bruising and maybe tiredness after their shots but was well again 24 hours later. They are now free to walk the streets in the hope the vaccine will prevent them from falling seriously ill, they also feel they are 'doing their bit' to help slow the spread of this invisible enemy that has killed so many.

There will be a section of people, across America at least, who will choose not to watch this video for political reasons. Democrats don't want to show any kind of support to opposition leaders or representatives. It goes against the grain to listen to what the opposition has to say, even if it's the truth. This stance has been rife throughout history in politics, also in religion, we now see such a divide anytime vaccine safety is aired.

The nurses in the video drop a few bombs, none more so than the fact that they are being told to not report vaccine injuries and deaths.

One nurse also says, "If I don’t get the vaccine, I’m going to lose my job. I’m going to lose thousands of dollars in retirement. I’m going to lose my health insurance, my life insurance, my over 400 days of extended illness bank hours. I’m going to lose a lot. I’m here because I believe in medical freedom. And I believe if we don’t stand up and stop these mandates, they’re going to keep twisting our arm, and twisting our arm, and twisting our arm, until we’re all broken."

Again, those who have already had the vaccine will probably feel this video isn't worth watching, they will tend to watch, believe and disseminate videos from the mainstream media because, well, it's the mainstream media who have convinced them that everything is hunky dory with the vaccines and those who have already lined up for their shots are living proof of this.

Before you watch the nurses discuss what is going on in the real world let's take a short look at what Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews had to say recently on Sky News Australia.

"There is going to be a vaccinated economy, and you get to participate in that if you are vaccinated. We're going to move to a situation where, to protect the health system, we are going to lock out people who are not vaccinated and can be."

Contrast what Premier Daniel Andrews' says now with what a room full of frontline nurses are saying.

Who do you believe, a government official or nurses with first hand experience?

The video below isn't making headlines. Neither CNN or, indeed, Republican-run Fox News is reporting on the video. It should be viral yet it's only had around 26,000 views. Once again, it is left to the public to disseminate such information.

If anyone does decide to share this blog post or the video then be prepared for the backlash. You wear a tin-foil hat, you are endangering lives, you're 'anti-vax', a conspiracy theorist, you're not a vaccine expert, I prefer to listen to the scientists than someone who is a Google Dr.

But hey, if you are any of the above, that means the nurses who feature in the video are too, right?

**Discussion starts at the 17 min 15 sec mark**

If video doesn't play, you can find it here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYJqWl2Mr9Q&t=1081s

**UPDATE** Facebook regard the nurse video as 'Spam'

Bob Fiddaman

Hat-Tip Kim Witczak

Related

Informed Consent ~ Changing the Paradigm

Informed Consent ~ Changing the Paradigm

 

Rarely does a video cause me as much anger as one I recently viewed via Twitter. Before reading on, please view it below or here: 

After hearing Dr. Samuel White's story, I searched for an unedited version of the video and additional info about White, who has been a doctor in NHS for more than 17 years. White is now facing an interim orders tribunal regarding his fitness to practise. The Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service (MPTS) will carry out a tribunal to decide whether to:

1.Impose an interim order of conditions on White's medical registration.

2.Impose an interim order of suspension on White's medical registration.

3.Make no order.

As part of the ongoing process, White's licence to practise medicine within the NHS was suspended by a letter the NHS sent on 26 June 2021. His rebuttal, via his lawyers, can be seen here.

White has been temporarily suspended for telling his patients to review data provided by two government websites: the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) Yellow Card Adverse Event Reporting website in the UK and the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) in the US.

As of 8 August 2021, MHRA states they have received 342,014 reports for all the combined vaccines and that this accounts for more than 1 million total reactions, 1,559 of which were fatal. (Fig 1)

CLICK ON IMAGE TO ENLARGE

Image courtesy of UK Column

This government-provided data is what Dr. White told his patients to read when deciding whether or not to have the COVID vaccine. The figures above change weekly and will increase as more people report their adverse reactions. It's also important to remember that because many adverse reactions and deaths are never reported to the MHRA, these figures above do not tell us the whole story.

The MHRA will argue that the reported reactions and deaths do not necessarily mean the vaccine caused them, often using the phrase, "correlation does not equal causation." They have done this throughout history with medicines that cause adverse events and even deaths.

White was giving his patients as much information as he had at his disposal; he didn't have the weekly stats for the vaccines' adverse events; hence his common-sense suggestion that patients check the two websites is appropriate. 

So what is Informed Consent?

It seems an easy question to answer, but no doctor can provide patients with all the information needed for fully informed consent because data from clinical drug trials is withheld from medical professionals and consumers. 

1. You must have the capacity (or ability) to make the decision.

2. The medical provider must disclose information on the treatment, test, or procedure in question, including the expected benefits and risks, and the likelihood (or probability) that the benefits and risks will occur.

3. You must understand the relevant information.

4. You must voluntarily grant consent, without coercion or duress.

Let's take a closer look at #2

For doctors to relay information about benefits and risks to their patients, they need all the information. But doctors and the MHRA do not receive all the data from the drug companies. Case Report Forms (CRFs) are individual patient data from clinical trials. These are all kept under lock and key--the only time one is ever granted access to CRFs is when a request for disclosure is made. Disclosure refers to a litigation procedure where each party in the suit must disclose any/all documents that may be considered relevant to the pending court case.

The likelihood of CRFs from COVID vaccine clinical trials ever seeing the light of day is slim given that AstraZeneca, Pfizer, and Moderna, have all been granted indemnity. In other words, consumers who suffer from taking these COVID-related products can never sue the company that made them. So, no litigation, no CRFs.

Having no access to CRFs is bad enough, yet we also have ghostwritten "medical literature."

Who You Gonna Call?

Most people who see the names of medical doctors or Ph.D.'s followed by affiliated academic institutions as authors of medical journal articles likely believe the drug data and product claims promoted. The pharmaceutical companies promote these erroneous assumptions using a scheme called ghostwriting.

The authors of ghostwritten articles have not written them or read all the clinical trial data. Instead, the drug companies hire PR firms to draft articles and send them to academics who lend their names as authors. A classic example of this was ghostwriting PR outfit, Scientific Therapeutics Information (STI), that worked for drug kingpins, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK).

In a nutshell, GSK's pediatric trials for Paxil returned abysmal results. However, GSK knew all was not lost. The company only needed child psychiatrists to promote Paxil for kids by claiming the drug was safe and effective. STI's ghostwritten article helped convince many doctors to convince many parents that Paxil was safe for children. Years later, we learned through litigation why GSK never shared the clinical trial data: Internal documents showed GSK was worried that their clinical trial data would reduce product sales. 

You can read more about this case here, here, and here.

Doctors, including Samuel White, are not obliged to research drug company malfeasance; moreover, even if they did their own research, they are not obliged to inform patients of their findings.

The USA

An article published in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) on 20 August 2021 highlights how the American equivalent of the MHRA, the Food and Drugs Administration (FDA), is preparing to grant full approval of the Pfizer vaccine without publicly discussing the data. Only a year ago, the FDA said it was "committed to use an advisory committee composed of independent experts to ensure deliberations about authorization or licensure are transparent for the public."

So, why the sudden U-turn? Experts quoted in the BMJ article said politics drove the decision not to meet to discuss the data. Diana Zuckerman, president of the National Center for Health Research, who has also spoken at recent Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) meetings, said, "It's obvious that the FDA has no intention of hearing anyone else's opinion. But if you make decisions behind closed doors it can feed into hesitancy. It's important to have a public discussion about what kind of data are there and what the limitations are. As we think about risk versus benefit, we need to know."

The FDA and MHRA don't want to discuss the data because, as I previously stated, they don't have all the data.

Ladies and gentlemen, this is the publicly funded smoke-and-mirrors shit show being performed for us. The truth of the matter is, everything is being hidden in plain sight. Whether you have taken these COVID drugs or not, you should question all of the above. It is easy (and lazy) to post memes on Facebook or Twitter chastising those who choose not to take these vaccines. It's easy to label people who don't get in line for pharma's new COVID products and call them "anti-vaxxers" or "conspiracy theorists.' Similar labels were assigned to folks who spoke out about the dangers of promoting and prescribing Paxil to children. Yet years later, GSK's lies were exposed during wrongful death litigation. 

Informed Consent ~ Changing the Paradigm

I'd like to see the term 'informed consent' used less frequently. It is meaningless when a doctor or patient does not have access to all the data. Instead, I'd like to use the opposite term, 'Informed refusal'.

Informed refusal is where a person has refused a recommended medical treatment based upon an understanding of the facts and implications of not following the treatment. Individuals need to be in possession of the relevant facts, all of them.

This may stick in the teeth of those who have already had the vaccine, a lot of whom claim that people who refuse the vaccine don't have any rights, 'it's not about them', we hear, 'it's about others.'

So, my right to informed refusal is based on the lack of data coming from the likes of Pfizer, Moderna and AstraZeneca and now the FDA. Based on the information they are not giving me, I refuse to be treated and if that upsets those who have been treated and limits my freedoms, then so be it.

I'm on the side of truth, not suppression, be that in the form of access to raw data or the posting of infantile memes on social media by the 'monkey see, monkey do' individuals, all, of course, designed to silence those with the ability to think freely without fear. 

Fearbook

I've never seen a divide happen so quickly. On both Facebook and Twitter I now see posts from people declaring that they are deleting friends from their list who speak out about the vaccine, all fuelled by the regular 'flags' we now see daily on Facebook anytime anyone posts something negative about treatment. Flags such as:

So, it's okay to click on the 'Get Vaccine Info' link but, seemingly, not okay to click on any information that may oppose this information.

When Facebook go a step further and actually remove opinion you have the right to ask why. Here's the standard reply you get:

As this blog of mine points out, Facebook moderators don't have access to the safety or side effect data of COVID vaccines, they couldn't possibly know what is true or false.

The best one I've seen so far is the following:

So, a post or link of yours may offer 99% truth but Facebook 'fact-checkers' flag it for containing 'partly false' information.

More Jabs

The United States will begin widely distributing Covid-19 booster shots next month as apparent new data shows that vaccine protection dwindles over time.

“We are starting to see evidence of reduced protection against mild and moderate disease,” according to the statement signed by CDC Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky, acting FDA Commissioner Dr. Janet Woodcock, White House chief medical advisor Dr. Anthony Fauci and other U.S. health leaders.

U.S. agencies are preparing to offer booster shots to all eligible Americans beginning the week of Sept. 20, starting eight months after their second dose of Pfizer or Moderna’s vaccines.

So, the freedoms given to those who have currently been double-jabbed, concerts, sporting events, travel, will, seemingly, be taken away unless they have the booster.

Viruses mutate over time, they can strengthen or weaken. The majority of vaccines are developed over time and not rushed to market. Just because a vaccine gets approval (albeit 'Emergency Approval') does not make it safe. Data is collected and supposed to be assessed. This is called Post-Marketing Surveillance, designed to collect all the adverse events from the public. Most people don't know that clinical trials do not end in the lab - Any drug or vaccine that comes to market is just another phase of a clinical trial.

Dr White's bosses and, it seems, Facebook 'Fact-Checkers' are doing everything in their power to deter you and I from checking out the Post-Marketing Surveillance data. This is real-world data and not the data of a clinical trial setting.

You have to ask yourself, why the suppression?

Those who oppose members of the public who question the safety and efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccine will, no doubt, continue to post various memes supporting the use of vaccines in adults, children and expectant mothers. Their pious position will be supported with posts and links to celebrities, journalists and ghost-written articles that appear in academic journals. None of these will be flagged by Facebook.

As I said before, Monkey see, monkey do.

As a side-note, I first heard about COVID-19 on January 1st 2020 (Back then it was just known as the "Corona Virus"). I was in Central America at the time and a neighbour of mine invited me over to his place for afternoon drinks. He asked me if I'd heard about the outbreak, he had business in China so was more up-to-speed than I.

A month or so later, I was back in the UK visiting family and friends. Within weeks of me landing back in Blighty, the whole country was locked down. It was then that I wrote a series of predictions. You can see those predictions here. People back then rolled their eyes at me and no doubt those same people will be rolling their eyes at this blog post.

Bob Fiddaman