TODAY we are publishing two powerful posts on the same topic – the BBC’s intervention leading to the closure of a number of Facebook groups used by victims of Covid vaccine damage.
THE mass injection programme, purportedly to prevent a viral contagion known as Covid-19, is a triumph of collectivism. Individual experience and perception, until recently promoted by postmodernists as the ultimate truth, are negated (unless serving the agenda of identity politics).
Mainstream media, heavily funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, are enforcing the official narrative not only on their own platforms, but now also policing what is said elsewhere. One of the most egregious cases of censorship yet is the action taken by the BBC to disable Facebook accounts used by vaccine victims. It alerted Facebook’s owner, Meta, that users were displaying a carrot emoji instead of the word ‘vaccine’ to evade automated moderation tools and Meta removed the groups.
On news bulletins last week, the BBC bragged about its success. One group had a quarter of a million members, many using the forum to describe the adverse effects of vaccination. The BBC smeared them as ‘anti-vaxxers’ who were spreading ‘unverified’ claims. This is an outrageous ultra vires act by our public service broadcaster. If it was doing its duty, it would be investigating the harms caused by an unholy alliance between governments and Big Pharma. But that would be biting the hand that feeds.
Victims of jab injuries receive little sympathy from the compliant majority, partly due to media censorship, but also because they challenge the mantra of ‘safe and effective’. Here is a random but revealing exchange on Twitter:
– ‘My brother died suddenly 2 days after the booster, my husband died with covid as a contributing factor and was fully vaxxed. My hairdresser had covid got vaxxed after and is now in renal failure waiting on a kidney. I had it in the beginning pre vax and lived to tell no vax.’
– ‘Here’s the thing about “science”… your anecdotes are statistically insignificant, and therefore, not information reliable enough to base future decisions on. Your anecdotes then become what we call “dangerous misinformation”. Please stop.’
Joseph Stalin would have liked that reply, having remarked that ‘a single death is a tragedy; a million deaths are a statistic’. Often people describing severe health problems after the injections are told that until their account can be verified by experts’ peer-reviewed research, their utterance is worthless.
Silencing and smearing of people with vaccine injuries, or even relatives of those who died, is deeply insensitive. This misanthropy was apparent when James Delingpole was invited on to Michelle Dewberry’s GB News show to discuss the government’s reluctance to compensate citizens who followed guidance to take the experimental injections. The debate drew publicity about an exchange between Delingpole and think-tanker Joanna Williams, who responded to a litany of iatrogenic outcomes with a smug ‘You’re being very conspirational, James’. Williams is a regular contributor to Spiked website, which offended many readers with its constant shilling for Big Pharma’s lucrative but ineffectual inoculations.
The debate highlighted the ascent of collectivist ideology. As a vaccine proponent, Williams claimed that ‘for millions of people it’s been safe and it’s actually saved a huge number of lives’. Former editor of Labour List Peter Edwards argued that rare vaccine harm should be put into context, declaring: ‘I want to support public confidence in the vaccine, not undermine it.’
Dewberry challenged Edwards on how the majority who were not seriously harmed overrides any concern for those whose health has been significantly impaired. This would be like a car manufacturer shrugging its shoulders at a serious fault in the braking system, because only a few people had died. Why is Pfizer treated preferentially? On TCW, Gary Oliver noted: –
‘The hapless victims are hitherto healthy people who had no need for injections which have proven much less effective but far more dangerous than had been promised. Yet still Peter Edwards and other zealots obstinately hail the unnecessary mass vaccination as having been for the greater good, with the resultant deaths and disablements blithely brushed aside as collateral damage.’
Certainly the public mood has shifted, not least due to personal experience of vaccine damage, but because the last three years have shown that our fundamental rights are precarious. The draconian Covid-19 regime was enthusiastically maintained by a puritanical minority and a gullible majority. Perhaps even our leaders were surprised by how easily this contrived crisis turned citizens into a state of frightened servility. Totalitarianism has sneaked in the door, disguised as medicine.