GLOBALISED mainstream media equates not just with a uniform, poorly-informed world, but a manipulated world.
In Britain, the Times runs a story entitled: After centuries of cut, burn and poison, could a jab cure cancer? by Tom Whipple. Eleven thousand miles away in New Zealand, the same story appears in Stuff newspaper.
This is one of those ‘isn’t it wonderful?’ reassuring stories that unfortunately don’t look quite so rosy after close scrutiny, but like bad pennies are turning up everywhere. On the surface informative and exciting, underneath sadly lacking in that investigative depth we were expecting – and certainly over-hyped.
This particular story would not be out of place in a glossy brochure seeking investment funds for BioNTech. According to the Times article, RNA vaccine technology is rather like buying a piece of furniture from Ikea. Each person could very soon have their own personalised cancer vaccine off the shelf. What could possibly go wrong?
The tremendously hopeful note that the story strikes is based on a lot of over-simplified theory and the success (???) of the Pfizer Covid vaccine co-developed with BioNTech. It sounds reassuringly easy to design mRNA vaccines that rush to your aid and eliminate those nasty cancer cells.
Ugur Sahin and Ozlem Tureci, founders of BioNTech, are pictured in white coats, and are quoted promising: ‘We stimulate the immune system, do something magic, and the tumour disappears.’
Heady stuff, but the cited evidence is less than thin. A decorated cancer researcher who was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer in 2007, then tried all his innovative ideas out on himself, and died in 2011. In 2020, 16 patients with pancreatic cancer were treated by BioNTech. Eighteen months later, eight have died and eight are cancer-free after 18 months. The details are sadly lacking.
What stage were they at and how does that compare with their expected prognosis? The missing piece of the jigsaw is the article’s lack of scrutiny of the safety of BioNTech’s only commercialised mRNA vaccine product – the Pfizer Covid vaccine.
If you want to ask questions and also seek answers, you will need to turn to a completely different kind of journalism. Igor Chudovis a mathematician – like the Times author – but he writes on Substack and is therefore not constrained by any editorial policy or any no-go areas dictated by the newspaper owners, their advertisers, or subtly imposed government guidelines.
Chudov has published a very different cancer story, headlined: Cancer rates are Increasing and may get much worse. Wiped out immune systems take time to manifest.
According to the article, we are seeing the first ripple of a coming storm of cancer deaths.Chudov reports the work of the Ethical Skeptic(another Substack researcher) whose analysis of figures from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention – the public health agency of the US – has shown that the rate of US cancer deaths accelerated in 2021 and 2022, coinciding with the rollout of the Pfizer/BioNTech mRNA Covid vaccine and other biotech vaccines.
It is the effect size that is surprising – 9 sigma. What does this mean? Well perhaps you can remember from your school maths lessons that for a Bell curve, two-thirds of data points lie within one standard deviation of the mean, that is known as 1 sigma. Ninety-five per cent lie within two standard deviations (2 sigma) and 99.7 per cent lie within 3 sigma.
I’m going to translate for you what the observed 9 sigma deviation from the prior pattern of cancer deaths probably implies in very simple layman terms:
1. A hugely statistically surprising number of people already infected with cancer have suffered a rapid progression of their condition to death. Covid vaccination reduced their likely longevity.
2. Some people who previously had no evidence of cancer, and possibly no lifetime expectation of cancer, are becoming ill and dying in the weeks and months following Covid vaccination. And it is not due to Covid infection – it didn’t happen in 2020.
Read Chudov’s article. It is a long read, but well worth the effort. In addition to the US data, he looks at the official UK cancer mortality data, which shows a similar increase. He also quotes another Substack author, A Midwestern Doctor,who analyses and references in detail what it is about mRNA vaccines that causes cancer. The approach is investigative, as we should expect it.
There are concerning issues that Whipple, author of the fawning Times article, chooses not to address. He failed to discuss questions that constitute the normal substance of scientific debate, but his piece was beamed around the world.
We expect the Times to ask questions, but it is not doing so. It has quietly rolled over and followed the biotech PR line. It is not alone – the mainstream media are collectively failing the sniff test.
We are being manipulated. If you want real journalism, it is flourishing elsewhere. GLOBE (the Campaign for Global Legislation Outlawing Biotechnology Experimentation) and other independents are asking vital questions that few are prepared to countenance.
