One for you @Evvy_dense, I feel…
1 Like
How did you guess?
The BBC offers timely support to this policy balloon; having Jeremy Vine ask during the week if people giving out ‘misinformation’ on Covid/vaccination should be punished (and answering his own question by selecting one listener who agreed with this), they now have Brian Deer as the long interview to tell us Wakefield made it all up.
So if it wasn’t for Bad Andrew, nobody would be questioning the saviour coronavirus vaccine, that will save us from having to take vitamin D or that horrid hydroxychloroquine.
Deer evidently believes Bad Andrew wasn’t punished enough.
"The anti-vaccine movement is absolutely thrilled by this Covid-19 thing, Their websites are absolutely full of it. Even the organisation, the anti-vax group that sent Wakefield the children is full of Covid. It’s about every conspiracy, every fringe thing, they love it. Emotionally they hope there is going to be some safety issue and it’s now their life’s mission and it’s created a great deal of support for them. What they’ve been able to do over the years - and it’s another thing that AW really pioneered - is to link the issue of vaccine safety with freedom of expression, freedom not to wear masks in the street. An all singing conspiracy movement with vaccines at the centre of the conspiracy. "
Deer is on about 30m45 till about 1 hr. 02m. The above quote is right at the end.
For those who don’t know Deer’s fiercely contested claims about Dr Wakefield’s conduct at the time of the controversial 1998 Lancet paper were heavily leaned on in the GMC’s striking him off. What was also striking was that Deer’s analysis of the Lancet paper was accepted more or less in full as evidence - so dozens of medical judgements the unqualified Deer made about Dr Wakefield’s alleged ‘fabrications’ went without so much as an enquiry.
2 Likes
Another assurance that the covaccine thing is a racket, if Deer is pushing it. That crook is a better reverse-touchstone than Thatcher was: whatever he endorses, you know it’s likely to be poison. Meanwhile, Dr. Wakefield (yes, I know the GMC struck him off; wilfully-blind fools and cowards) continues to campaign for the truth about vaccines along with literally many thousands of others who’ve seen the truth; or had it tragically smashed into their faces by the criminal maiming of their children - for profit…
By contrast, you get a measure of Deer’s fanatical dishonesty that he can continue to make such a damned lying tirade against the vaccine-truth movement even now - which lies are of course given a ready platform by the lamestream whores, though they give Wakefield no right of reply to all the routine lying slurs that are now thrown at him by all the self-appointed guardians of current orthodoxy (goco’s? 
). Certainly no level-field right is given against a mediawhore emeritus like Deer.
The state of journalism in the Anglozionist empire is at a historic nadir right now. Partaking of the general rottenness that accompanies the decline and fall of empires, I guess. Can it go any lower? Well, hold your bets for a while. The nazis managed it, after all, with such as Der Stürmer and Die Völkischer Beobachter: Hounding of designated victims for political and commercial profit! Utterly disgraceful.
1 Like
BBC: Should witches be burned?
Words fail me.
Should bad science be censored on social media?
By Rachel Schraer
2 Likes
Since the BaaBaaC couldn’t link to the actual report - too busy making sure that all the usual demons are shrieked at - here it is
Quite a bit to absorb, but the notion that the online environment “bubbles” people is disingenuous. By showing us more of the sorts of things that we’ve looked at previously, Google and the like, but mainly Google, have created the tendency that is being criticized. Seems it’s okay to get to know us when there’s stuff to be advertised, and to shove more of it our way, but only if it’s good stuff, not bad.
1 Like
Yeah. Thanks for the link, I couldn’t see properly through the red mist…interesting.
"Common questions
What is scientific misinformation?
Scientific misinformation is defined as information which is presented as factually true but directly counters, or is refuted by, established scientific consensus. This includes concepts such as ‘disinformation’ which relates to the deliberate sharing of misinformation content."
Orwell is here. That will be the ‘consensus’ that is obtained once you remove dissenting voices
…leaving the voices of …
our sponsors!
Our donors
The Royal Society relies on donations from generous individuals and organisations to maintain its independence and promote high-quality science. The Society would like to thank the following outstanding donors, as well as those who wish to remain anonymous, who have supported its work over the past financial year (2020-21).
Companies
(guess what I highlighted 
)
AstraZeneca plc
Jaguar Land Rover Limited
L’Oréal (UK) Limited
Rolls-Royce Group plc
Tata Consultancy Services Limited
Tata Sons Private Limited
Link: Our donors | Royal Society
Poor laundering job…“The Royal Society would like to thank AstraZeneca for reminding us through their generous sponsorship which information is defined to be false”
I wonder if the ‘commercial’ TV channels do this level of propaganda…
3 Likes
‘Scientific consensus’ indeed! Every honest follower of the scientific method knows that there is no such thing, that dissenting discussion goes on constantly, and that all conclusions are permanently tentative, and permanently open to sceptical examination. Anything else is just religious bigotry masquerading as science.
We should add a new rider for our time: ANY person or body, no matter how allegedly august, should be heavily suspect whenever it’s known that they’re on the take from vested interests - especially of the commercial kind. ‘Royal’ has become a pretty shoddy PR prefix lately, what with the Brit mail service, and now this. A bit like the Windsors themselves…
1 Like