Trust Us We’re the Experts…Or Are We?
What is an expert? An expert is defined as:
An “expert” is someone widely recognized as a reliable source of technique or skill whose faculty for judging or deciding rightly, justly, or wisely is accorded authority and status by their peers or the public. An expert, more generally, is a person with extensive knowledge or ability in a particular area of study. Experts are called in for advice on their respective subject, but they do not always agree on the particulars of a field of study. An expert can be, by virtue of training, education, profession, publication or experience, believed to have special knowledge of a subject beyond that of the average person, sufficient that others may officially (and legally) rely upon the individual’s opinion. Historically, an expert was referred to as a sage. The individual was usually a profound philosopher distinguished for wisdom and sound judgment.
When it comes to the vaccine issue, is it enough to just listen to the ‘experts’ that the pharma industry or media promotes before us? Are they nonbiased? Do they have really place the publics best interests first? Do they promote or report the ‘experts’ research as factual and true? Let’s take a look.
How to Sell a Vaccine Program
First we have what is called the ‘Father of Spin’. The Father of Spin can mask an agenda and create illusions that deceive or misrepresnt the true agenda for marketing pruposes. It formulates all the rules or guidelines for creating a public opinion. It’s focus is not on facts, but on emotion. When you focus on emotion, people can be led to believe almost anything. Examples of Headlines:
What they don’t tell you…
Multiple teenagers got the Measles..were they vaccinated or unvaccinated. If you have read the Trading Places blog section here, you would see the vaccinated are coming down with Measles in this age group at higher porportions than in the pre-vaccine era. But they don’t mention this.
The Mother of the twins was 15 years old which does make a difference. Again, read the Trading Places blog section and you will see why. Also, they don’t say exactly how old the twins were, nor if they had any other health conditions, if they were treated with antibiotics, or were vitamin C deficient, which all make a difference as well.
The Shingles vaccine shows “promise”. Where is the efficacy rate? It was also not stated that the reason Shingles cases have gone up is due to the universal Varicella recommendation and mandates for children. The trial patients were followed up on for 3 to 5 years. What happens after that? Was it tested on older persons with an immunodeficiency or other health problems?
Secondly, comes the “Smoke and Mirrors’. Its objective is to control the public without them realizing it. The public is a ‘herd that needs to be led’. An agenda or concept is put into a favorable light and the public is simply expected to believe and follow it. The vaccine agenda is to get the public to accept the vaccine campaign for the ‘good of the herd’, and in turn, every vaccine recommended or put on the market will be injected without question; whenever the ‘experts’ say so. To accomplish this, they must also reach out to those who do not wish to vaccinate, and try and change their minds, attitudes and behavior. Most of this is done solely through the media. A 1997 WHO publication sums it up nicely:
pg 43: “The concept and practice of immunization needs to be integrated into the ‘health consciousness’ of people and thus, to their daily lives. Media, local leaders, and other partners need to be used to reach this objective.”
Who are those ‘other partners’? Those are the institutions and foundations that are set up and financed by the industries whose products need to be evaluated, trialed, and eventually sold. These so-called independent agencies produce the scientific studies and press materials that create whatever view they want to portray. This can be achieved by creating canned news releases which are molded to the news format. Unless you were to research this yourself, how would you know the difference? Front groups are also created. Their sole objectives are to advance the agenda of the corporations that fund them. Example:
A front group is an organization that purports to represent one agenda while in reality it serves some other party or interest whose sponsorship is hidden or rarely mentioned. The front group is perhaps the most easily recognized use of the third party technique. For example, the Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF) claims that its mission is to defend the rights of consumers to choose to eat, drink and smoke as they please. In reality, CCF is a front group for the tobacco, restaurant and alcoholic beverage industries, which provide all or most of its funding.
There are two types of ‘experts’. The first are PR ‘spin’ doctors who are behind the scenes, pulling the strings, and are best used when people are unaware they are even being led. The independent ‘experts’ on the other hand, are publically known, cherry-picked, and paid to promote the views of the corporations who pay them. Sports figures, movie stars, etc., are all third parties who are used to promote the agenda.
Third, is the money. Corporations bring in or hire new people whose job is to develop new ideas and/or services that can be sold to the public. People are the means to the money and it doesn’t matter how it gets sold as long as it does.
United States Vaccine Research: A Delicate Fabric of Public Collaboration:
“Vaccine companies, like larger pharmaceutical companies, seek a profit by selling products.”
“…candidate vaccines are more likely to be aggressively developed and evaluated when there is a potential for providing a substantial economic return–vaccines for which there is a large potential market, particularly in the United States and other developed nations.
“This delicate fabric of partnerships is highly sensitive to environmental changes, including changes in policy and market opportunities. A squeeze on funding in one area will have an adverse impact on discovery and development across the board.”
The NIH, CDC, DOH, FDA, DOD, NVAC, USAID, ACIP, and AAP are all included in the agenda. Money rules in the pharma world.
Next, comes the Players. The Players create the credibility by using the 3rd party endorsements that will help create the opinion. News media does not generally investigate independent experts ties with front groups nor reveal their corportate funding or propaganda agenda. The front groups job is solely to promote the agenda to the public through press releases, molded in the news format. Since journalist do not have to research the subject themselves, how do you know it’s really true? Your expected to take their word for it and they assume you will.
Conventional wisdom can be defined as:
Conventional wisdom (CW) is a term used to describe ideas or explanations that are generally accepted as true by the public or by experts in a field. The term implies that the ideas or explanations, though widely held, are unexamined and, hence, may be reevaluated upon further examination or as events unfold.
Conventional wisdom is not necessarily true. Many urban legends, for example, are accepted on the basis of being “conventional wisdom”. Conventional wisdom is also often seen as an obstacle to introducing new theories, explanations, and so as an obstacle that must be overcome by such revisionism. This is to say, that despite new information to the contrary, conventional wisdom has a property analogous to inertia, a momentum, that opposes the introduction of contrary belief; sometimes to the point of absurd denial of the new information set by persons strongly holding an outdated (conventional wisdom) view. This inertia is due to conventional wisdom being made of ideas that are convenient, appealing and deeply assumed by the public, who hangs on to them even as they grow outdated. The unavoidable outcome is these ideas will eventually not match reality at all, so conventional wisdom will be violently shaken until it doesn’t conflict reality so blatantly.
The concept of Conventional Wisdom also is applied or implied in political senses, often related closely with the phenomenon of Talking Points. It is used pejoratively to refer to the idea that statements which are repeated over and over become conventional wisdom regardless of whether or not they are true.
Lastly, is the ‘Language of Spin’. Some characteristics of good propaganda are:
use emotionally positive words
use emotionally negative words or dehumanize the opposition name calling and labels
Use celebrities, churches, sports figures to talk for you
Avoid moral issues, only point out the benefits, and don’t say anything memorable
Stall for time, cover-up, distract, and don’t use plain english
Lastly, is the ‘Language of Spin’. The scientific manipulation of public mass opinion is extremely important because it must appeal to the ‘unconscious motivation’, and makes people susceptible to leadership. Their job is to keep the public in a state of uncertainty and fear. Fear and Uncertainty keep people coming back for more. The media will rarely report stories which it considers to be against the ‘public health’ agenda of the DOH or the Pharma industry. The agendas or policies can and do change to suit their needs, not the needs of the people.
Modern propaganda creates and influences the information the public are led to believe without question. You have to control what people think, in order to get them to buy into your agenda.
“Scientific accuracy of results is not to be expected, because many of the elements of the situation must always be beyond his control. He may know with a fair degree of certainty that under favorable circumstances an international flight will produce a spirit of good will, making possible even the consummation of political programs. But he cannot be sure that some unexpected event will not overshadow this flight in the public interest, or that some other aviator may not do something more spectacular the day before. Even in his restricted field of public psychology there must always be a wide margin of error. Propaganda, like economics and sociology, can never be an exact science for the reason that its subject-matter, like theirs, deals with human beings.”
Propaganda by Bernay