Rob Verkerk PhD identifies six of the biggest areas of misinformation delivered by the mainstream media.
There’s an increasing divide between how Covid-19 related news and information is being reported by governments, health authorities and the mainstream media on one hand, and alternative media and independent expert commentators on the other.
This is particularly the case on matters of science. The resultant public uncertainty is fuelling ever more polarised public viewpoints in relation to what should and shouldn’t be done because of, or inspite of, the pandemic.
In this week's coronacast, ANH founder Rob Verkerk PhD identifies what we consider to be six of the biggest areas of misinformation we face daily through the narrative offered by the mainstream media.
A transcript of the coronacast is available below for your convenience.
Note: You will see an advertising banner beneath our videos that play off the Brighteon platform (when they are not maximised). This advertising helps support the Brighteon platform that doesn't charge subscribers for their content, is committed to free speech, yet is also respectful of copyright-related law. We'd like to clarify that no advertising revenue from Brighteon is received by the Alliance for Natural Health Intl.
It’s clear there’s an increasing divide between how the Covid phenomenon is being reported on by governments and the mainstream media on the one hand, and by alternative media on the other. But there’s also a growing divide in how the science is being reported – this uncertainty fuelling an ever more polarised view on covid and how what societies should and shouldn’t do because of, or in spite of, this so-called pandemic.
In this video, we’re going to look at 6 really key areas that are particularly rife sources of misinformation – this misinformation emanating from governments, health authorities or the mainstream media.
Direct mortality from Covid-19. We still don’t know how many have died from Covid - only how many have died with Covid mentioned on the death certificate, whether or not this was the result of a positive test. Last week in the UK – even based on these dodgy data, Office of National Statistics data tell us that Covid-associated deaths make up just 16% of those from other respiratory diseases and the number is getting smaller each week. As of week 25, mid-June, deaths from respiratory diseases overtook those where Covid was associated. Healthcare professionals are already noting an increase in respiratory infections, some linking this to increased mask wearing. Let’s not forget lockdowns were meant to stop healthcare services being overrun. They were never overrun and there’s now talk of more lockdowns – and, again, healthcare services are a million miles from being overrun by covid-related illnesses. So why not business as usual? Why do we need a new normal with all that it entails – when the scientific evidence overwhelmingly suggests it’s time to revert to the old normal.
Indirect mortality. We know already more people have died as a consequence of the collateral damage caused by government covid policies than those who’ve died with - not because of - covid. That’s only set to get worse if we don’t soon revert to the old normal. These are policies that have been determined and organised in countries with supposedly democratic regimes without any recourse to the public’s views or opinions. Mental health problems, suicides and a rash of other diseases that aren’t getting the attention they need are being exacerbated by the top-down, totalitarian policies that are destroying lives and livelihoods with untold consequences, many of which won’t become apparent for months or even years.
Everyone knows there’s two types of test: antigen or PCR tests that use a nose and throat swab – that tell you whether you have the virus; and serologic antibody tests of blood samples – that tell you whether you’ve been infected. Unfortunately neither are accurate. PCR tests simply identify a particular genetic sequence that’s common to the spike protein of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. It doesn’t tell you if you’re currently infected – hence the 50% plus reported levels of false positives. It also doesn’t tell you anything about the virus being the cause of any respiratory disease. As for the antibody tests – these are notoriously inaccurate, especially in women or those who haven’t had severe disease – which is the majority. There are different classes of antibodies and most tests just measure one of these, most often just IgG. We now know another part of our immune system, the T-cell response, can remain elevated after infection for longer than antibodies and you can’t really get to the bottom of a population’s immunity without thorough testing of all antibodies and T-cell responses. And that’s just not being prioritised. That leaves us to speculate that that’s probably because there’s little interest from those driving the agenda to understand the level of naturally-acquired herd immunity as that’ll reduce people’s desire to be vaccinated when vaccines eventually get rolled out.
Treatment. The UK government has funded trials like RECOVERY that show that one-third of deaths linked to covid can be averted if you use the anti-inflammatory corticosteroid, dexamethasone. Then you’ve got other protocols involving steroids, anti-inflammatories and natural agents like zinc – such as the MATH+ protocol that’s been shown to be extremely effective in preventing deaths when delivered early enough. Yet none of these treatments get formal acknowledgment by health authorities – probably because such acknowledgement of effectiveness prevents the vaccine manufacturers from being indemnified by governments – or should I say the taxpayer – in the event of vaccine injury. Governments have been almost unified in refusing to tell people to eat healthy diets or take simple and cheap supplements like vitamin D or herbal products that reduce inflammation in the body. More and more people are waking up to the fact this decision to avoid talking about natural immunity is really much more about getting people prepared for a vaccine.
Masks. Why do we need to wear masks or face coverings in public settings? There’s no scientific evidence to support it – so do governments who enforce the use of face coverings in public settings claim to be led by science? If it’s not science driving these decisions - what is it? Could it be more about power and control? Is this some kind of a divide and conquer strategy that’s causing a split in society - between the obedient and the disobedient? It’s early days in understanding just how many health and social problems could result from mandating use of face coverings – so it’s very relevant that we’re already seeing evidence of increases in oral infections, skin infections and bacterial pneumonia in those wearing face coverings for long periods each day.
Vaccines. The UK is the second biggest funder of the World Health Organization (WHO) and one of the leading funders of a vaccine solution - can it afford to fail? Why hasn’t the government told the public all previous efforts to develop a coronavirus vaccine in humans have failed, that the companies making the vaccines are indemnified by governments who’re paid by us, the taxpayers? Or that the candidate vaccines all rely on genetic engineering technologies that have never been used at scale before? Why are we putting all our eggs in the vaccine basket - when all the scientific evidence tells us people who look after their immune system either show no symptoms of disease at all after becoming infected - or suffer only mild symptoms no worse than a cold or flu?
So there we have it – the Big 6 areas of covid misinformation as they currently stand. The data that informs each one of these areas are changing all the time but what’s been fairly consistent is that the general view being dished out by governments and health authorities hasn’t represented the scientific facts accurately. Next week we’re going to be releasing a piece in which we fact check the fact checkers – this new and rapidly growing group of often anonymous individuals who’re working tirelessly to marginalise any information that doesn’t fit with the agreed narrative – one that we and many other scientifically based organisations and groups agree is seriously misinformed.
Our most powerful weapon against misinformation – from wherever it comes – is good science. That’s been central to our own mission at ANH since we set up over 18 years ago.
Please help those around you to understand just how insidious the misinformation is – by sharing this video with those you care about and those in your networks. Please also don’t forget to subscribe to our YouTube channel if you want to see and share more videos from us. Thank you.