Skip to content

What Is the Real “Fake News”? Who Are the Real “Deniers”?

I know it’s an old cliche by now, but we really do live in a thoroughly Orwellian world, when former Director of national “intelligence” James Clapper lies to Congress and gets away with it, but Donald Trump’s national security advisor is run out of town by the CIA/NSA “intelligence” establishment on their way to getting the big cheese himself, The Donald.

And this whole “fake news” thing with Russia, with the people who used to be known as “liberals” as the McCarthyite paranoids, is also bizarre and Orwellian. The old “liberals” and their younger millennial minions used to consider themselves “open-minded” but certainly not now. As Glenn Greenwald put it, many people just instantly believe news based on anonymous sources as fact without evidence presented. The news media’s shaping of “news” presentation and interviews based on government-propagandized assumptions for the sake of pushing particular partisan agendas has been quite obvious, now.

For instance, this past week George Stephanopoulos demanded evidence from White House policy advisor Stephen Miller on the Trump team’s accusation that people voted illegally in the election in New Hampshire. But did Stephanopoulos demand evidence when the national security establishment asserted that “Russians hacked the DNC?” Did ANY mainstream news media reporters ask for evidence? Not really, as mainly they have been reporting such assertions as fact, regardless of the absence of actual evidence.

Another example of media believing and promoting assumptions as fact without investigation and intellectual inquiry is the “settled science” phenomenon, particularly regarding climate change and vaccines. Just recently Jim Braude, who hosts Greater Boston on WGBH-TV news, participated in the firing of former Boston TV meteorologist Mish Michaels as the show’s newly hired science reporter. Braude heard that Michaels had expressed concern for vaccine safety, and that she had also questioned the climate change orthodoxy, a no-no in Braude’s far-left looniverse. In a tweet, Boston Globe columnist Jeff Jacoby asked if Braude will have anyone else fired for questioning a “settled” medical issue. (Hmm, I kind of doubt that Emily Rooney, Greater Boston‘s previous host, would have had Mish Michaels fired for merely expressing honest intellectual inquiry.)

In an earlier time, Braude was a part of Tax Equity Alliance and spent a lot of his time promoting more taxes and tax hikes to impose on the workers and producers of Massachusetts. Braude never met a tax he didn’t like. So really he seems to be an ideologue of the left. But he has good speaking and conversational skills, and he had been a good interviewer on New England Cable News. It seems that many, many people in the “news” business are ideologues of the left, anyway.

I have a feeling that the firing of Mish Michaels is more to do with the climate change skepticism than the vaccines controversy, given the religious zeal of many climate fanatics now. In fact, their main goal, as we hear time and again, is to get the government to raise taxes or impose an irrational “carbon tax,” and to further expand and empower the government’s police powers to deal with climate change’s terrible impact on Mother Earth.

But instead of referring to “settled science,” the more honest journalists conduct intellectual inquiries and they question what has supposedly been “settled.” For instance, do those among the climate change crowd ever ask how many among that “97%” of climate scientists who conclude that climate change is human-caused are reliant on government grants? That’s an important part of the issue here, as the government hands out tax-funded grants to certain scientists for their studies. The bureaucrats of the regime have a primary goal of collecting more in taxes and expanding their powers and expanding their little fiefdoms. So the primary goal of the whole climate change agenda is more powerful government and more tax-thefts.

On his WGBH radio show Braude and his co-host Margery Eagan, it seems to me, are constantly referring to “deniers,” in the same way that televangelists might refer to non-believers as “deniers.”

Eagan has done so in her writing as well, such as in her Boston Herald column promoting her town of Brookline’s ban on plastic shopping bags (despite evidence which shows that paper shopping bags might be more harmful to the environment than plastic ones — oops).

Now, of course news journalists such as Mish Michaels should express skepticism of various assertions put forth by government bureaucrats, establishment medical “experts,” climate scientists, and other more zealous journalists.

And by the way, the “settled science” that the climate change True Believers refer to has mainly been computer models which make predictions for future events or conditions, often times not panning out. And if they do use actual scientific data, they have to resort to fraudulent and skewed testing. Remember “climategate“?

The “science” is not based on actual historical, empirical evidence of global warming or climate change, such as in their assertions that polar ice caps are melting, and causing sea levels to rise. The actual evidence shows that the Arctic ice has been thickening, as shown in 2014, and that the Antarctic ice has also been thickening, as noted in 2002. Yet, regardless of actual evidence, some of the more fanatical among the True Believers actual want to jail the “deniers.” They are definitely of the Salem witch hunt variety of True Believers, for sure.

And regarding the vaccines controversy, no, the science is not “settled” on vaccines. Once one learns of the extent that the vaccine makers are in bed with the FDA and other government agencies, you get an entirely different perspective on this issue. As news journalist Sharyl Attkisson, who has researched these issues extensively, has pointed out:

A new study this week found no link between vaccines and autism. It instantly made headlines on TV news and popular media everywhere. Many billed it as the final word, “once again,” disproving the notion that vaccines could have anything to do with autism.

What you didn’t learn on the news was that the study was from a consulting firm that lists major vaccine makers among its clients: The Lewin Group.

That potential conflict of interest was not disclosed in the paper published in The New England Journal of Medicine; the study authors simply declare “The Lewin Group operates with editorial independence.”

(As an aside, according to OpenSecrets.org, The Lewin Group’s parent company, UnitedHealth Group, is a key government partner in Obamacare. Its subsidiary QSSI was given the contract to build the federal government’s HealthCare.gov website. One of its top executives and his family are top Obama donors.)

Attkisson goes on to describe some of the valid studies which have shown a link between some vaccines and autism. She has an entire page of links to information on vaccines that you won’t find from the mainstream media.

And Dr. Julian Whitaker noted that “Depending upon which vaccine is being administered, a single shot can contain a brew of adulterated bacteria, viruses, aluminum, mercury, formaldehyde, hydrochloric acid, and/or numerous multisyllabic chemical additives. To say that repeated exposures to such a wide range of toxins have no cumulative adverse effects on a child’s developing nervous and immune systems is more than irrational—it’s diabolical.”

Dr. Whitaker also points out that kids receive 14 different vaccines in 49 doses by the age of six. (Thank God we didn’t get inflicted with all that crap when I was a kid!) In this article, Bill Sardi states that “children under age 2 are not able to develop sufficient antibodies to develop immunity from vaccination.  Despite this basic fact, the medical establishment insists upon administering a total of 19 shots, containing 24 vaccines, to infants on their 2, 4 and 6 month pediatric visits.” Sardi gives a lot of important information with links for further inquiry (for those open-minded enough to not fall for the “science is settled” mantra).

I think that much of the pro-vaccine and pro-prescription drug hysteria is unwittingly on behalf of the obscene profits being made by the drug companies (and often at taxpayer expense, especially via Medicare and ObamaCare). Not that I’m against corporations earning profits. But when it’s based on deception, that’s not good.

Some of the “fake news” includes the intentional omission of important information for consumers to make better choices.

I have written before on NPR’s blatant bias on behalf of Big Pharma, and PBS’s biased story on the deadly Gardasil HPV vaccine. And I have also written about how the mainstream media often don’t mention the number of recent mass murderers who had been taking psychiatric drugs. Many mainstream news media outlets are sponsored by pharmaceutical industry predators, so naturally the media wouldn’t want to expose any of the liabilities from those companies’ products.

Former Merck employee Brandy Vaughan describes the lengths to which the drug companies will go to harass and intimidate those who speak out against the corruption of the pharmaceutical industry.

Regarding the vaccine hysteria of the never-question-vaccine-safety crowd, one point I hear them make is, “My kid is vaccinated, and I don’t want any unvaccinated kids in the class with my kid. So, get your kid vaccinated, because otherwise he’s dangerous to my kid.” Which implies that you don’t believe that your kid’s being vaccinated protects him, i.e. an admission or belief that your kid’s vaccination is ineffective. Otherwise, it wouldn’t matter if another kid isn’t vaccinated. But hystericals don’t think logically, they act emotionally.

In this important article on vaccine hysteria, Dr. Lee Hieb points out the dangers of some vaccines such as the MMR vaccine, and makes a valid conclusion that the whole issue is really more about freedom. Let parents have the freedom to make an informed decision as to whether or not to get their child vaccinated.

So we do live in an extremely Orwellian age now. Real information and truth are considered “fake news,” while propagandists push false information or silence alternative (i.e. truthful and factual) information from getting out there. Today, the actual promoters of science and honest intellectual inquiry are silenced by the anti-science promoters of actual fake news (i.e. propaganda) and greater governmental power and control.

Published inUncategorized