Why recommend boosters NOW? + Who is blocking the Information Flow?

A polite invitation to insiders to help solve the puzzle & identify the Red X

I sent this letter 2 weeks ago - 2 more weeks to go!

To: the members of the Canadian Association of Journalists Ethics Advisory Committee; the presenters of the Canadian Association of Journalists "Misinformation 101" training program; the members Board of Directors of the Council of Canadian Academies (CCA); some members of the Canadian Covid Care Alliance and some names of people whose data is being cited.

(Sent July 14, 2023)

Hello everyone,

thank you for taking the time to open and read this, as I realize you are all very committed and busy people.

I invite you to help me solve a puzzle...

How can it possibly be that Canada's National Advisory Committee on Immunization (NACI) would recommend continued COVID-19 booster shots NOW i.e. in the summer of 2023?

Now that so much is known worldwide and within Canada about its definite LACK of necessity, safety and efficacy, for example this data here, here and here.

I am putting this question to all of you...

as each of you holds pieces to this puzzle, whether from your vantage point as scientists or as synthesizers, reporters or transmitters of information, or in the case of the Board members of the CCA, holders of the purse-strings of those whom you engage to scrutinize information (in this case, via the authors of the Fault Lines COVID-19 Misinformation document.) And from the vantage point of those overseeing how/whether information is being transmitted ethically.

To frame this puzzle, I invite you to take a peek at these graphics:

NACI members would occupy the spot of "government science advisors" while the CAJ ethics committee members would be overseeing the information transmission at the "Media" stage. The orange line represents the "mainstream" or "public health" version of the science being reported on.

In this second graphic, I introduce the idea of a second stream of information (in green) that is being blocked somewhere between the Science Writers and the Gov. Science Advisors and not making its way to the Policy Makers, etc.

Discovering various letters & articles from single professionals, as well as doing my own tracing of information flow re: Covid mitigation throughout much of 2021 led me to post this Compilation for later reverence. My work at that time led me to sketch out this "Information Trail". (The entire project is posted here.) My readings at the time led me to identify ways in which the information that makes its way up the chain is filtered or  "curated" and "frozen in time" etc. (specifics here). That is the information that is being labelled the "official public health narrative" because by the time it is officially implemented by the various decision makers etc. it is little more than an outdated story line. Since the process of scientific analysis, hypothesis and discovery is not static, new findings always drive information creation forward. Government bureaucrats and politicians need hard, fast, unchanging policies that they can implement and would fear being seen as weak and "flip-flopping" if they were to truly "follow" the evolving science and revise their polices despite Dr. Teresa Tam's June 22, 2021 promise to be doing just that. (Scroll to 3rd article.) Therefore, government officials prefer to see science as "settled" so they can get on with policy creation, implementation and enforcement.

An example of science evolving over the past months can be seen re: the nature of the fibrinogen-related structures being pulled out of the bodies of the deceased by embalmers. Here we see hypothesizing based on data available at the time. Another is the very recent observation of adverse events now coming from a physics angle to add to the knowledge already developing among microbiologists.) Science advisors to government policy makers need to be on top of these new developments, following and understanding them as they arise and not wait for published double-bind studies to emerge, get approvals, be written up, peer reviewed and then curated to the appropriate preferred platforms, if ever.

We recently read this in the Toronto Sun that perfectly explains this dilemma:

A secret Privy Council office memo recommended that any COVID vaccine-related injuries or deaths be carefully managed with “winning communication strategies” as to not “shake public confidence,” according to Blacklock’s Reporter.

This is clear evidence of someone trying to "curate" data so that the public only gets one simple narrative as illustrated along the orange information trail.

However, portions of the general public, via independent, decentralized media sources DO get access to the ever-evolving discoveries and insights arising from the day to day work in labs around the world, or reports arising from front line patient care. Please follow the green line here.

Like water blocked by large stones falling into a stream, evolving evidence-based information DOES inevitably make its way around the various blockages (i.e. efforts to censor and cut it off). Independent media and aware and alert societal influencers, as well as certain employers and members of the population inevitably become aware of this evidence-based information which by now contrasts greatly with the "science frozen in time" that makes up the official narrative.

Part of my question for you is where what I call the "misinformation gurus" come in and how they operate in some kind of reciprocal symbiotic relationship with government/corporate funded/supported "mainstream" media as that is not yet illustrated in my series of graphics.

I would like to ask your help in identifying the nature of the information blocks shown as red Xs. It is a "chicken and egg" question. The instructors of the CAJ "Misinformation 101" series, for example (not meaning to pick on you but you help to illustrate the puzzle) likely are not actually the scientists in the lab or the doctors on the front line of patient care. Yet they teach journalists how to identify "misinformation" somehow taking their cues from what the government narrative deems to be THE TRUTH that needs to be protected. This is so that their journalist students, in turn, can "protect" the population. Yet the instructors, the mainstream and decentralized journalists, the "misinformation gurus" as well as the government policy makers and many societal influencers ARE part of the population that itself has fallen victim to earlier iterations of this cycle. 

I see this as a four-part puzzle:

a) What is driving the "misinformation gurus" (ex. the authors of the CCA Fault Lines document) to be so insistent that evidence-based science ... the new findings that contradict the "official narrative" is FALSE? Who or what are they aiming to protect? If they truly understood this information trail, would they not immediately become aware of the biases inherent in pushing that "official" orange line? Would they not value the importance of recognizing that INDEPENDENT (not "brought to you by Pfizer") research needs the freedom to evolve where the data leads? Why on earth would specialists in identifying sources of misinformation stridently point their fingers at the very people upon whose work, courage and intellectual curiosity all medical, scientific and technical progress depends and deride those very people as providers of "misinformation"? Have we forgotten how heavily critiqued the person was who first saw a correlation between unwashed hands and the transmission of illness? That was deemed "misinformation" early on but was later vindicated and seen as truth. If I were tasked with the job of identifying "mis/dis/mal" information, would I point to the work of those who are putting everything on the line for the love of science and discovery, even their jobs, reputations and ability to pay the mortgage or feed their family? Would I call their findings "MIS"information while I promote the words of those ultra-rich investment groups who stand to gain handsomely from the "Information" they want shared? Would I not ask "cui bono" before pushing the interpretation of the latter group as gospel truth? We can truly see the relevance of the old axiom "He who pays the piper picks the tune."

The second part to this puzzle is

b) What is preventing mainstream journalists from carrying out all the ethics guidelines so beautifully outlined by the CAJ (in particular those around ensuring that a wide range of views be represented)? We are hearing that J-schools now have de-emphasized the need to focus on presenting readers/viewers/listeners with a range of perspectives and instead push students to become advocates for one perspective or another. Apparently neutrality has flown out of the window as media ownership has been consolidating into fewer and fewer voices in concert with the "trusted news" partnerships involving social media companies - who themselves are major vaccine investors. If I were a journalism instructor, I would start with a sports assignment. Find a strong team rivalry, say "The Battle of Alberta"-- Edmonton vs Calgary in hockey. Find reports by sports journalists about the big game. Can you see which writer is secretly hoping which team will win? Can you find a totally neutral writer? What are the hallmarks of neutral, unbiased presentation? I would then assign students to find any kind of issue being debated in society, in this case the question as to whether X is safe, like consuming alcohol in parks. Can they find articles with a bias on this issue? Could they see any way someone (like distilleries) could benefit from more alcohol consumption in parks? Can they find articles that actually follow the ethical requirement of allowing for a diversity of views on the issue, i.e. pros AND cons? Each article they find needs to be held up against the CAJ ethics. All the time. Every time. That is how they need to be trained.  We expect nothing less from the profession of journalism. Otherwise they become paid promoters of vested interests.  To "follow the money" is a KEY part of journalism ethics.

Thirdly, 

c) Where has this recent focus on "misinformation" studies come from and to what degree is it sponsored or supported by forces that feel threatened by the presence of alternative viewpoints? I fully understand the need for academics to venture into new domains of research and "misinformation studies" now appear to be booming. NO ONE is funding "even coverage studies". Why not? 

Finally,

d) Where does each of your organizations fit in to restore the respect for evolving, evidence based science and medicine as well as ethics in journalism that include a diversity of viewpoints?

My recommendations:

1) Re: the COST of misinformation on Covid-19 vaccination. The document sponsored by the Council of Canadian Academies Fault Lines: The Expert Panel on the Socioeconomic Impacts of Science and Health Misinformation  purports to identify a cost to the Canadian economy of Canadians believing in the  "green" line above. We now need a companion document  or a second half, tracing the cost to the Canadian economy of having Canadians believe in the "orange" information trail, considering the issue of information that is "frozen" or "curated" etc. becoming "mis/dis/mal information" over time. This second analysis needs to include an honest cost estimate of the serious adverse events in terms of disability, rehab, long term care and social assistance to the families of those whose sudden and unexpected deaths & disabilities fit the established profiles of spike protein and other Covid-vax related damages. In other words, we need a calculation of the cost to society arising because of so many Canadians followed the "official" directives (such as those NACI has just unleashed upon the country once again!!!)

I recommend that the CCA reach out to a second expert panel, i.e. the members of the Scientific and Medical Advisory Committee of the Canadian Covid Care Alliance to have this companion study done so that the Fault Lines document can be re-released in its entirety with BOTH halves. Please also get in touch with the organizers of the National Citizens' Inquiry into Canada's Covid Response for access to the 300+ expert and lay witness testimonies that are currently in the process of being compiled. In my own critique of the Faultlines document, I provide readers with examples of how far apart the findings of the CCA writers are from the findings of the CCCA writers (despite the very similar acronyms!!)

2) Re: the CAJ Ethics Guidelines. For starters, I wish to recommend my open letter to the members of the CAJ Ethics Advisory Committee. There must be a way for your committee to remind all J-schools, practising journalists, etc. of the very real need to abide by your very own code of ethics in order to be deemed worthy of the profession. Imagine how many teachers would be fired if we were to blatantly violate the codes that govern our profession? It has become so obvious by the public's mistrust in mainstream journalism and the exponential rise of decentralized media that it is precisely this LACK of respect for a DIVERSITY OF VIEWPOINTS and the obvious capture of the mainstream media that the CAJ needs to take immediate action. 

Please reach out to those high ranking Canadian journalists who have been pushed out by the corporatist forces currently in command in your various media outlets, starting with those who testified at the National Citizens Inquiry: Marianne Klowak, Rodney Palmer, Anita Krishna, Jeffrey A. Tucker and David Freiheit. They are all listed under Media in this directory of testimonies. And please connect with former CBC investigative journalist Trish Wood. These once well regarded individuals can't all have lost their minds at once. Instead they represent only the tip of the iceberg of your fellow professionals who have been making their own observations these past few years, living in a perpetual existential disconnect between what they read at home and what they are required to report on while at work. This is definitely NOT healthy for them. All who recognize the mainstream bubble for what it is and have internally stepped beyond it will find it detrimental, to their wellbeing (even a moral injury) to have to perpetuate the bubble on a daily basis.

The journalists listed above will surely have excellent recommendations that the CAJ can consider in the light of the Information Trail shown above.

And finally,

3) in order to get at your perspectives on the puzzle I am inviting you to help me solve, please email your thoughts (to me at followingthecovidscience@gmail.com) and I commit to compiling them all (unedited) and sending them back to all the recipients of this email in 4 weeks time anonymously or with your names, as you wish. I have made all recipients visible, so that you can verify whether I have correctly included your fellow committee members and so that you can please fwd the email to people I have missed. 

Thank you for any insights you can supply as I believe this puzzle URGENTLY needs to be solved... before many more Canadian are injected with what provides MORE harm the MORE often it is received. (See Science Educators in this directory for context... this is not hyperbole speaking here!)

Sincerely, hannah luise, B.Ed, M.Ed Lay writer of Followingthecovidscience on Twitter & Substack plus Author of the Compilation at https://followingthecovidscience.8b.io

=====

While we wait with bated breath to see if any of the recipients of this letter reply, I invite readers to comment below or email me (if you don’t want your user names showing up publicly) at followingthecovidscience@gmail.com. Let’s see your take on the puzzle I attempted to describe above. :-)