Who is accountable for the blockage in the INFORMATION TRAIL by the Mainstream Media Bubble?
Who is accountable for the blockage in the INFORMATION TRAIL by the Mainstream Media Bubble?
Asking those in charge of Canadian Journalist Ethics to do their job
This is an OPEN LETTER being sent specifically to the members of the Canadian Association of Journalists’ Ethics Advisory Committee.
March 11, 2020 is the date THREE YEARS AGO when the COVID-19 outbreak was officially characterized as a “pandemic” by the World Health Organization
The CAJ’s ethics advisory committee considers and provides advice on ethical issues faced by journalists through the course of their regular work. Members are appointed by the CAJ’s national board of directors, and the chair or co-chairs are appointed by the board from among the committee’s members. (Source)
Greetings, esteemed members of the CAJ ethics advisory committee.
I am turning to you with the hope that you will immediately take severely belated action against what is clearly a major violation of ethics on the part of those journalists currently working within what I am referring to as the “mainstream media bubble.” Those following the evidence-based science re: COVID-19 (as well as many other topics in our society of late) have noted a clear blockage of the free flow of information which continues to have life and death consequences. Please investigate and end this blockage asap. However, there is a very real possibility that you yourself, from your positions within this “bubble”, have not become aware of the existence or nature of this information blockage. If what I share below is news to you — all the more reason for you to take action from your end.
I am writing as a concerned citizen who has been “following the COVID science” for at least two years. In March 2021, I became aware that the US-based SALK Institute found that it is the spike protein component of the SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes the damage to organ tissue which is seen in a COVID-19 infection. Knowing that the major COVID-19 vaccine products teach the body to manufacture that specific protein, I was anxiously awaiting how news of this potential for harm would travel across the planet’s airwaves.
Around the same time, I became aware of how the Canadian vaccinologist given the task of leading the development of a Canadian version of the COVID-19 vaccine product, Dr.Byram Bridle, had noted that the lipid nanoparticle being used in all these development projects was shown by Pfizer itself to congregate in important internal organs, such as the ovaries, instead of remaining in the deltoid muscle as we were being told.
Given that teams of scientists were working on different angles and from different vantage points of the COVID problem, it would be expected that there could be divergent views coming from vaccine developers, depending on their observations, hypotheses and experimentation at the time. As researchers worked through the various issues they observed, I assumed there would be a global sharing of information. Much to my shock, instead of the mainstream media making space for evidence-based discussion and possible differing views as they are bound by their code of ethics to do, a major campaign of silencing & mislabelling evidence-based science as “misinformation” ensued.
For more information on the SALK and the PFIZER findings just mentioned, please scroll to the section entitled 2 Pivotal Studies from Early 2021 (SALK institute & Japan) here:
As I heard our top public health officials first luring, and later coercing, people of all ages to take these various COVID-19 vaccine products DESPITE THE KNOWN EVIDENCE showing the harm, DESPITE the fact that safe and effective non-vaccine treatment protocols were being used in a number of other countries and DESPITE warnings of esteemed international academic physicians, top level virologists, immunologists, epidemiologists, etc., I began looking into the “whodunnit” of the information trail. Who gives whom which information, when, how and who decides which information to withhold when and why?
I ended up developing the graphics I share here:
At this point in time, one might ask:
When and where do The Scientists themselves have the freedom to share, debate and learn from each others’ findings?
Which information makes its way up to the Science Writers and how? (i.e. which publishers are funded by which interests and decide to pick up - or reject - which findings?) Knowing of the decreasing total number of international publishing houses, as these are bought up as “investment objects” by mega-financial interests with ZERO background in science, there is the very real concern that publishers make decisions based on their investment interests rather than with an understanding of which scientific findings have the most relevance to the true issues at hand.
Who are The Science Writers? Are they generalists used to passing on pre-distilled information to the general public? Or are they deeply knowledgeable in the specific fields of the science at hand? Were they able to differentiate immediately how different a COVID “vaccine” was from other previous vaccines? Were they educated in the areas of expertise from which high level voices were sharing warnings around the globe? What criteria do they use when “filtering” the findings passed on to them? In the case of overwhelming amounts of data, how do science writers make selections? Are they free to “follow” ALL science all the way to the submission stage - i.e. do the publications for whom they write abide by the need to allow for the free flow of information, including “divergent views” or do publishers set up roadblocks to the free flow of information?
AND what means are there for the “evergreening” of information? By this I mean, what if in X month, the recent scientific observations point to X result (i.e. that those to first receive the C-19 vax injections on a large scale in Israel were developing plenty of antibodies), but X months later, as observations point to different conclusions (i.e. that antibodies alone fade away, that circulating in the blood they don’t really protect against respiratory viruses, that by repeatedly forcing the body to fight off trillions of vax-induced spike proteins the immune system is weakened instead of strengthened, etc. etc. ) how do those new conclusions get communicated all the way up the ladder? True independent scientists (those not paid to arrive at predetermined conclusions) continually follow their way through more and more iterations of Observation, Questioning, Hypothesizing, Reconsidering, more Experimentation, Observation etc. etc.….within the circular scientific method and continually readjust their interpretations. If, within the “information trail”, there is no structure to allow for the latest updates and the “breaking news” of new scientific developments and insights to reach the Policy Makers and the various Influencers plus the wider Population, the whole process upon which the CAJ Ethics Guidelines are predicated is flawed.
Who are the Government Science Advisors? In Alberta there was the Science Advisory Group (SAG) and nationally, there was NACI, both of which existed for years before the appearance of this “novel” virus. The membership of both groups consisted of experts in the childhood vaccination schedule. Yet they were ill prepared in terms of expertise to understand just how differently mRNA “vaccines” work within the body. It appears that to this day, many voices in “officialdom” still assume that what is purposely misnamed a “COVID-19 vaccine” functions just as innocuously as “conventional” vaccines.
Moving right along the Information Trail, which publications are considered “trusted”? Who does the “curating” and upon which criteria? Is there a potential for conflict of interest when it comes to the funding and promotion of these “trusted” publications? I have noted that when Alberta’s SAG prepared a literature review on a particular topic, they would refer the question to a librarian, who, in turn, would use specific searches for specific publication types (like controlled randomized studies). Whichever results were identified in that manner would go to the committee members for consideration. I found that committee members were not allowed to introduce information they were aware of based on their areas of expertise or personal research, for fear of introducing “bias.” I found this shocking as I realize how so much field-specific knowledge is picked up incidentally, simply by interacting with members of one’s own field. This is especially crucial in a field that moves as rapidly as that of COVID-19 vaccine studies. Had there been, for example, a virologist or vaccinologist strongly involved in the prevention and treatment of COVID-19 on the committee (there wasn’t) and had this person been following the discussion among colleagues around the world, around various observations, hypotheses, research proposals and preliminary findings, none of this material would have been allowed to be brought to the table. Instead, the work of the committee was limited to those findings that had already been moved to the publication stage - and only if this work was published in a limited range of formats. That in itself is predicated upon the biases of the corporations running the publication houses who decide which studies to publish and which to reject. When precautions taken to avoid bias leave OUT key recent findings, it is all the more important for journalists (in this case science journalists) to be following and reporting on developments in the field as they occur.
Still on the topic of “Trusted Publications” readers are invited to follow along as I tried to ascertain which information sources our federal health decision makers would have had access to in which order on the topic of ivermectin. See Document 10 here. WHO decides in which order which of the data sources is shared with decision makers? Why was the best data left to the bottom of the list, where time-pressed officials were bound not to even notice it?
Now compare that first graphic with these:
We see that Government & Public Health Decision Makers, and much of the Media, many Employers & other Influencers and those in the Population whom they influence NEVER become aware that a parallel strand of information, one which follows the ongoing evidence from an ever evolving field has been filtered out, and that they have been blocked from accessing it. We are missing the ethic of open discussion and the awareness that the Scientific Process is iterative and can lead to new insights and thereby new conclusions rather quickly. Instead, our Decision Makers, Major Media and key Influencers are nurtured in a tendency to believe “the Science is Settled” and that science “frozen in time” is to be the only firm foundation upon which to build policy. We are being fed the line that anything that they may stumble upon that contradicts this “mainstream” line must be nothing than vile, harmful and misinformed DISinformation. The tendency to cut out that which harms the profit margin has slyly been implemented within our society. It is at the root of all “witch-hunting” going on these days in the public sphere under the modernized name of “combatting mis- & dis-information.”
In the past, the most powerful organization (the Catholic Church) turned the full force of its wrath upon the “heresy” of the scientific observation that pointed to the sun, not the earth, as being at the centre of the universe, with those brave souls who dared “follow the science” (Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, etc.) being “cancelled” for their views. Now we see that the newest organ of power is conglomeration of BigFinance (mega-investment groups like Blackrock, etc.), BigTech (surveillance capable social media, rig-able search algorithms), BigPharma along with the US Department of Defence, and the various US and Global alphabet health agencies. These have all combined the full force of their powers to silence any who dared share the actual evolving science on the matter of the LACK of safety, efficacy and necessity of mRNA and other related vaccine products. In the drawing above, the “official” pro-vax science is shown as Information Trail B. It makes its way through the various levels to the general population. Meanwhile, various agents are doing their utmost to block the ongoing scientific findings seen above as Information Trail A - findings that contradict the official pro-vax line that allows for certain interests to profit more financially.
It is true, in the first 4 weeks of the roll-out of the Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine product in Israel, that the level of people’s antibodies against the one component of the SARS-CoV-2 virus increased. The mere presence of ONE of nearly 20 different antibodies of this virus was the measurement being used as shorthand for prevention of transmission. (Later we heard that transmission prevention was actually never tested.) The news of increased antibody levels early on hit the media full force as “proof” of the product’s ability to protect people from COVID-19 infections. That information originating from that one small sliver of time was the basis for all of the global push for these products to be injected in every arm on the planet. That information, for all intents and purposes, became “frozen in time” as there were no mechanisms to process the findings that followed later, and that would actually have necessitated drastic policy changes as a result.
Here is just a tiny list of what became known by those working directly in the field, but blocked somewhere along the way:
the level of antibodies decreases more quickly after every dose (OK, the official response eventually was: we need boosters in shorter intervals)
a dose of the C-19 mRNA vaccine product can contain up to 40,000 billion (aka 40 trillion) sets of instructions for the body to make spike protein. Keep in mind that 1 trillion seconds is 30,000 years (longer than human civilization). Now try to multiply this by 40 for each injection……with each set of instructions teaching the body to make spike protein - the part of the SARS-CoV-2 virus that as mentioned above, the SALK Institute determined to be the part that causes the most harm
the more times a person gets one of these injections, the weaker the immune system becomes as it has had to fight off the presence of all the spike protein the body was hijacked into producing. Ever heard of the concept of “negative efficacy”? People injected with this product were getting ill with COVID-19 more often than people who remained uninjected. (Governments responded by removing vaccine uptake status from the data dashboards.)
Pfizer was forced by court order to release its internal data, which has led many experts to discover countless indications of data manipulation, fraud and blatant lies in their reporting to the public. (The official response? SINCE MARCH 2022 NOT TO MENTION THIS monthly release of 50,000-80,000 pages of data AT ALL!)
Even Health Canada has somehow had to cave in to corporate pressure, and allow for the authorization of COVID-19 vaccine products to bypass the normal safety requirements, i.e. Canadian bureaucrats somewhere in the country were bamboozled by media misinformation to believe they were doing the country a service to allow these products to be fast-tracked without the tiniest independent confirmation of evidence of safety.
There have been many attempts to understand exactly who and what is at the root of these blockages of information shown in red on the graphic above. Well-intentioned Policy Makers at all levels are essentially trapped inside of the bubble of intentional misinformation without even realizing it. They keep pratting on about how “The Science is Settled” when it comes to COVID-19 and pushed ONE strand of information (the orange line, Information B), while supporting the choking off of the actual evidence-based science, represented in the drawings by the green line, or Information A. We see exactly the same fatal response when it comes to the actual science around natural fluctuations of the earth’s temperature. And we silence those who have a real, professional awareness of geopolitics in every conflict that do not align themselves with the interests of weapons manufacturers. We can see on a daily basis how having policymakers rely on the “reporting” within government-sponsored media has led to the official chocking off of reports coming from actual experts in the various relevant fields of study. ALL OF THIS IS ONLY POSSIBLE, WHEN JOURNALISTS ABANDON THEIR PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES AND NEGLECT TO MAKE SPACE FOR “DISPARATE VIEWS” IN KEEPING WITH THE PUBLIC INTEREST as they are bound to do based on their own Ethics Guidelines.
As naturally as flowing water makes its way around rocks and deadfall blocking its path, so too, Information A has been finding its way to the Population. Yet those Government & other Decision Makers, Influencers and parts of the Population who remain within the mainstream media bubble, are unaware that they have been left far behind in terms of actual evolving knowledge in whichever field is under discussion.
The ability of evidence-based information (Trail A) to indirectly make its way to the Population is only possible because of the hard work and incessant efforts coming from citizen journalists and all manner of internet-based independent media. Any attempts by government to legislate what can and cannot be promoted via the internet, if successful, will simply perpetuate further efforts to find alternate technologies since those committed to the free flow of actual information will never be silenced.
In the meantime, those who try to stand in its way, will soon find themselves holding on to ridiculously impossible positions, the Catholic Church couldn’t prove that the earth was at the centre of the universe as the years and the march of time went by, bringing ever new scientific insights.
Given that you, the Canadian Association of Journalists’ Ethics Advisory Committee, have the mandate to ensure that the CAJ Code of Ethics is enforced, please advise Canadians how you intend to go about doing just that. What mechanisms can you make use of to ensure that all journalists, including science writers, and all publicly funded publications buck the trend to micromanage, censor and “cancel” voices? How can you ensure a diversity of viewpoints, not just a diversity of ethnicities, but truly a diversity of opinions rooted in a range of facts?
At the start of the following post I have listed a number of the terms of your code of ethics that have been completely thrown out of the window these last three years:
You must be aware by now, that this focus on declaring evidence-based science as mis/disinformation, and the absolute silence on life and death matters to “protect the narrative” as devised by government and BigPharm/BigTech etc. is precisely what is driving mainstream media to become the failed business model, the dinosaur doomed for extinction.
Perhaps insights shared in the following interview might help as you draft a response to the concerns shared in this letter.
Former CBC journalist Tara Henley and Holly Dean, co-editor of Blacklock’s Reporter, discuss the need for an “apprenticeship model” for the training of journalists. Have you ever considered meeting with the two of them to brainstorm how these various blockages to the information flow in Canada can be removed?
What can you learn from the Munk Debates that can be replicated in today’s journalism to allow for free and open reporting of a wide range of disparate views put into the public square, without some kind of top-down government and corporate censorship? As you re-listen to the debate held on November 30, 2022 on the topic of the mainstream media, for example, check to see how closely the illustrations of the “Information Trail” shared above are reflected in the comments by the various speakers.
Consider sitting down with Rodney Palmer and Trish Woods and have the humility to learn of their experiences both inside and outside of the mainstream media bubble, seeking their insights as to how the CAJ can better ensure that ALL the terms of its Ethics Guidelines are applied. Ask yourselves what factors within the current financial structures have prevented Ms. Woods from providing the news coverage she can better present independently and how this can be changed.
You can also learn a ton from investigative journalist Whitney Webb. Her most recent interview hits many of the behind the scenes shenanigans related both to Covid vaccine induced liver failure and the current situation in Ukraine. Why is the type of investigative journalism she champions not de rigeur on the mainstream platforms?
Recent posts on followingthecovidscience.substack.com address the public health definitions of data, information, evidence, etc. Please verify how within the CAJ, when it comes to public health topics, definitions such as information/misinformation align with what is standard in the field. Consider also the situation of a fellow journalist, Alex Boyd, and how constraints within the mainstream media bubble have prevented her for example from giving even coverage to both the “science advisor” (in this case Prof. Tim Caulfield) AND to the scientists and physicians reporting directly from the field (in this case Dr. William Makis). Why was she compelled, for example, to listen to the former while he trashed the voices with clear evidence countering his position, without giving voice to the latter? Where are the ethics in that choice? For nearly three full years, it has no longer been scientifically viable to pretend that censorship of the harms of the C-19 vaccine product is an “act of kindness” promoting the “safety” of Canadians. Consider what it is within the structures of your industry that prevents well-intentioned young journalists like Ms. Boyd from doing a full range investigation of all sides of the issue.
Furthermore, please consider the situation of the “misinformation experts” and ask yourselves where the structures within your industry have failed them and by extension all those who funded and read their recent Faultlines report. (That report claims that it is “misinformation” that has cost the health care system needless expenses.) Ask yourselves how it came to be that true Information is being labeled as Misinformation while actual Misinformation is what is being fed to Canadians as information re: the supposed safety, efficacy and necessity of the C-19 injections. The Canadian health care system would have SAVED millions had the mainstream media bubble (and its most ardent of followers, the “misinformation experts”) NOT BLOCKED THE NEWS OF SAFE, EFFECTIVE NON-VACCINE ways of both preventing and treating COVID-19.
As media professionals, you are likely familiar with Professor of Media Studies, Dr. Mark Crispin Miller. As you skim through his “In Memories” sections here, note each time the name of a Canadian shows up, how many improperly treated COVID-19 deaths and “deaths of unknown causes” as well as clearly identified C-19 vax related deaths COULD HAVE BEEN AVOIDED HAD the CAJ and its members actually DONE THEIR JOBS.
How many times must we fail to learn from our failures? It was pretty clear that in the early days of cigarette advertising Big Tobacco used physicians to promote misinformation re: cigarette safety for its benefit. Ditto for Monsanto, various opioid manufacturers etc. Present a Problem, Present a so-called Solution, Overrule natural inquisitiveness or informed critique and presto, you have Profit for a few and Pitfalls for the many. Our only protection against such a sham — a Journalists’ Ethics Advisory Committee that DOES ITS JOB — that of ensuring that its member journalists are freely able to DO THEIR JOBS, that of freely reporting on all manner of subjects.
Do you remember this wording from your own association’s Ethics Guidelines?
The public has a right to know about its institutions and the people who are elected or hired to serve its interests.
We serve democracy and the public interest by reporting the truth. This sometimes conflicts with various public and private interests, including those of sources, governments, advertisers and, on occasion, with our duty and obligation to an employer.
Defending the public’s interest includes promoting the free flow of information, exposing crime or wrongdoing, protecting public health and safety, and preventing the public from being misled.
We demand accountability and action, otherwise the terms of the CAJ’s Ethics Guidelines are nothing more than fiction.
We look forward to your reply outlining exactly how you will see to it that integrity and balance is restored.
Thank you
respectfully….
(a Concerned Canadian)