Trust the Authorities, trust the Experts, and trust the Science, we were told. Public health messaging during the COVID-19 pandemic was only credible if it originated from Government health authorities, the World Health Organisation and pharmaceutical companies, as well as scientists who parroted their lines with little critical thinking.
In the name of ‘protecting’ the public, the authorities have gone to great lengths to create an illusion of consensus about the appropriate response to COVID-19 – as described in the recently released Twitter files that document collusion between the FBI and social media platforms. They suppressed ‘the truth’, even when emanating from highly credible scientists, undermining scientific debate and preventing the correction of scientific errors. In fact, an entire bureaucracy of censorship has been created, ostensibly to deal with so-called MDM – misinformation (false information resulting from human error with no intention of harm); disinformation (information intended to mislead and manipulate); malinformation (accurate information intended to harm). From fact checkers like NewsGuard, to the European Commission’s Digital Services Act, the U.K. Online Safety Bill and the BBC Trusted News Initiative, as well as Big Tech and social media, all eyes are on the public to curtail their mis- and dis-information.
“Whether it’s a threat to our health or a threat to our democracy, there is a human cost to disinformation,” says Tim Davie, Director-General of the BBC.
But is it possible that ‘trusted’ institutions could pose a far bigger threat to society by disseminating false information?
Although the problem of spreading false information is usually conceived of as emanating from the public, during the COVID-19 pandemic, governments, corporations, supranational organisations and even scientific journals and academic institutions have contributed to a false narrative. Falsehoods such as ‘lockdowns save lives’ and ‘no one is safe until everyone is safe’ have far-reaching costs in livelihoods and lives. Institutional false information during the pandemic was rampant. Below is just a sample by way of illustration.
The health authorities falsely convinced the public that the COVID-19 vaccines stop infection and transmission when the manufacturers never even tested these outcomes.
The CDC changed its definition of vaccination to be more ‘inclusive’ of the novel mRNA technology vaccines. Instead of the vaccines being expected to produce immunity, now it was good enough to produce protection. The authorities also repeated the mantra (at 16:55) of ‘safe and effective’ throughout the pandemic despite emerging evidence of vaccine harm. The FDA refused the full release of documents it had reviewed in 108 days when granting the vaccines emergency use authorisation. Then in response to a freedom of information act request, it attempted to delay their release for up to 75 years. These documents presented evidence of vaccine adverse events. It’s important to note that between 50% and 96% of the funding of drug regulatory agencies around the world comes from Big Pharma in the form of grants or user fees. Can we disregard that it’s difficult to bite the hand that feeds you?
The vaccine manufacturers claimed high levels of vaccine efficacy in terms of relative risk reduction (between 67% and 95%). They failed, however, to share with the public the at least as important measure of absolute risk reduction that was only around 1%, thereby exaggerating the expected benefit of these vaccines. They also claimed there were “no serious safety concerns observed” despite their own post-authorisation safety report revealing multiple serious adverse events, some lethal. The manufacturers also failed to publicly address the immune suppression during the two weeks post-vaccination and the rapidly waning vaccine effectiveness that turns negative at six months or the increased risk of infection with each additional booster. Lack of transparency about this vital information denied people their right to informed consent.
They also claimed that natural immunity is not protective enough and that hybrid immunity (a combination of natural immunity and vaccination) is required. This false information was necessary to sell remaining stocks of their products in the face of mounting breakthrough cases (infection despite vaccination). In reality, although natural immunity may not completely prevent future infection with SARS-CoV-2, it is however effective in preventing severe symptoms and deaths. Thus vaccination post natural infection is not needed.
The WHO also participated in falsely informing the public. It disregarded its own pre-pandemic plans and denied that lockdowns and masks are ineffective at saving lives and have a net harm on public health. It also promoted mass vaccination in contradiction to the public health principle of ‘interventions based on individual needs’. It also went as far as excluding natural immunity from its definition of herd immunity and claimed that only vaccines can help reach this end point. This was later reversed under pressure from the scientific community. Again, at least 20% of the WHO’s funding comes from Big Pharma and philanthropists invested in pharmaceuticals. Is this a case of he who pays the piper calls the tune?
The Lancet, a respectable medical journal, published a paper claiming that hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) – a repurposed drug used for the treatment of COVID-19 – was associated with a slight increased risk of death. This led the FDA to ban the use of HCQ to treat COVID-19 patients and the NIH to halt the clinical trials on HCQ as a potential COVID-19 treatment. These were drastic measures taken on the basis of a study that was later retracted due to the emergence of evidence showing that the data used were false.
In another instance, the medical journal, Current Problems in Cardiology, retracted – without any justification – a paper showing an increased risk of myocarditis in young people following the COVID-19 vaccines after it was peer reviewed and published. The authors advocated the precautionary principle in the vaccination of young people and called for more pharmacovigilance studies to assess the safety of the vaccines. Erasing such findings from the medical literature not only prevents science from taking its natural course but withholds important information from the public.
A similar story took place with ivermectin, another drug used for the treatment of COVID-19. Andrew Hill stated (at 5:15) that the conclusion of his paper on Ivermectin was influenced by Unitaid which is, as it happens, the main funder of a new research centre at Hill’s workplace – the University of Liverpool. His meta-analysis showed that ivermectin reduced mortality with COVID-19 by 75%. Instead of supporting I=ivermectin use as a COVID-19 treatment, he concluded that further studies were needed.
The suppression of potentially life-saving treatments was instrumental for the emergency use authorisation (EUA) of the COVID-19 vaccines as in the United States the absence of a treatment for the disease is a condition for EUA (p.3).
Many media outlets are also guilty of sharing false information. This came in the form of biased reporting or by acceding to be a platform for public relations (PR) campaigns. PR can be understood as a form of propaganda or the art of sharing information to influence public opinion in the service of special interests groups. The danger of PR is that it passes for independent journalistic opinion to the untrained eye. PR campaigns aim to sensationalise scientific findings, possibly to increase consumer uptake of a given therapeutic, increase funding for similar research or increase stock prices. The pharmaceutical companies spent $6.88 billion on TV advertisements in 2021 in the U.S. alone. Is it possible that this funding influenced media reporting during the COVID-19 pandemic?
Lack of integrity and conflict of interests have led to an unprecedented institutional false information pandemic of mis- and dis-information.
Public trust in the media has seen its biggest drop over the last five years. Many are also waking up to the widespread institutional false information. The public can no longer trust ‘authoritative’ institutions that were expected to look after their interests. This lesson was learned at great cost. Many lives were lost due to the suppression of early treatment and an unsound vaccination policy, businesses ruined, jobs destroyed, educational achievement regressed, poverty aggravated and both physical and mental health outcomes worsened. A preventable mass disaster.
We have a choice: either we continue to passively accept institutional false information or we resist. What are the checks and balances that we must put in place to reduce conflict of interests in public health and research institutions? How can we decentralise the media and academic journals in order to reduce the influence of pharmaceutical advertising on their editorial policy? As individuals, how can we improve our media literacy to become more critical consumers of information? There is nothing that dispels false narratives better than personal inquiry and critical thinking.
Abir Ballan is the co-founder of Think Twice Global. She has a Masters in Public Health and a BA in Psychology, and is the author of 27 children’s books. Find her on Twitter, LinkedIn (suspended), Substack and Telegram.
Many thanks to Jonathan Engler, Domini Gordon and Chris Gordon for their valuable review and feedback on this article.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
He is endangering the nation’s food security
He’s clearly committed to the depopulation agenda.
A very big danger for the UK
Obnoxious little man.
Great idea (in California). Don’t forget to build the extra power station to take up the slack when the sun’s not shining. Ideological idiot
Did you not read in today’s Daily Sceptic that it has been one of best Junes since records began? This is the future! We really must abandon all our silly common sense and follow The Science!
Similar issue with biofuels, if the crops is specifically grown for biofuels, you use up a food supply. Of course if it is a biproduct from crops, then that is different. I wonder how much of our food supply is going to biofuel, or is it all imported?
It might depend on the actual weather. One of the sources in this country is animal grade wheat (not suitable for making flour). If it was good enough for flour, the price would be higher than animal grade. https://vivergofuels.com/ Elsewhere, other crops are more likely, such as maize (corn in American).
Interesting stuff, and nothing against some of this stuff as long as it is effective.
If animal grade products are used for other purposes presumaly we either import alternatives or we don’t have the animals (meat, milk, leather etc).
Perfectly good food used to make fuel like corn etc forces up world food prices and adversely affects the poorest.
Move with the times people. Who needs farming when there’s Cricket One in Asia?
https://www.cricketone.asia/
If anyone is interested in the process, here is the bumf from the planning department: https://infrastructure.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/wp-content/ipc/uploads/projects/EN010106/EN010106-006023-Sunnica%20SoS%20Decision%20Letter%20signed%2012%20July%202024.pdf
To save time, you might delve into page 49 starting with “4.223. The Secretary of State disagrees with the ExA and agrees with the view of the Applicant that
any agricultural land resource lost to the Proposed Development “could return to supporting
agricultural production, grazing sheep and so would not be lost or degraded” [ER 4.12.105].
The Secretary of State considers that a solar farm is a temporary and reversible development
and considers that there is no evidence to suggest that agriculture cannot be reestablished on the land temporarily lost….”
The Conclusions and Decision are shown on page 70.
“The Secretary of State considers that a solar farm is a temporary and reversible development.”
Perhaps the commie pranny can enlighten us as to what form of electricity generation will be replacing this “temporary” development”? Peat burning? Dung? If the answer is nuclear – then why don’t we fastrack sufficient nuclear capacity and continue fossil fuel usage until it comes on board?
I appreciate that this would need the government to overide the planning process – but isn’t this what he has effectively done in this case?
So how much will be set aside by the owners for repoval, recycling and restoration of the land. I suggest nothing until the panels are nearer the end of their lives than the beginning.
Grass cannot grow in abundance under solar panels. The only grass is incidental between rows of panels and even that does not get the full amount of sunlight (obvs).
Sheep production is insignificant in the arc around Newmarket where Suyunnica will build their installation. It is mostly cereals. That cannot be attempted on land where solar panes have been installed.
What numpty DEFRA officials thought you could grow anything much under or around them.
Absolutely.
Once land is Rewilded, on the other hand, it is overgrown and uninhabitable.
Agricultural land that is left to run wild becomes useless to man and beast.
Red Ed Miliband giving the go ahead to a solar farm that uses .01% of the UK’s 23 million acres of farmland is not in itself threatening food security.
Any idea where this will stop?
When the Legacy Parties are removed from Parliament.
Starvation.
Quite.
It is prime farmland idiot boy. Solar energy is not clean, not green and is 5x more expensive than the alternative. Where will your food come from and how will it be delivered? Magic fairies and unicorns?
“not in itself threatening food security.”
Oh yes it damn well is.
We currently produce around 58% of our food needs. We cannot afford to lose any land that produces food.
The fact that no UK government has implemented a food security plan for this country since WWII is nothing short of criminal.
If food shortages occur outside the UK for whatever reason then the supplies we need will not be available. Furthermore, as a result of the
hottest summer evahwashout summer crop yields are likely to fall by about 6 – 8 %. What does that mean? Significantly higher prices.The harsh reality is that we desperately need to bring more land into use in order to build up national resilience – as a politician might put it.
Wind and solar cannot power industrial society though. They are niche part time technologies, and only actually exist because of massive government subsidy. Because no one would build these unless they are guaranteed return on their investment which is often above the market price. This is the technologies favoured by western governments based on the idea that wealthy countries should stop using fossil fuels because over the last few hundred years we have used up more than our fair share of this finite resource in the ground and must STOP. The plausible excuse for this eco socialism is saving the planet from warming and from climate change, which upon any serious scrutiny of the so called science,collapses and is shown to be “official science” rather than “science”, all based on speculative modelling which do not match what is happening in the real world.
He’s proving to be a complete loon!
Nearly right.
A complete BOON is what he is.
A boon for our side of the argument. The faster he does this cr*p the faster people will start to question the Project Stone Age programme.
Some one commented on DS recently that the first time the power cuts take out a nursing home, the sh*t will really hit the fan …. But the fan won’t be turning, because power cuts.
The problem is that the MSM won’t report any negatives such as the inevitable power cuts to Care Homes and hospitals. As we see with excess deaths and jabination injuries…. They ain’t reported…so they ain’t happened…..
Are these homes mentioned expecting sufficient electricity to power their heat pumps and recharge their two EVs over the Winter?
They ARE expecting it but will be very disappointed!
Not against solar per se, but there’s no good reason why they couldn’t be placed on top of, for example, car parks and other similar tarmacked/concreted areas in cities.
Might not fit the agenda though…
Or on roof tops
How well has solar done in the last 6-8 months of constant grey skies and rain? For that matter, how much wind has there been in the same timeframe? Millibacon has always been well short of rashers.
This solar farm will take up about 0.007% of the UK’s agricultural land, albeit some of the most productive. Therefore I’m not convinced that solar farms present a serious threat to our food security. IMO we should be far more worried about about the amount of subsidies solar farms receive and the fact they obviously need gas generated back up for night time and especially during the winter when our current installed solar panels struggle to produce 1GW of energy at midday.
It depends a lot on the nature of the agricultural land, and what it is used for. E.g. in that area, the horse industry is big business. Some surface mounted solar panels actually have some sheep grazing the grass around them as well.
Trying to raise sheep on a solar farm would be extremely difficult. How are they going to be rounded up?
Unless you have experience working with farmers it might be best to say nowt.
See my earlier comment on food security.
… providing power for 100,000 homes.
A nice round number. It sounds quite exciting to know that those homes can now be ticked off as being sufficiently powered using ‘clean’ energy.
When there is a cloudy sky? When it is pouring with rain? When it is cold and everyone has their heating turned on and their ovens baking bread? When those model citizens are all charging their EVs? Is the power produced sufficient for one home under those circumstances – or zero homes?
What is the point of cutting utility bills,if there is no food, needed for survival?, prices already extortinate, obviously planning on starving people to death.
Spot on.
Miliband and these eco socialist policies will NOT cut energy bills. The countries with the highest electricity prices are the ones with the most wind and sun. Germany, Denmark and the UK eg have the most wind turbines and the highest prices. Oh and have you ever seen a lithium mine?———The whole idea of green politics is to remove reliable affordable energy and give you unreliable unaffordable energy. People like Miliband talking about cheaper electricity from wind and sun are bare faced liars.
“They were put on my desk on Monday, and I’ve made a decision in three days.”
This old adage springs to mind “Act in haste – repent at leisure”. Except of course both the new and the old Governments are incapable of repentance as we saw and continue to see clearly following the warp-speed mismanagement of the pandemic.
Absolutely I doubt “repent” is in their vocabulary.
There was no ‘pandemic.’
Now this is the guy, and his party, that is the REAL threat to democracy!
I had domestic PV Panels 14 years ago, well placed and orientated. They took 10 years to “break even”.
In a winter quarter I was paid about £60 while a summer quarter earned £1200. A massive difference. So Milliband what are you going to use on cloudy days (or even bright days) in winter? Perhaps magic storage that can give output for months? Idiot!
Now you are applying actual ‘logic’ there, not ‘politician logic’… or ‘The Science’. It’s all BS, the only saving grace is physical actual science will prevail, and lights will go out, so people have to then see…
Commercial solar is sometimes producing respectable power but rather poor at night and in the winter!
Checkout GridWatch.co.uk , its really interesting and proves the stupidity of a “carbon free” grid.
“Rather poor at night” ??/ Are you kidding? ——You mean ZERO AT NIGHT.
Of course I meant that! ….satire.
“We are going to have to get used to using electricity as and when it is available”———————The Head of the National Grid Steve Holiday. —He said this quite a few year ago, and that is what the Green Agenda is all about and with a huge majority that Labour now have and with the eco imbecile Miliband now in charge of Energy that is where we are headed. —“Electricity as and when it is available”…In other words if the sun is shining or the wind blows. The eco socialists are coming for your standard of living and it is only heading in one direction —DOWN
The UK has been bought and paid for by the WEF. Sunak, Rishi, paid up members? Who else? The WEF is a sick organisation that has clearly stated “you will own nothing and be happy” and “ you will eat bugs”. Looks like they are half way there. Did the taxpayers of this country agree to this? No. I did not think so
Ed, who is paying for your spending spree on solar farms. Have you even asked those who must pay for your spending spree? No, I did not think so. Where in the hell are the other politicians in parliament? You have over 600? Do they have anything to say about this.by the way Ed, what is your plan for preventing food shortages in the UK. We are ll interested in hearing about that.
Hm, sometimes worth doing some sums – which climate change fanatics seem incapable of. Looking at the figures quoted, assuming that by providing ‘power’ they mean providing enough electrical energy, not the same thing, I’ve done a rough back of the envelope calculation.To provide power for all England’s 25 million households would require at least 700,000 acres or approx 2% of England’s land. That would be a disaster for wildlife as green areas would be covered and vital habitats destroyed. As pointed out, food production would be harmed and let’s not ask about the minerals required for that number of solar panels and battery back up. What a disaster. Why do Net Zero advocates never scale up their figures. It’s rubbish – and dangerous rubbish at that.
I wonder what would be the impact on CO2 of importing more food compared to the amount of CO2 saved by the solar farms. I suspect all the environmental damage caused by the solar farms is for nothing, even if you think that higher levels of CO2 are a problem in the first place.
For comparison, one of the larger existing solar farms in the UK is Wroughton – part of an old airfield visible from the Ridgeway: https://www.gem.wiki/Wroughton_Airfield_Solar_Park Lots more related records available via: https://globalenergymonitor.org/projects/global-solar-power-tracker/