 | This is the kind of stuff that drives me crazy! I use to consider the BBC a credible source of news, but now? They are just as much an instrument of big pharma propaganda as is Forbes, (which I previously blogged about HERE.) In the hopes that more people will read this -- I will keep it bite size by deconstructing just a single passage from the BBC article. This one: |
Here is what makes this propaganda -- rather than legitimate journalism.
First -- the study they referenced was a comparison between hospitals that had different percentages of their employees vaccinated against the flu. Then they correlated the percent of staff vaccinated for flu with the likelihood of patients there dying from the flu. But they report that the data also showed that the rate of positivity for influenza in the patients was similar between the hospitals regardless of vaccine coverage in the workers. So just think about that for a moment...since correlation doesn't equal causation anyway, there is no rational basis to conclude that higher vaccination rates in the staff, had anything to do with fewer patients dying -- since flu appears to have been equally prevalent in patients in both populations. Duh.
Then the author provides a second example, that is just as disingenuous -- but in a different way. Do most readers just swallow this BS without doing any critical thinking? Look at this sentence:
First -- the study they referenced was a comparison between hospitals that had different percentages of their employees vaccinated against the flu. Then they correlated the percent of staff vaccinated for flu with the likelihood of patients there dying from the flu. But they report that the data also showed that the rate of positivity for influenza in the patients was similar between the hospitals regardless of vaccine coverage in the workers. So just think about that for a moment...since correlation doesn't equal causation anyway, there is no rational basis to conclude that higher vaccination rates in the staff, had anything to do with fewer patients dying -- since flu appears to have been equally prevalent in patients in both populations. Duh.
Then the author provides a second example, that is just as disingenuous -- but in a different way. Do most readers just swallow this BS without doing any critical thinking? Look at this sentence:
"There's no question mandatory vaccinations can save lives."
But the "evidence" of the second example -- discussing measles, doesn't even mention deaths. It only mentions "cases." Since 2015 there has been only ONE measles death in the US. This in spite of nearly 1300 measles cases documented in 2019 alone! (Such a deadly disease!) And while we hear over and over how deadly measles is -- take note -- those are deaths outside of the US -- where unfortunately, children suffering the extreme impacts of poverty and malnutrition -- and especially vitamin A deficiency -- ARE vulnerable to dying if they get measles. But those deaths reflect the dangers of poverty and malnutrition more than they do measles. Clearly unvaccinated children in the US who do catch measles are not likely to die from it.
This article is agenda driven propaganda. It reinforces the pharma-profiting narrative and is not unbiased journalism simply seeking to inform. About par for what we see everywhere now that the military-industrial-medical-meat-media complex has a death grip on our government.
