They are violating trust: how institutions lose our faith. by - L. Norman.

"The Covid-19 vaccines were given emergency authorization after the lost public trust in institutions supposed to look out for them." - L. Norman.

Summarize this article!

The urgency of the coronavirus pandemic and its potentially massive damages made it easier for pharmaceutical companies to push past their usual safety protocols and receive emergency use authorization (EUA) for their vaccines. It's only natural: there was a tremendous need to reduce the suffering inflicted by the virus, so many risks to get treatments out faster. But this haste should have taken long-term repercussions into account. There's been evidence that other treatments or cures, with even greater potential efficacy than the currently approved Covid-19 vaccinations, have been suppressed to give certain pharmaceutical companies an edge. This reality of playing favorites has caused distrust between states and ordinary citizens and healthcare establishments on the other—a troubling state that could have easily been avoided had those treatments not been neglected under questionable circumstances.

Many institutional authorities that were once held in high esteem have routinely betrayed the trust of their constituents, leaving the public with a mistrustful attitude towards those that are supposed to uphold their interests. Innumerable scandals and abuse of power by these institutions have put a damper on any expectations from them, and it is no wonder why people feel reluctant to support any such 'authoritative' institution. With governments and corporations proving untrustworthy time after time, it is time for an overhaul regarding how these organizations are managed and the protocols that need to be followed. The people deserve more transparency and a clear framework for accountability, which must establish if we will have faith in these 'authoritative' institutions again.

This is the main article!

During the Covid-19 pandemic, people were overwhelmed by public health messages telling them to trust the authorities, experts, and science. These messages originated from a politically motivated agenda rather than actual scientific knowledge. Politicians and pharmaceutical companies had vested interests in promoting their perspective. Even more troubling was that, often, what we could call "experts" were simply scientists parroting the same lines without engaging in critical thinking or drawing conclusions from additional data or metrics. This caused coronavirus guidelines to change sporadically, generating an inconsistent message and furthering mistrust among citizens who wanted clear and consistent policies to keep themselves safe.

The most recent Twitter Files have shed light on a concerning tactic deployed by the authorities – they are attempting to push their notions of the appropriate response to Covid-19 by creating an illusion of consensus by manipulating citizens' access to information. It is profoundly worrying that those in power have misused technology to maintain public opinion, as this effectively denies individuals their fundamental right to make informed decisions. Furthermore, it is a questionable practice for an organization such as the FBI to cooperate with social media platforms in distributing this biased message; this only further distorts public discourse and stifles constructive criticism. The reality is that in the name of 'protecting' us from danger, the authorities themselves might be compromising our safety.

The suppression of 'the truth' is a serious concern, particularly when the information comes from highly credible scientists who may be particularly well-versed in their subject. The truth and accurate findings cannot emerge when the scientific discussion is prevented. Even worse, an entire bureaucracy has been established to control the spread of the so-called MDM. This asks us how far we are willing to let our opinions be influenced by external forces - and whether we can trust that any information presented is factually correct or accurate. As society shifts into the digital age, this question becomes increasingly troubling; we must stand firm to ensure that unbiased authenticity remains an unchallenged priority.

In recent months, technology companies, media organizations, and governments have been vying for public attention to curb the relentless spread of mis-/dis-information. Though these 'Big Tech' giants and public initiatives come in all shapes and sizes, their intended objectives are all the same; to rid our online lives of malicious actors and restore a sense of trust in online content. For some reason, this is admirable, yet lacing these calls to action within capitalist systems raises questions about self-regulation in the tech industry. Is it truly within our grasp to fully separate true from false? Can we trust corporations that have emphasized profit over safety from day one? These are dynamic questions that cannot be taken lightly; fact checkers can only go so far, and ultimately it is up to us, as consumers of digital information, to be informed about what we share online.

Disinformation has become a growing problem recently, with many people regularly exposed to false or misleading information. While it is easy to point out the dangers posed to our health and democracy, realizing that these problems come at a tremendous human cost is essential. People are losing their trust in reliable sources of information, resulting in confusion and doubt about what is accurate and true. Furthermore, the consequences can have long-term implications for those who spread disinformation deliberately or unknowingly. We must continue to work together to combat this insidious behavior so that the truth remains paramount. (1)

In an age dominated by technology, it is easier than ever for powerful institutions to spread untrustworthy information globally without any form of regulation. However, many civilians have continued blindly trusting large institutions based on their long-standing reputation and authority instead of finding solutions to overcome this obstacle. As our reliance on 'trusted' sources increases, it becomes more challenging to recognize when false or dangerous information is being disseminated. This creates a reality where some of the biggest threats come from those who have been established as trustworthy entities, putting society in a much more vulnerable position than ever before.

The Covid-19 pandemic has called attention to a problem that lies at the heart of contemporary society: the dangers of spreading false information. While it is often assumed that this issue derives from the public and their interactions with media and technology, its sources go far beyond everyday people. Governments and corporations have been complicit in disseminating inaccurate, misleading, or false narratives. With organizations such as supranational governments and scientific journals contributing further to the problem, it is clear that false reports are much more multifaceted than first thought. It is paramount for individuals to remain vigilant when processing news sources to ensure they receive factual information.

The coronavirus pandemic has highlighted more than ever the importance of critical thinking and fact-checking. Personal agendas and politicking are part and parcel of it, meaning false information, such as 'lockdowns save lives' and 'no one is safe until everyone is safe,' were circulated freely during a time when people were trying to figure out what was trustworthy and what wasn't. This resulted in far-reaching costs in terms of both livelihoods - where individuals had to go without work or became the victims of scams - and lives, where misled individuals into believing specific facts or treatments were reliable or effective. For effective governance, checking facts, accepting human fallibility, and trusting science as much as possible must become integral to how we approach societal decision-making.

With the introduction of Covid-19 vaccines, health authorities quickly broadcast their approval, deceiving the public into believing they would be safe from both infection and transmission of the virus. However, the manufacturers had never tested whether or not these outcomes were accurate; ultimately, people decided to trust this claim without all the necessary information. Even more concerning is that when it came to gauging the success of these vaccines, the Center for Disease Control (CDC) unexpectedly lowered its definition of a successful vaccine. While in years past, creating immunity was seen as a successful outcome, now simply protecting against Severe Covid-19 Infection was enough for approval. This indicates an active effort by those in power to falsely illustrate a sense of efficacy regarding this new mRNA technology.

While authorities have continuously promoted the mantra of 'safe and effective' for the vaccine, data about adverse reactions has been withheld from public release. The FDA rejected requests to make all documents public regarding their emergency use Authorisation granted for the vaccine within 108 days, then went on to suggest delaying their release for up to 75 years. These documents are the only way to understand the vaccine's potential negative impacts, yet they have been largely kept under wraps. It is no surprise that a large portion of funding these drug regulatory agencies receive usually comes from pharmaceutical companies in exchange for user fees or grants; how can we expect them to be unbiased when those same organizations feed their hand? It's a troubling thought that calls into question whether authorities should be dictating information around medical treatments based on ulterior motives while disregarding the best interests of citizens' health and safety.

Vaccine manufacturers have been accused of deceiving the public by claiming high levels of vaccine efficacy using relative risk reduction measurements rather than the more reliable absolute risk reduction one. Although percentages between 67 and 95 percent make for an enticing soundbite, in reality, this translates to a mere 1 percent benefit – hardly justification for such extraordinary claims. In making these attempts to manipulate public opinion, vaccine manufacturers appear to be exploiting society's lack of scientific awareness and knowledge to misinform the public.

Shockingly, the manufacturers of a critical vaccine supposedly intended for public use could bald-facedly claim "no serious safety concerns observed" despite the evidence of their post-authorization safety report, which documented multiple adverse severe reactions, some of which were lethal. Furthermore, they sidestepped the issue of immunosuppression experienced two weeks post-vaccination as well as how quickly the vaccine's effectiveness begins to wane--especially turning negative by six months--and the increased risk of infection with each additional booster. This lack of transparency on such vital information amounts to a significant violation of people's right to make an informed decision concerning their health and well-being.

Corporations dealing with vaccinations have been known to operate on questionable moral grounds, perhaps best illustrated through the attempt to convince the public that natural immunity is insufficient, instead encouraging hybrid exemption, a combination of natural and vaccination. According to reports, this was an effort of these organizations to move remaining stocks at a time when breakthrough cases were increasingly reported despite immunization. This conclusion of natural immunity being insufficient in protection is undoubtedly suspect and needs further investigation before one can generalize it for all individuals.

While natural immunity may not be a silver bullet in preventing future infection with SARS-CoV-2, we should not overlook its effectiveness in staving off severe symptoms and death. Vaccination post-natural infection may provide some small additional protections. Still, experts agree the evidence does not point to it being necessary for those who the virus has previously infected. Natural immunity can go a long way in keeping people safe from the most harmful effects of COVID-19, making it a worthwhile investment to prioritize for our communities.

The World Health Organization has come under fire for its missteps in handling the global pandemic. Instead of relying on its pre-pandemic plans and warnings, such as the need for preparatory lockdowns, masks, and social distancing, the WHO downplayed their value or even denied them altogether. It also aggressively pushed out mass vaccinations without properly considering alternative interventions that may be better suited to individual needs. By rashly disregarding evidence and public health principles, the WHO's widely followed guidance has done more harm than good in the long run. (2)

When the idea of herd immunity was formulated, the World Health Organization quickly embraced it with the caveat that only vaccinations can stop the spread of disease and provide protection. The global scientific community soon questioned this stance because natural immunity makes herd immunity much more achievable when it is considered. The pressure got to the WHO since they eventually reversed their position without any announcement. It caused many scientists to throw a suspicious eye on the WHO's policy-making process and raised doubts about their motives for making such a decision. After all, one-fifth of their budget is funded by Big Pharma companies and individuals – could it be that even though opinions from medical professionals must have played a role in this reversal but ultimately, he who pays the piper calls the tune?

The consequences of The Lancet's paper on Hydroxychloroquine were immediate and dramatic. Overnight, the FDA and NIH took sweeping action to block urgent clinical trials and rescind prescription authorization for a promising potential Covid-19 treatment. This underscores just how critical it is for medical institutions to thoroughly vet their research before publishing, as flaws in the data behind a study can have devastating real-world ramifications. Thankfully, the level of due diligence displayed in this case eventually revealed the falsity of The Lancet's original conclusions, preventing an unwarranted halt on a promising form of treatment.

In an alarming example of science being overridden, the medical journal Current Problems in Cardiology recently retracted a paper without any explanation after it had undergone thorough peer-review and was published. The report showed a correlation between receiving the Covid-19 vaccine and increased cases of myocarditis in young people. It called for greater vigilantism when approving vaccines for young people and advocated for further research to assess potential risks. Retracting critical findings from the scientific record goes against what science stands for and prevents vital information from reaching the public's ears. This raises important questions about why such research––which can have life-changing implications––is too often suppressed, with reckless disregard for its vital importance.

Questions about the potential influence of academia were raised recently when Andrew Hill, affiliated with the University of Liverpool, published his meta-analysis on Ivermectin. His promising results indicated that using it could reduce Covid-19 mortality by 75 percent. However, his conclusions disregarded his research, suggesting that further studies are needed. Hill's workplace happens to be the primary financial beneficiary of Unitaid, which has been named as influencing the result of the paper. While correlation only sometimes equals causation, there are better examples of academic integrity or critical thinking - raising concerns and suspicions around the institution and its affiliations.

It is an unfortunate truth that to see the authorization of any treatments or vaccinations for an epidemic like Covid-19, those without an existing treatment must remain without. Suppressing medications that could be life-saving was one of the requirements necessary for the Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) of the Covid-19 vaccine. This raises many questions as to why a vaccination can be appropriate. Still, life-saving medicines cannot, and how access to potential remedies can be so quickly taken away in times of crisis. Such policies consistently favor what has already been proven effective and have slight potential benefits for all else. The idea that medicine stalls at a standstill simply because these restrictions are in place must be challenged so we can all benefit from discoveries made by medical professionals against this virus, leading us towards more holistic and equitable care moving forward.

Nowadays, it is too common to come across inaccurate, slanted stories and manipulated facts circulated through media outlets. This problem is even more exacerbated by the rise in PR tactics, which are essentially nothing more than a disguised version of propaganda used to further a particular interest group's agenda. Companies also pour big money and effort into PR campaigns to gain positive public opinion for their activities and motives. In actuality, these efforts are nothing more than smoke and mirrors, disguising their real intentions from those whose opinions could cause adversity to their desired outcome. It is essential for us now, more than ever, to become aware of this serious issue and practice critical thinking regarding news sources and all media types.

Although PR appears to be an independent journalistic opinion, it is often a carefully crafted campaign funded by powerful interests to sway public opinion and guide consumer action, such as purchasing particular therapeutics. This issue becomes even murkier when a staggering amount, such as 6.88 billion dollars for TV advertisements in 2021, is thrown into the discussion. Did this exorbitant amount impact media reports during the Covid-19 pandemic? To what extent? How much truth was hidden behind clever marketing ploys? It's essential to remain alert and ask questions regarding every other form of media coverage beyond PR strategies to ensure balanced representation and reliable content.

Many people readily access and share information in this digital age without questioning its accuracy or validity. This has led to an institutional false information pandemic that can lead citizens to base decisions on incorrect choices or falsehoods, resulting in a lack of trust and faith in our institutions. It is up to each individual to work as a critical thinker when consuming news and media, utilizing tools such as fact-checking platforms to verify whether any material they view is rooted in truth. The public needs to discriminate in what they believe – if taken at face value, the consequences could be immense. Considering the source, analyzing supporting evidence, and corroborating with neutral third parties are all essential steps needed to tackle the issue of mis- or dis-information. We will overcome this institutional false information pandemic when we become familiar with identifying truth from fiction.

In the past five years, public trust in the media has taken a sharp downturn as more and more people become aware of false information being marketed as truth by authoritative institutions. Sadly, this lesson has come at a profound cost for many individuals and communities worldwide. Diseases that could have been treated early were ignored, vaccinations were administered without regard for safety precautions, businesses closed their doors, jobs evaporated, education levels crashed downward, poverty rates soared to unprecedented heights, and physical and mental health significantly suffered - an utter tragedy which was largely preventable if accurate information had been made available sooner. It is critical that how media is managed to be reassessed to avoid similar disasters in the future.

We must resist false information disseminated by institutional powers if we are to protect public health and trustworthy research. Active participation in demanding accountability and transparency is essential to this resistance. More robust checks and balances must be required to reduce conflicts of interest within public health and research institutions. Additionally, greater decentralization of the media must be strived for; corporate-sponsored democracy offering little freedom of thought renders information stagnant and sterile. We must also increase self-regulation in academic publishing, limiting the influence paid advertisements can have on editorial policy decisions. Taking action now will ensure a secure future for those who rely on accurate, comprehensive knowledge from reputable sources.

In an age when our news cycles have become inundated with misleading information, it is more important now than ever for individuals to become proficient critical thinkers. Now more than ever, we must take the time to ensure that the news stories, opinion pieces, and whatnot we engage with hold up to scrutiny and contain only factual evidence. Suppose a story conflicts with our understanding of the world or contradicts common sense. In that case, our duty as media consumers is to conduct personal research to verify facts. Pursuing knowledge should be an individual mission, and engaging in it can help us gain insights that mainstream narratives may deny us. After all, there is no better way to clear up false accounts than examining the evidence and drawing conclusions via critical thinking.

Ultimately, the fight against disseminated false information will be won when we can accurately identify its sources and critically question its veracity. We must become gatekeepers of our own media consumption and actively seek out reliable sources of news and research to ensure that our decisions are rooted in truth. Through individual vigilance, we can make sure that institutional powers do not continue to succeed in spreading misinformation and disinformation. Once we have taken responsibility for ourselves, the false information pandemic may end soon.

A reference list

1. "United States: Governor Wolf's Statement on Joint Session Honoring Tree of Life Victims." MENA Report, Albawaba (London) Ltd., Apr. 2019.
2. Top Canadian WHO adviser under fire after downplaying airborne ... - CBC. https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/canada-doctor-world-health-organization-airborne-1.5994889

Here is where I got the info for this article!

• https://www.infowars.com/posts/how-can-we-trust-institutions-that-lied/
• https://brownstone.org/articles/how-can-we-trust-institutions-that-lied/
• https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1598822959866683394?s=20&t=li23VPNRf10WJnuT654N1w
• https://twitter.com/bariweiss/status/1601007575633305600?s=20&t=ABldwGFjl6kk6kYYubrABw
• https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1601352083617505281
• https://twitter.com/ShellenbergerMD/status/1601720455005511680?s=20&t=6fQRxKHjlMt58CTzQcwz4w
• https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1603857534737072128https://twitter.com/bariweiss/status/1602364197194432515?s=20&t=1M0vNIVxVPpP1usMeA0tWQ
• https://twitter.com/ShellenbergerMD/status/1604871630613753856?s=20&t=O-y2Rwgw98VtSAz521yHEA
• https://abirballan.substack.com/p/think-twice-censorship-campaign
• https://gbdeclaration.org/
• https://www.newsguardtech.com/ratings/rating-process-criteria/
• https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/digital-services-act-package
• https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3137
• https://www.thelibertybeacon.com/covid-19-the-shadowy-trusted-news-initiative/
• https://www.spiked-online.com/2022/12/19/the-truth-about-covid-mccarthyism/
• https://www.bbc.com/mediacentre/2020/trusted-news-initiative-vaccine-disinformation
• https://t.me/abirballan1/897
• https://www.news.com.au/technology/science/human-body/pfizer-did-not-know-whether-covid-vaccine-stopped-transmission-before-rollout-executive-admits/news-story/f307f28f794e173ac017a62784fec414?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
• https://web.archive.org/web/20210826113846/https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/imz-basics.htm
• https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/imz-basics.htm
• https://www.bitchute.com/video/hvqIguqTeuWv/
• https://insulinresistance.org/index.php/jir/article/view/71
• https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/paramount-importance-judge-orders-fda-hasten-release-pfizer-vaccine-docs-2022-01-07/
• https://abirballan.substack.com/p/feeling-curious-about-the-pfizer?s=w
• https://www.bmj.com/content/377/bmj.o1538.full
• https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanmic/article/PIIS2666-5247(21)00069-0/fulltext
• https://rumble.com/vobcg5-relative-vs-absolute-risk-reduction.html?mref=usxns&mrefc=2https://rumble.com/vobcg5-relative-vs-absolute-risk-reduction.html?mref=usxns&mrefc=2
• https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-release/press-release-detail/pfizer-and-biontech-conclude-phase-3-study-covid-19-vaccine
• https://abirballan.substack.com/p/feeling-curious-about-the-pfizer?s=w
• https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanam/article/PIIS2667-193X(21)00017-X/fulltext
• https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3949410
• https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.20.21267966v3.full.pdf
• https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.12.17.22283625v1.full
• https://www.pandata.org/informed-consent/
• https://www.gavi.org/vaccineswork/hybrid-immunity-combination-vaccination-and-prior-infection-probably-offers-best
• https://www.eurosurveillance.org/content/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2021.26.39.2100822#html_fulltext
• https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2108120
• https://www.pandata.org/who-review/
• https://abirballan.substack.com/p/10-public-health-principles?s=w
• https://www.pandata.org/who-review/
• https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31180-6/fulltext
• https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/nih-halts-clinical-trial-hydroxychloroquine
• https://www.fda.gov/drugs/drug-safety-and-availability/fda-cautions-against-use-hydroxychloroquine-or-chloroquine-covid-19-outside-hospital-setting-or
• https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0146280621002267
• https://616ec8f0ea9a150b0a6b9b6e--i-do-not-consent.netlify.app/media/Myocarditis_manuscript_Bret_W.pdf
• https://worldcouncilforhealth.org/multimedia/dear-andy-dr-tess-lawrie/
• https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/the-vaccine-gold-rush-and-the-damning-ivermectin-tape/
• https://unitaid.org/news-blog/unitaid-funding-sees-launch-of-worlds-first-long-acting-medicines-centre-at-university-of-liverpool/#en
• https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-148845/v1
• https://www.theepochtimes.com/dr-peter-mccullough-the-inexplicable-suppression-of-hydroxychloroquine-ivermectin-and-other-covid-19-treatments-part-1_4186432.html
• https://www.fda.gov/media/142749/download
• https://www.statista.com/statistics/686906/pharma-ad-spend-usa/
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XlL5_kKyLA0
• https://pressgazette.co.uk/news/times-telegraph-trust/
• https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2022.950965/full

---------------------END OF DOC TIME 01/12/2023-----------------------

 -------------CRITICAL THINKING NEWS BY - L. NORMAN. -------------