Misinformation And Mixed Messages
Unless you have been in a retreat in the remotest Andean mountains, or a Tibetan monastery or such like for the last two years, you will have heard, read and seen a lot about misinformation. Let’s shine a little light on misinformation and mixed messages.
Allegations Of Misinformation Are Often Unfounded
“Misinformation” and “disinformation” are the epithets that are hurled at anyone who presents a message that is contrary to the official narrative around Covid-19. That such contrary messaging may be accurate is, apparently, irrelevant. No explanation need be given to support the allegation of misinformation. The allegations are often preceded by the adjective, “dangerous.” Also often thrown into the mix are, “Conspiracy Theories”.
These allegations are launched by government spokespeople up to and including the highest level. They are spewed out by health department spokespeople, up to and including Chief Health Officers.
The allegations are publicised in advocacy media, which also often run opinion pieces supporting unfounded and unsupported allegations.
Posts that are contrary to the official narrative are also censored on Big Tech social media platforms.
What Is Misinformation and What Is Disinformation?
The definition of misinformation and disinformation may vary a little from dictionary to dictionary, but generally;
- Misinformation refers to information that is false, whether or not that information is intended to mislead.
- Disinformation generally refers to information that is spread with the intention of deliberately deceiving or misleading.
Are These Examples Of Misinformation Or Disinformation?
Let’s take a look at some official information and you can be the judge of how to classify it.
To set the scene, let’s listen to what Pfizer has to say about the transmissibility of Covid-19 following their mRNA jab, upon being asked by Dutch MEP Rob Roos in a European parliamentary hearing.
The respondent was Janine Small, who holds the title of Global President, Emerging Markets at Pfizer.
Pfizer testify that they had no idea about transmissability. That’s pretty clear. So if they didn’t know, they couldn’t have provided any data on its ability to stop transmission. Yet governments around the world have consistently told us that these jabs are the best way to stop transmission. In Australia, certainly, and I imagine around the world, there were posters and television adverts imploring everyone to get jabbed to “help stop the spread.”
Anthony Fauci repeatedly told Americans that the Covid-19 jabs were the only way to stop transmission.
Right from the beginning, there was no data from the pharmaceutical companies to support this message from the government and government agencies. So how would you classify it?
There is plenty of data now from around the world for it be clear that the covid jabs do not stop infection or transmission. Yet still official government sites declare the jabs to be the best way to protect yourself and others from such events. How would you classify these declarations?
Pfizer say that pregnant women were excluded from their trials. The official message from the Australian Government health site (Ref 1) and the CDC in the US (Ref 2) is that the jabs are safe for pregnant women. (Including pregnant women as young as 12 years of age, by the way) Yet there is no trial data from the pharmaceutical companies. How, then, would you classify that declaration?
Let’s Have A Little Chat About Mixed Messages.
JCVI Advice To The UK Government
The Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) has issued advice to the UK government.
On 7th April this year, they advised a preference for under 30 year-olds to be offered an alternative to Astra-Zeneca. One month later, this was revised upwards and their advice became that under 40’s should be offered an alternative. (Ref 3)
Compare this advice against guidance given by the UK Health Security Agency (HSA), which states that:
“The COVID-19 vaccines available in the UK are the safest and most effective way to protect you and your baby.” (Ref 4)
Maybe things changed when I wasn’t looking, but my understanding is that most women who become pregnant and have babies are under 40 years of age. One could argue that the HSA guidance didn’t include Astra-Zeneca. That may be the case, but they didn’t exclude it.
The JCVI advice was issued in May. The HSA guidance was last updated on 3rd October, so there has been plenty of time for the JCVI advice to be received by HSA.
Would you classify that as a mixed message?
“REASSURANCE OF SAFE USE OF THE VACCINE IN PREGNANT WOMEN CANNOT BE PROVIDED”
Contradictory And Confusing Advice
This is not the only example of contradictory, conflicting or confusing messages. The same HSA guidelines start with:
“Coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccine is strongly recommended for pregnant and breastfeeding women”
Again, there is no suggestion that this should not include Astra-Zeneca. The recommendation comes from the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and the Royal College of Midwives.
The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) posted a decision, last updated on 16th August, which was a “Summary of the Public Assessment Report for Covid-19 Vaccine Pfizer/BioNTech” (Ref 5) It’s a pretty extensive summary.
There is a pre-amble, an introduction, then sections on quality aspects and toxicity. Section 3.4 focusses on toxicology. Buried near the end of this section is a paragraph headed, “Toxicity Conclusions.”
The paragraph starts by referencing the absence of reproductive toxicity data and goes on to say:
“…it is considered that sufficient reassurance of safe use of the vaccine in pregnant women cannot be provided at the present time: however, use in women of childbearing potential could be supported provided healthcare professionals are advised to rule out known or suspected pregnancy prior to vaccination. Women who are breastfeeding should also not be vaccinated.”
The report’s authors make a point that their judgements are based on absence of data.
Again; if the data doesn’t exist, on what basis do the authorities blithely continue to claim they are safe?
So. In the UK, not Astra-Zeneca or Pfizer for pregnant or lactating women. What’s left? Moderna. Except that Dr Brian Goldman, a Canadian physician, assures his CBC radio audience that Moderna and Pfizer are equivalent in efficacy and safety. (Ref 6)
Misinformation, Disinformation, Mixed Message.
The UK government says Covid-19 vaccines are the safest and most effective way to protect you and your baby. JCVI and MHRA disagree. Would you classify that as a mixed message? Misinformation? Given the recommendations from JCVI and MHRA, would you consider that disinformation?
“Unless You Have [fill in the gap] Jabs, You’re Not Fully Vaxxed”
Remember this one: “Unless you have 2 jabs, you’re not fully vaxxed.” Sound familiar?
Around the time we heard this, former Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, committed to buying 250 million jabs. That’s 10 jabs for every man, woman and child in Australia. At a time when we were told double-jabbed was fully vaxxed, children weren’t being jabbed and boosters hadn’t been mentioned. Mixed messaging?
Earlier this year: “Double-jabbed is not fully vaxxed. You need a booster.”
Now we’re being told some are eligible for their 4th jab. Can we assume that triple-jabbed is no longer fully-vaxxed? Would you classify this as misinformation? Mixed messaging? You call it.
A Natural Shift Is Occurring
As the evidence builds that the government has been deceiving the public from the start of the pandemic, and each lie we are fed builds upon the preceding one, a natural shift is occurring.
For those among us who realise the deception under which we have been living, the picture becomes clearer. For those among us who have bought into the official misinformation and disinformation, the picture becomes more muddied. Only once the deception is acknowledged does the picture start to clear.
For those of you who have an increasingly muddy lens, I encourage you to let go of your fear and become part of the shift.
Scroll for comments
Ref 1 – Australian Health website – https://www.health.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/2022/07/covid-19-vaccination-pregnancy-breastfeeding-and-covid-19-vaccines.pdf
Ref 2 – US CDC – https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2021/s0811-vaccine-safe-pregnant.html
Ref 3 – UK Government – https://www.gov.uk/government/news/jcvi-advises-on-covid-19-vaccine-for-people-aged-under-40
Ref 4 – UK Government – https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid-19-vaccination-women-of-childbearing-age-currently-pregnant-planning-a-pregnancy-or-breastfeeding/covid-19-vaccination-a-guide-on-pregnancy-and-breastfeeding
Ref 5 – UK Government – https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/regulatory-approval-of-pfizer-biontech-vaccine-for-covid-19/summary-public-assessment-report-for-pfizerbiontech-covid-19-vaccine
Ref 6 – Daily Express website – https://www.express.co.uk/life-style/health/1450086/covid-vaccine-latest-britons-refuse-moderna-to-wait-for-pfizer