5 Filters

The war on RFK intensifies

Media
#1

The suppression of political health pieces will not come as a big surprise, but the extent and reach probably will.

"I discovered that hot-button topics I tackled like identity politics and police brutality were actually far less contentious than the third rail of Big Pharma and government health policies. "

Here a fastlane young writer finds locked doors everywhere, as soon as he begins to ruffle the feathers of the powerful

It gives more than an inkling of who runs America (apart from the DoD, though there is a big overlap). With most senators benefiting from Pharma sponsorship, I don’t see how Trump will get Kennedy accepted by them. His threats to do what should be done have been made in a very confrontational manner (1. Preserve your records and 2. Pack your bags") that may rebound on him, as this has caused opposition to organize in readiness.

ED

Top Media Outlet Killed My Piece Praising “Make America Healthy Again” Coalition After Editorial Board Lambasted RFK Jr.

1 Like
#2

The only surprising thing about the article, is that the author is only just in late 2024, waking up to the real world. Well I suppose the saving grace is that he is starting to wake up.

#3

I didn’t expect to surprise you or many other people here PatB!

But what of those people who have no real insight beyond “Yes Big Pharma has too much power”, but still believe what Pharma says because it’s played through the “trusted” BBC and in the Guardian and the tabloids?
Many of us even here have mentioned that we are surrounded by such people. I suspect almost everyone is.

You can bet the mystery paper - almost certainly the NYT or the WaPo - will run anti-psychedelic narratives when the (Pharma’s) need arises. They have ferociously attacked RFK from the beginning.
Readers will consciously or not assimilate these messages, without realizing that Pharma hasn’t just commissioned them but also those who write them, as well as the editors that reject contrary news, even medical studies.

As a thought experiment, have a re-run of one of these past, almost hopeless, wedge-driving conversations with friends or family, and imagine throwing some of these revelations in (as gently or otherwise as is appropriate).

If it seems that it might work, bank them for next time!
Cheers
ED

“We have come out aggressively against Kennedy.”

"So u guys can’t run anything that disagrees with the editorial board?

No"

In response to a medical-based piece about psychedelics making a big impact on p[atients with depression:

" But when I sent my initial draft, my editor fired back with a note in all caps:

“________ IS HEAVILY OPPOSED TO PSYCHEDELICS—THIS HAS TO GO (THIS IS FROM THE TOP, NOT FROM ME).”

Another terse comment followed:

“NO PSYCHEDELICS.” "

Editors, even those I considered allies, turned down pieces critiquing scientifically dubious vaccine mandates. Their justifications were often blunt.

One editor replied:

“This paper is pro-vaccine. We don’t want to publish anything that might promote vaccine hesitancy.”

Another editor, after rejecting a pitch on the lack of evidence for mandates in low-risk groups, wrote:

“We are a pro-vaccination newspaper. Personally, I just wish everyone would get vaccinated already. While I respect your choice not to, I’m not keen on op-eds that appear to argue against vaccination.”

The rot goes deep down:

Even when I pivoted to hot-button stories—like Novak Djokovic being barred from competition for refusing vaccination—an editor dismissed it with this:

“In no way do I want a piece supporting people who refuse to get vaccinated. People like Djokovic make their own beds and should lie in them. They are not heroes.”

2 Likes