by Bill White
Media companies, and their presenters, whether out of a misguided, albeit genuine, desire to push the government's mass vaccination scheme or simply to selfishly capture potential listeners or viewers (who are likely searching for factual information), have been fiercely promoting COVID19 vaccination as though the injection is not only safe but the most effective medical intervention ever created by man.
Neither is true.
In the UK, as with many other countries around the world, the government has established an indemnity scheme to support the coronavirus response. The UK scheme established under new powers granted to itself by the government and delivered under the Coronavirus Act 2020 indemnifies healthcare providers for any clinical negligence liabilities which arise where existing indemnity arrangements (such as the Clinical Negligence Scheme for Trusts) do not apply. The scheme protects employees and workers in the NHS, the various NHS Health Trusts, and their staff whether in regular work or working temporarily or on a volunteer basis.
According to the relevant section of the Act, indemnity is provided to healthcare professionals and their support staff. No mention is made of private individuals or public (or private) companies who actively promote the government's response to COVID19.
The fact is that the COVID19 vaccine is hardly effective. Recently, the CDC in the United States was caught changing the definition of what a vaccine is so that the reality of what this COVID19 vaccine does would align with what is happening in the real world. The following is the generally accepted definition of the word:
a substance used to stimulate the production of antibodies and provide immunity against one or several diseases, prepared from the causative agent of a disease, its products, or a synthetic substitute, treated to act as an antigen without inducing the disease.
The COVID19 vaccines that are being promoted around the world DO NOT provide immunity. Whether you've had one, two, or three jabs, you can still become infected. You can still pass on the infection to another person, whether they are vaccinated or not and you can still die from the disease. A number of studies, not least of which, include reports coming out of Israel—the most vaccinated country in the world—show that natural immunity provides 27 times the protection of the COVID19 vaccine. During the last couple of weeks, Israel has recorded more infections, hospitalisations, and deaths than previous highs, before the introduction of the mass vaccination scheme. Therefore, by any measure, this vaccine is not a success. It's really not even a vaccine unless you choose to ignore the definition of the word.
What is the purpose of the media?
Most people searching for information tune into their local or national radio station or TV channel or access the same information online through the websites and social media published by those companies. Newspapers are decreasingly popular but in any event, most people believe the information published by these companies, with the exception of content clearly identified as opinion or op-ed, is factual. Very few people listen or watch a particular 'station' and then fact-check the information against another source. Forget for a moment the likes of Facebook, Twitter, et al—companies that purport themselves to be platforms but in fact, are publishers currently hiding behind the law—and who collectively promote the party line. The so-called 'fact-checkers' these social media companies use are biased and rarely correct.
In the UK, talkRADIO, a national radio station, based in London and owned by Wireless Group, a subsidiary of News Corp, has effectively become a national cheerleader for the mass vaccination scheme. More than one of the company's presenters describes anyone who chooses not to get the COVID19 vaccination as senseless, conspiracy theorists, and crazy. For example, during a recent programme, Julia Hartley-Brewer, who received her education in philosophy, politics, and economics at Magdalen College, Oxford, and later studied for a diploma in journalism at Cardiff University's School of Journalism said: 'People can make up their minds, but I will do my best ... for them to see sense', referring to anyone who does not want to get vaccinated. Hartly-Brewer is using her substantial voice and platform to influence peoples' decisions (whether or not to get vaccinated) according to her own statements. Hartly-Brewer's narrative, however, omits relevant facts including the potential for serious injury, the potential for long-term illness or even death, and the clear evidence that the vaccine is not a vaccine at all, again, if we're going to use the generally accepted definition.
So what is the legal liability for the company or any of the individual employees of media companies who actively work to influence people to take a vaccine that may have short or long-term health risks and could even kill them? Is it not a reckless act to tell one side of the story, to seek to embarrass anyone who holds an alternative view, and to encourage people to 'see sense', when common sense tells any unbiased person that something isn't quite right?
Bill White is CEO of WireNews