Mainstream Media – Parroting The Government Line 

I commented that turning me away from a clinic wasn’t keeping me safe. It was breaching my right to health care. (Not a right I asked for, I hasten to add. Just a right the government saw fit to give me, then withhold.)

Her reply was that the government was just requiring extra protection to keep everyone safe. (That extra protection started the day the borders were opened to fully vaccinated people.) “And besides,” she added confidentially, “it’s not actually that difficult to take stitches out yourself.”

Ignoring her last comment, I thought instead I’d check the depth of her understanding.

Show Me The Studies

“Have you seen any studies that show these extra restrictions will keep us safe?” I asked.

“I trust the government and our health department,” she shot right back at me.

“Okay, you trust the government. That’s fine. Nonetheless, have you read any studies that indicate the extra protection will make a difference?”

She pulled down her mask to emphasise her debate-ending retort: “I read ‘The Guardian.’ “

Impressed, I asked, “Have you read any studies?”

“They’re in The Guardian.”

“Have you read the studies in The Guardian?” At this point, she pulled her mask back up and mumbled that she had to finish her shopping.

This woman was just one of many, many people who simply trust. They trust what the government and the health departments and the mainstream media say. And, yes, The Guardian is mainstream media.

With a deft sleight of hand, the Guardian Media Group went from being a tightly controlled independent, to one that had free rein. Keeping “Trust” in their name is misleading. It infers they are still controlled by a deed that ensures high standards. They’re not. Through the change, The Guardian kept its reputation as a dependable, independent source of news, providing accurate reporting and high quality journalism. But it is no longer required to be any of that.

Existing To Make Money

Scott Trust Limited is a limited partner of GMG Ventures LP, a venture capital group. GMG Ventures LP exists for the purpose of making money. That is not necessarily a bad thing. But it is its main thing.

Vidsy is a company that worked with GMG Ventures. This from Vidsy’s CEO, Gerard Keeley:

“GMG Ventures have supported us throughout our journey all the way from Founders Factory to co-leading our most recent round. We’ve had a brilliant partnership, and their hands-on attitude means they’ve been very supportive during the iterations of our business strategy”

GMG Ventures may be brilliant at what they do and how they do it, but “co-leading,” and “hands-on attitude” do not suggest that The Guardian Group are as independent and focussed as they once were.

An article in The Independent, reports that The Guardian UK – sister publication to The Guardian Australia – regularly attacked a technology business involved in data-mining that had close links to Dominic Cummings and the Vote Leave campaign in the UK during Brexit. (Dominic Cummings is a political strategist and former chief advisor to Boris Johnson) GMG Ventures have now invested in the technology business The Guardian regularly attacked. (Ref 1)

What Has Happened To The Guardian’s Standards Of Journalism?

In January of 2017, The Guardian published a story concerning a quarry contract at Hope Vale, Qld.
In May, 2017, they issued an unreserved apology to Noel Pearson, acknowledging that the comments about him in that article were false. Two days later, they issued an unreserved apology to Gerhardt Pearson, acknowledging that the comments regarding wrongdoing by him were inaccurate.

But it’s not as if The Guardian simply made the apologies after the errors were pointed out to them. The apology to Noel Pearson was part of a confidential legal settlement.

Just Another Mouthpiece For Government Policy

An example of how The Guardian has become just another mouthpiece for government policy comes in an article that appeared on 10th of January, 2022, headed “Vaccinating children five to 11: where to get the jab in Australia, and is it safe?” (Ref 2)

The first part of the article was a description of the rollout; numbers, locations, etc. As with the headline, safety was relegated to the end of the article. Here is where it gets interesting.

Directly under the sub-heading, “Is the Pfizer vaccine safe in children?” is the following paragraph:

“Clinical trials of the Pfizer vaccine in more than 2,000 children aged five to 11 showed it was “safe, well tolerated and showed robust neutralising antibody responses”, Pfizer reported in September.”

Pfizer have repeatedly modified data and falsified reports. Their methods of study ignore established protocols and are designed to produce the outcome they want. Presentation of results have been shown to be misleading according to many, including the Canadian Covid Care Alliance. (Ref 3)

Pfizer have been fined billions of dollars for such offences. Their initial advice in their application for Emergency Use Authorisation (EUA) showed only a small number of mild adverse reactions, and no severe adverse reactions. None. Myocarditis was not listed as an adverse reaction until EUA was given for 12-17 year olds.

The Guardian provides no link to the Pfizer studies. You may choose to accept Pfizer’s short excerpt from their report at face value. The Guardian has. Or you can read it for yourself here. (Ref 4)

Second Paragraph:

‘Sanjaya Senanayake, an infectious diseases specialist and associate professor at the Australian National University, said while published data from the US rollout in children was not yet available, anecdotally there had been no reports of serious adverse effects. “There aren’t any … alarm bells or red flags,” Senanayake said.’

Published Data Is Available

Actually, published data is available. And it doesn’t support their statements. From the CDC website is VAERS data (Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System) for the period 3rd November – 19th December, 2021: (Ref 5)

VAERS received and processed 4,249 reports for 5-11 year olds during this period. Of these, 100 were for serious events.

• 15% of those were for increased troponin. Troponin is not normally found in the bloodstream. It is released from the heart into the bloodstream when heart muscle is damaged.
• There were 15 reports of myocarditis. So far, 11 of those have been verified and confirmed. Of the 11, 7 have reportedly recovered and 4 had not recovered by year’s end.
• There were 2 reports of death, both of which are under review. Both little girls “had complicated medical histories,” and both “were in fragile health.”

These are just the figures from the VAERS reports. The FDA acknowledges under-reporting to VAERS in the order of 1% – 10%.

One can only speculate as to why Senanayake and Homiara would make obviously incorrect statements. Especially when they mislead parents on a vitally important issue. Whatever their reasons, one must observe that the Guardian reporter has done no research to confirm the accuracy of their statements.

Israeli Research Report

Further down, there was a link to research out of Israel. The Guardian claims the research “found the risk of developing myocarditis was significantly higher in people who had contracted Covid-19 than for those who received the vaccine.” But that’s not what the study found. (Ref 6)

Unlike my debating partner from the market, I followed the link to read the research, and the conclusion of this research was that “the (Pfizer) vaccine was associated with an excess risk of myocarditis.” It went on to say that, “the risk of this potentially serious adverse event and of many other serious adverse events was substantially increased after SARS-CoV-2 infection.”

If the vaccine stopped infection, then one could potentially claim a link to a lower risk of myocarditis. But it is well known that the vaccine does not stop infection by SARS CoV-2. This means there is a double-whammy for the children from being jabbed. Straight away, there is an increased risk of myocarditis. If then infected by SARS CoV-2 – which the jab doesn’t stop – that risk is further elevated. According to The Guardian, the CDC says it’s 37 times greater.

Are The Covid Vaccines Safe For 5-11 Year Olds?

Are they safe? That’s not the point of this article, although I would hope it shows that no parent should simply accept media assertions or government utterances at face value.

Choosing to inject your child with an experimental drug is a vitally important step, and an irreversible one. All parents owe it to themselves and to their children to educate themselves. There is no excuse not to. Without that knowledge, there can be no informed consent.

The Guardian is just another part of mainstream media, parroting the government line

The point of this article is that the Guardian article under discussion has a number of incorrect statements – not for the first time – that weren’t verified and should have been. The alternative explanation is The Guardian deliberately promoted false information. This article is an example of poor journalistic standards and displays a willingness to promote the government narrative regardless of accuracy.

The Guardian is just another part of mainstream media, parroting the government line. Independent bastion of truth and high journalistic standards? Hardly. Not anymore