DISINFORMATION

LET'S CALL IT WHAT IS!

Webster’s dictionary defines disinformation as: “false information deliberately and often covertly spread (as by the planting of rumors) in order to influence public opinion or obscure the truth”.

Dictionary.com defines it as: “deliberately misleading or biased information; manipulated narrative or facts; propaganda”

I find NPR’s definition of disinformation quite interesting.

“My choice of "disinformation" needs some explaining. It isn't a new word — just one of the family of names we give to the malignancies that contaminate the public discourse, along with "propaganda," and in particular "misinformation" and "fake news." Each of those last two was chosen as word of the year by some dictionary or organization in 2017… Dictionaries typically define "disinformation" as the dissemination of deliberately false information, and modern disinformation campaigns all make use of the mendacious techniques we associate with the Orwellian propaganda of the totalitarian states of the last century.”

Let’s take a look at what we know. We have all heard the conclusions from the Pfizer clinical trial data that the relative risk associated with the mRNA “vaccine” was 95%. A most impressive statistic for sure. The absolute risk however was less an 1%. Recent data confirms that for some age groups, there’s actually negative efficacy of the Covid vaccines. Unfortunately for our public health agencies, buried in a 242 page document created by our FDA, entitled Communicating Risks and Benefits - An Evidence-Based Guide, we’re told that “Patients are unduly influenced when risk information is presented using a relative risk approach”. On page 60 in chapter 7, #2 states:

2. Provide absolute risks, not just relative risks. Patients are unduly influenced when risk information is presented using a relative risk approach; this can result in suboptimal decisions. Thus, an absolute risk format should be used.

On the NIH website, there’s an interesting article discussing relative and absolute risk.

Relative and absolute risks

How do you interpret the results of a randomised controlled trial? A common measure of a treatment is to look at the frequency of bad outcomes of a disease in the group being treated compared with those who were not treated. For instance, supposing that a well-designed randomised controlled trial in children with a particular disease found that 20 per cent of the control group developed bad outcomes, compared with only 12 per cent of those receiving treatment. Should you agree to give this treatment to your child? Without knowing more about the adverse effects of the therapy, it appears to reduce some of the bad outcomes of the disease. But is its effect meaningful?

This is where you need to consider the risk of treatment versus no treatment. In healthcare, risk refers to the probability of a bad outcome in people with the disease.

Absolute risk reduction (ARR) – also called risk difference (RD) – is the most useful way of presenting research results to help your decision-making. In this example, the ARR is 8 per cent (20 per cent - 12 per cent = 8 per cent). This means that, if 100 children were treated, 8 would be prevented from developing bad outcomes. Another way of expressing this is the number needed to treat (NNT). If 8 children out of 100 benefit from treatment, the NNT for one child to benefit is about 13 (100 ÷ 8 = 12.5).

We now know that the FDA, the CDC, and the NIH were all well aware of the reality that the American public was being given information that would “unduly influence them” to accept and take an experimental injection. To add insult to injury or should I say, to add another critical element of disinformation, we were told by those very officials, that it was our moral responsibility as good citizens to protect our family (especially grandma), our friends, our neighbors and our co-workers by taking this EUA injection in order to save their lives and to help put an end to this deadly pandemic.

In October, the EU parliament, during a committee meeting requesting answers from a Pfizer senior executive, determined that there had never been any testing to determine if their vaccine would prevent transmission. Talk about shocking. The reality is that the NIH, the FDA and the CDC all knew that to be the case yet they deliberately convinced the public otherwise. They even counseled the President of the United States with this false information, who then went on national television to tell the American people that it was their duty, their obligation to get vaccinated in order to stop transmission of this deadly virus. President Biden went so far as to say that this was a “pandemic of the unvaccinated”. Rachel Maddow also told her viewing audience that by getting vaccinated, you literally stopped the virus in its track. It ended right there with you, if you got the shot. Unfortunately even Rachel stopped doing her job. She never investigated the information she was providing, choosing instead to trust our public health agencies reporting on the topic and failing miserably as an investigative journalist.

So here it is in black and white. We have been deceived. We now have clear evidence that the FDA believed, prior to the pandemic, that it was very important to inform the public about absolute risk in order to provide them with necessary information before making an informed decision about a medical procedure, treatment or vaccine. Why then could they blatantly and purposely fail to provide that critical information to the public, especially when they are being asked to take an EUA novel injection? To add to that inexcusable offense, they then chose a group of citizens, the unvaccinated, to become the lepers of the pandemic. Is this any different from what the Natzi’s did to the Jews, and homosexuals and gypsies? They needed the masses to focus their fears, their distress, their anger and their hatred onto a group of people to blame and our public health officials chose the unvaccinated.

There are so many ways one can try to shine a light on our public health officials disinformation tactics. Nothing to date seems to work consistently however. I really hoped that once the Pfizer senior representative answered the question from the EU Parliament subcommittee, finally stating that the vaccines were never tested against transmission, that might be the game changer. That happened in October and was followed by a Press Conference on the 22nd where the Associated Press was in attendance. The results however… Silence! I do love the Australian Parliamentarian’s short video where he expressed his profound upset and anger at his health minister and his colleagues. It provides an excellent example of a vaccinated person who wakes up to the realization that he’s been deceived. My vaccinated friend called it a “rant” from a guy who “sounded like he was Australian” - suggesting that the video was actually a fake. You can’t make this stuff up. I have not seen this level of avoidance and denial since my work as a psychologist with substance abusers.

So what have we learned? Apparently our public health officials were completely aware, all along, that there were never any tests, during the clinical trial, to determine if transmission was halted by the vaccine. Despite that, they led a disinformation campaign that clearly stated that it was the moral obligation of every citizen to get vaccinated so that we could all work together to end this pandemic. They told us that this was a pandemic of the unvaccinated. They told us that the unvaccinated were the cause of the unnecessary deaths and suffering. They blatantly lied in their failed attempt to get everyone vaccinated. They are the cause of my friend saying that I had “blood on my hands” because I was too selfish to get vaccinated and that I’m spreading misinformation on my substack.

It is ironic to me that despite this reality, despite the fact that people are no longer listening to the public health pleas to get boosted, the general public still can’t accept that they were gaslighted. I hold MSM entirely responsible for that. They were always suppose to be our gatekeepers. Independent, investigative journalists, whose job it was to dig deep and honestly report their findings, not only failed to look behind the curtain, but used a megaphone to spread the false statements from our public health agencies and inflame the growing animosity against the unvaccinated. They fueled the fire that was burning through our democracy.

The truth is we’ve lost many things during this pandemic. We lost hundreds of thousands of people to Covid unnecessarily because our public health agencies refused to accept the mountain of evidence supporting the use of early treatment with FDA approved medicines. We lost a much valued freedom - Free Speech due to profound scientific censorship. We lost the hard won right, following the Nuremberg trial, of informed consent. Countless people lost their jobs. Honest and previously well respected physicians lost their medical licenses. Countless people lost their financial well-being. Millions of people lost their health. What we learned from January 6th is that ultimately, we’ve lost our very democracy. It is such a sad day for every human being on this planet. Oh yea, we’re doing a terrific job of killing that as well. Despite the massive evidence of climate change; drought, unpresidented wildfires, floods, the melting of our icecaps, hurricanes, tornados, rising temperatures etc. we have a large section of the population who, still, don’t believe that’s real either.

May 2023 bring much needed insight, peace and reform to our deeply troubled world.