Friday, July 23, 2021

A Template for Mandatory Vaccinations

Florida has been among the most open states when it comes to America's repose to the COVID-19 pandemic, and yet, as you will see in this posting, is prepared to take what can only be described as draconian measures to its emergency measures laws.


Bill CS/CS/SB/2006 "Emergency Management" is typical of government bills; extremely wordy and mind-numbingly boring to read.  Yet, as is the case with most legislation, the "devil is in the details".  Let's look at Section 17:


Paragraph (c) of subsection (1) and subsection (2) of section 381.00315, Florida Statutes, are amended to read:


"381.00315 Public health advisories; public health emergencies; isolation and quarantines.—The State Health Officer is responsible for declaring public health emergencies, issuing public health advisories, and ordering isolation or quarantines."


A public health emergency is defined as follows:


"“Public health emergency” means any occurrence, or threat thereof, whether natural or manmade, which results or may  result in substantial injury or harm to the public health from infectious disease, chemical agents, nuclear agents, biological toxins, or situations involving mass casualties or natural disasters."


Now, let's focus on lines 1097 to 1111 which are found under Section 17 with bolds being mine:


"Ordering an individual to be examined, tested, vaccinated, treated, isolated, or quarantined for communicable diseases that have significant morbidity or mortality and present a severe danger to public health. Individuals who are unable or unwilling to be examined, tested, vaccinated, or treated for reasons of health, religion, or conscience may be subjected to isolation or quarantine.


a. Examination, testing, vaccination, or treatment may be performed by any qualified person authorized by the State Health Officer.


b. If the individual poses a danger to the public health, the State Health Officer may subject the individual to isolation or quarantine. If there is no practical method to isolate or quarantine the individual, the State Health Officer may use any means necessary to vaccinate or treat the individual.


c. Any order of the State Health Officer given to effectuate this paragraph is immediately  enforceable by a law enforcement officer under s. 381.0012.

Basically, it is up to the discretion of the State Health Officer to determine whether the threshold has been reached that would require a public health emergency to be declared and as we have discovered during the COVID-19 pandemic, health officers and governments seem willing to stretch these emergencies for many, many months.  

In case it should change or disappear from the internet, here is a screen capture showing the pertinent section:


Here is the bill history noting that it when it was voted on in the Senate, it was approved with 23 yeas and 15 nays, when it was voted on in the House, it was approved with 78 yeas and 36 nays and that the bill was approved by the state governor on May 3, 2021:


And there we have it,  the template for mandatory vaccinations.  The Florida state legislature has just given the itself the right to isolate or quarantine individuals who present a "severe danger" to public health for an undefined period of time.  Even if your religion or health contradicts vaccination, the State Health Officer has the right to isolate, quarantine and vaccinate you.  If isolation and quarantining are not possible, the State Health Officer can use "any means necessary" to vaccinate or treat the individual.  And, just in case you think that you can just refuse, law enforcement officers are given the right to enforce this section of the bill.


Welcome to our collective futures.  If governments can lock us down for health reasons, there are many other reasons that they can lock us down, force us into quarantine and isolate us from our families and each other. 

Thursday, July 22, 2021

The Fragility of the Internet

This will be a very brief posting.  


There appear to be some very significant worldwide issues with the internet.  Here is a map from Pingdom showing the current state of the internet:


There are reports of widespread internet outages; according to The Verge, Sony's Playstation Network, Airbnb, British Airways and Southwest Airlines plus thousands of other websites are down.  Here is the report from Downdetector showing the issues facing Sony's gaming web presence:



According to Akamai's system status page, there is an emerging issue with its Edge DNS service as shown here:


Is it just me or does this seem a bit coincidental given the World Economic Forum's Cyber Polygon exercise of July 9, 2021 where the world's ruling class practiced for just such an event?

One thing we can learn from this is that the internet infrastructure is very fragile.

Climate Change and Universal Lockdowns - Coming Soon to a Nation Near You?

Over the past year and a half, the powers that be have come to the realization that they really can lockdown the entire population of a nation without much pushback from their citizens.  This previously untried method of control has provided governments with the ability to use a similar tactic in the future; not for a future pandemic but rather as a means of controlling the emission of greenhouse gases.


While the world was distracted with all things COVID, Project Syndicate published a missive by Mariana Mazzucato, a professor in the Economics of Innovation and Public Value at University College London as shown here:


On her personal website, we find this quote about her:


Just what capitalism needs, another academic with an opinion.

Mazzucato is well connected as shown here:



...and here where we see her qualifications as a globalist and part of the ruling class:


...and here where she appears on a forum at the World Economic Forum "Solving the Green Growth Equation" on June 18, 2020, appearing with central banker and fellow globalist Mark Carney:


....and here where she speaks at Davos Agenda Week 2021 during Stakeholder Capitalism: Building the Future regarding government bailouts and building back better, the mantra of the Great Reset:


...and here where she discusses the need for government-funded innovation back in 2014, once again, on the WEF YouTube channel:



In her article "Avoiding a climate lockdown":

...Mazzucato opens by noting that governments introduced lockdowns to keep a health pandemic from "spinning out of control".  She follows that lead-in with these thoughts:


"In the near future, the world may need to resort to lockdowns again – this time to tackle a climate emergency.


Shifting Arctic ice, raging wildfires in western US states and elsewhere, and methane leaks in the North Sea are all warning signs that we are approaching a tipping point on climate change, when protecting the future of civilization will require dramatic interventions.

Under a “climate lockdown,” governments would limit private-vehicle use, ban consumption of red meat, and impose extreme energy-saving measures, while fossil-fuel companies would have to stop drilling."

That's a great idea, stop fossil fuel companies from drilling.  The implications of that are absolutely stunning; if we thought that the impact of the pandemic was hard on the economy, just imagine what the economic impact of a ban on drilling for oil and natural gas would be!


To avoid the spectre of yet another excuse for a society-wide lockdown, the author has a series of recommendations.  In an attempt to further scare us into submission, she goes on to state that the health and economic crises of the pandemic are interconnected with the climate crisis which she refers to as a "disease of the Anthropocene", claiming that climate change has exacerbated the social and economic problems that have been highlighted by the pandemic.  


But, being part of the global ruling class (or at least one of their spokespeople), she informs us that addressing this triple crisis requires the following:

"...reorienting corporate governance, finance, policy, and energy systems toward a green economic transformation. To achieve this, three obstacles must be removed: business that is shareholder-driven instead of stakeholder-driven, finance that is used in inadequate and inappropriate ways, and government that is based on outdated economic thinking and faulty assumptions."


She notes that corporate governance must now reflect stakeholders' needs rather than shareholders' whims and that building a sustainable economy requires the cooperation among civil society, the public sector and the private sector.


Here are additional quotes outlining her belief that the heavy hand of government is needed to avoid a climate catastrophe:


"Likewise, government assistance to business must be less about subsidies, guarantees, and bailouts, and more about building partnerships. This means attaching strict conditions to any corporate bailouts to ensure that taxpayer money is put to productive use and generates long-term public value, not short-term private profits.

In the current crisis, for example, the French government conditioned its bailouts for Renault and Air France-KLM on emission-reduction commitments....

These conditions are a start, but are not ambitious enough, either from a climate perspective or in economic terms. The magnitude of government assistance packages does not match firms’ requirements, and the conditions are not always legally binding: for example, the Air France emissions policy applies only to short domestic flights.

Far more is needed to achieve a green and sustainable recovery. For example, governments might use the tax code to discourage firms from using certain materials (which I assume means hydrocarbon-based materials)....

Because markets will not lead a green revolution on their own, government policy must steer them in that direction....


Governments should also take a portfolio approach to innovation and investment....


In conclusion, Mazzucato states the following:

"Finally, we need to reorient our energy system around renewable energy – the antidote to climate change and the key to making our economies energy-secure. We must therefore evict fossil-fuel interests and short-termism from business, finance, and politics. Financially powerful institutions such as banks and universities must divest from fossil-fuel companies. Until they do, a carbon-based economy will prevail."

You will note that she uses first order thinking when referring to renewable energy as the "antidote to climate change".  As examples, she would appear not to have allowed for the carbon footprint of the lithium mining process and its associated negative environmental issues, the fact that electric vehicles still use plastics in their construction which are sourced from hydrocarbons, the limited life of lithium batteries and their disposal, the fact that, in some cases, biomass energy production requires the input of millions of trees to create energy and the intermittent nature of renewable energy sourced from wind and the sun.


Let's look at the author's closing thoughts, keeping in mind that her alternative scenario includes climate lockdowns:

"The window for launching a climate revolution – and achieving an inclusive recovery from COVID-19 in the process – is rapidly closing. We need to move quickly if we want to transform the future of work, transit, and energy use, and make the concept of a “green good life” a reality for generations to come. One way or the other, radical change is inevitable; our task is to ensure that we achieve the change we want – while we still have the choice."


While I do agree that we need to wean ourselves from our carbon-based economy, the switch to a carbon neutral world will be fraught with difficulty.  The use of climate fear porn to justify the use of climate-related lockdowns should concern all of us, particularly given the events of the past 18 months.


Let's close with this quote from the United Nation's Special Envoy for Climate Action and Finance and former central banker, Mark Carney:

"Companies, and those who invest in them and lend to them, and who are part of the solution, will be rewarded. Those who are lagging behind and are still part of the problem will be punished."

God help us all when the ruling class gives themselves the right to tell us when we can leave home, where we can go, the type of transportation that we can use and buy, how warm or cool we can make our homes and where/if we can travel outside of our home nations.  All this in the name of controlling climate change and further controlling the masses of useless eaters.  Given society's willingness to be locked down during the pandemic, we can be assured that the oligarchy has considered this approach in their climate change arsenal.

Wednesday, July 21, 2021

Dividing and Conquering the Masses - The Latest From Australia

While we may think that we have reached the peak of COVID-related draconian recommendations from public health officials, here is the latest on Australia's response to the "COVID plague" delivered by New South Wales Chief Health Officer Dr. Kerry Chant (starting at the 5 minute and 20 second mark):


Here are her key comments:


"We have to stop the spread of COVID.  To do this, we all need to work together.  We need to limit our movements.  We need to consider whenever we leave our house that anyone with us, that anyone we come into contact with could convey the virus.  So whilst it is a human nature to engage in conversation with others, to be friendly, unfortunately, this is not the time to do that.  So even if you run into your next-door neighbour in the shopping centre, in the Coles, whilst you're at Aldi or any other grocery shop, don't start up a conversation.  Now is the time for minimizing your interactions with others, even if you've got a mask, do not think that affords total protection.  We want to be absolutely sure that as we go about our daily lives, we do not come into contact with anyone else that would pose a risk."


In other words, residents of New South Wales are to treat each other as "lepers".  God forbid that people should have an opportunity to discuss these draconian measures.


Note, this response is because New South Wales recorded 78 locally acquired cases and one death in the 24 hour period and that the state's population in September 2020 was 8.166 million, the largest in Australia.


Health Misinformation Part 2 - The Rockefeller Foundation and Its Proposal to Destroy Health Disinformation

If we are to believe the mainstream media and its owners, over the past few years, we have been subjected to a nonstop diet of disinformation.  Various organizations, governments and social media companies have taken steps to ensure that we are weaned off of the steady diet of lies that are being fed to us, particularly during the Trump era and even more so during the current COVID-19 pandemic and vaccine rollout.  In Part 1 of this two part posting, we looked at how the Biden Administration was leading the war against health disinformation.  Now, let's look at a new and highly influential player to the "disinformation game" which has pretty much sat on the sidelines until now, at least as far as the public is concerned.


Here is a recent announcement from the Rockefeller Foundation:


In case you aren't aware of the foundation, here is what The Rockefeller Foundation has to say about itself:



The Foundation was founded in 1913 as a philanthropic endeavour of Standard Oil billionaire John D. Rockefeller Sr.  According to Influence Watch, The Rockefeller Foundation is:


"...a major funder of liberal advocacy and public policy efforts, providing major support to New America, a left-of-center think tank; the Urban Institute, a left-of-center hybrid civil rights group and policy advocacy organization; and the Funders Committee on Civic Participation, a project coordinating left-of-center advocacy on Census and electoral issues, among other left-of-center interests."


What I find particularly interesting about the Foundation, particularly during the rollout of the incompletely tested COVID-19 vaccines and the associated subtext of population control, is this:


"The Rockefeller Foundation’s interest in population control programs is credited to the interests of John D. Rockefeller, III, grandson of John D. Rockefeller, Sr.  In 1952, Rockefeller convened 31 experts at Williamsburg, Virginia to create the Population Council, an advocacy group targeting supposed world overpopulation. Rockefeller funded the council’s budget from his personal fortune in its early years, while the Rockefeller Foundation began funding it from the late 1950s onward.


Many of the members of the Population Council were eugenicists.  Historian Linda Gordon counted six of the ten members of the council’s medical and scientific boards as having been associated with the eugenics movement.  Warren Weaver, the delegate to the Williamsburg Conference from the Rockefeller Foundation, said that “I will be blunt…We are talking about population from the viewpoint of Western Protestant philosophy,” highlighting the anti-Catholicism of some attendees. 


The Rockefeller Foundation continued to fund population control activities into the 1970s, but its efforts were overshadowed by far larger efforts by the Ford Foundation.  In addition, Dean Rusk, who served as Rockefeller Foundation president in the 1950s, led an effort to dramatically expand federal population control funds when he served as Secretary of State in the Kennedy and Johnson administrations."


To get a further sense of the Foundation's raison d'etre, here is a partial list of their major grant recipients:


By the 21st century, the Rockefeller Foundation had become a pillar of the liberal philanthropic establishment. Among the liberal groups receiving the largest share of Rockefeller Foundation funds through 2011 were the Urban Institute, which received $11.9 million; the New America Foundation (now New America), which received $11.3 million; PolicyLink, which received $8.8 million between 2000-2011; and the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, which received $7.5 million.


The Rockefeller Foundation supports strict government control of development and zoning, including restrictions on farming. Rockefeller grants pushing these so-called “smart growth” regulations through 2011 were directed to Living Cities, which received $16.7 million; the Brookings Institution, which received $14.7 million; and Smart Growth America, which received $9.7 million.


Another group supported by the Rockefeller Foundation was “Imagining America,” a coalition of colleges engaged in left-wing curriculum development. (The consortium’s 2017 conference addressed such topics as “demystifying environmental racism,” “silk-screening as a political movement,” “equity, social justice, and inclusion in the age of white supremacy,” “feminist pedagogies and participatory media,” and “sanctuary, solidarity, and resistance.”) “Imagining America” is not a nonprofit, but a “project” currently housed at Syracuse University. Rockefeller Foundation grants to support the group went to the Woodrow Wilson National Fellowship Foundation and to the University of Michigan.


Along with over 70 other donors, including the Ford, MacArthur, Knight, and Kellogg Foundations and the Carnegie Corporation of New York, the Rockefeller Foundation contributed $3.2 million from 2001-2015 to the Funders’ Committee for Civic Participation, a project of NEO Philanthropies. The committee has three “action funds” designed to support immigrants’ rights, reform state juvenile justice laws, and support “community-directed efforts working to organize educational excellence, equality, and opportunities for every child in low-income communities.”  Because of IRS restrictions against electoral interference by 501(c)(3) charities, these “action funds” claim to be nonpartisan."


The Foundation is also closely linked to the Clinton Foundation and the Clinton family.  Its current president, Rajiv Shah, served in the Obama Administration as Administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and also worked for the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (how surprising is that?) as shown here:

With that background, let's go back to the recent announcement by The Rockefeller Foundation.  In response to the Surgeon General's Advisory on this issue:


Perhaps if governments and politicians didn't make a habit of lying to voters, we would be able to trust their word on health issues, minimizing the likelihood of "health misinformation".

In response to the Surgeon General's announcement, here is what The Rockefeller Foundation had to say:


"The Rockefeller Foundation is announcing $13.5 million in new funding to strengthen Covid-19 response efforts in the U.S., Africa, India, and Latin America to counter health mis- and disinformation – confusing, inaccurate, and harmful information that spreads at an unprecedented speed and scale and threatens the health and wellbeing of communities around the world. The announcement responds immediately to Confronting Health Misinformation: The U.S. Surgeon General’s Advisory on Building a Healthy Information Environment, which calls for a “whole-of-society” effort so that people around the world know what to do—and trust the sources they hear from—during a public health emergency.


“By identifying mis- and disinformation as a challenge to our collective health, the Surgeon General’s guidance reinforces The Rockefeller Foundation’s role in investing in data-driven public health interventions to meet the unique challenges of today’s media environment,” said Bruce Gellin, Chief of Global Public Health Strategy at The Rockefeller Foundation."


The funds will be used for the following:


"The funding will support the design and evaluation of interventions, tools, and methods to build trust in Covid-19 vaccination efforts and counter inaccurate information, and research to understand how inaccurate health information impacts online and offline behaviors, the true cost of mis- and disinformation on health and economic outcomes, and what strategies might be most effective to counter and manage inaccurate and harmful information from malicious sources. Funded projects will provide a foundation for modern information and communication networks that better serve people and are better prepared to encourage actions and behaviors essential to public health response efforts. Detailed information is slated to be released by the end of 2021."


This program builds on The Rockefeller Foundation's Achieving Vaccine Equity program as shown here:


...and here:

The Foundation has a significant interest in vaccination as a response to the COVID-19 pandemic as shown here:


...and here where the Foundation links COVID-19 vaccines to sustainable economic growth, something that falls under the purview of the World Economic Forum:


Here is a quote from the vaccination and stable growth report:


"There are moments in history that call for bold and unconventional steps. We are at such a moment right now.


To date, COVID has killed millions and undermined life for billions. An insufficient and inequitable response to the pandemic risks dividing the world in two. Advanced economies, with fiscal and monetary stim- ulus and early access to vaccines, can hope to move beyond the worst of the pandemic later this year. Meanwhile, developing economies, with less fiscal space and access to vaccines and future treatments, may be mired in the pandemic for years.


Fortunately, the world has the means and the mechanisms to end this pandemic and assure a broad, equitable, and sustainable global recovery. It is imperative we come together now to take those steps to put Covid-19 behind us and protect the most vulnerable and the planet itself. Not doing so endangers us all. Current vaccination plans and the funding behind them are simply not enough to protect us all and instead, makes it more likely that unchecked, even more dangerous variants will emerge that know no borders.


With this action plan we focus on the most pressing need – a financing strategy to stop the pandemic

by the end of 2022 by vaccinating up to 70 percent of developing countries’ populations. In this paper, we lay out the details for leveraging a large issuance and reallocation of International Monetary Fund (IMF) Special Drawing Rights (SDRs) to make this happen.


But we cannot stop there. Covid-19 has delivered a once-in-a-century shock to global health, global economic well-being, and global development."


Doesn't that sound like this?


"COVID-19 lockdowns may be gradually easing, but anxiety about the world’s social and economic prospects is only intensifying. There is good reason to worry: a sharp economic downturn has already begun, and we could be facing the worst depression since the 1930s. But, while this outcome is likely, it is not unavoidable.


To achieve a better outcome, the world must act jointly and swiftly to revamp all aspects of our societies and economies, from education to social contracts and working conditions. Every country, from the United States to China, must participate, and every industry, from oil and gas to tech, must be transformed. In short, we need a “Great Reset” of capitalism."


That's a quote from this man:


That is more than sufficient information for one posting.  To me, all of this information from the past two postings have raised three questions:


1.) Whose truth do we believe?  The governments?  The Rockefeller family's sanitized, cherry-picked version of the COVID truth that favours their narrative?


2.) In this particular example, what does The Rockefeller Foundation have to gain by taking this approach to disinformation and vaccination?

3.) Why should we trust only certain mainstream media outlets when it comes to telling us the truth about the COVID-19 pandemic and its associated vaccines?


As I have said repeatedly during the pandemic, follow the money.  One thing that we can be certain of is that the oligarchs have no real interest in our well-being or whether we are receiving accurate health information from online sources unless it benefits them in some way.


Monday, July 19, 2021

Health Misinformation Part 1 - The Role of the Biden Administration and its Surgeon General

After this announcement from Health and Human Services in mid-July 2021:


...and the Surgeon General Vivek Murthy made this announcement:


....the Surgeon General released this advisory:


...which, in large part, points the finger at social media for its collaboration in spreading health misinformation during the COVID-19 pandemic.  Since the Surgeon General is appointed by the President of the United States and confirmed by the Senate, his views are representative of the Biden Administration's viewpoint on key issues, in this case, the COVID-19 pandemic.  In this two-part posting, we'll look at the commentary regarding fake health information and how the Biden Administration wants to crush any dissenting views followed by a closer look at how one of America's most influential foundations plans to wage war on health misinformation.


Here is some of the background from the Surgeon General's advisory with my bolds throughout:


"During the COVID-19 pandemic, people have been exposed to a great deal of information: news, public health guidance, fact sheets, infographics, research, opinions, rumors, myths, falsehoods, and more. The World Health Organization and the United Nations have characterized this unprecedented spread of information as an “infodemic”.


While information has helped people stay safe throughout the pandemic, it has at times led to confusion. For example, scientific knowledge about COVID-19 has evolved rapidly over the past year, sometimes leading to changes in public health recommendations. Updating assessments and recommendations based on new evidence is an essential part of the scientific process, and further changes are to be expected as we continue learning more about COVID-19.  But without sufficient communication that provides clarity and context, many people have had trouble figuring out what to believe, which sources to trust, and how to keep up with changing knowledge and guidance.


Amid all this information, many people have also been exposed to health misinformation: information that is false, inaccurate, or misleading according to the best available evidence at the time.  Misinformation has caused confusion and led people to decline COVID-19 vaccines, reject public health measures such as masking and physical distancing, and use unproven treatments.  For example, a recent study showed that even brief exposure to COVID-19 vaccine misinformation made people less likely to want a COVID-19 vaccine.  Misinformation has also led to harassment of and violence against public health workers, health professionals, airline staff, and other frontline workers tasked with communicating evolving public health measures."


Certainly, the science has evolved over the past 16 months, however, it is very, very clear that many of the "experts" being relied on by the government and mainstream media are not providing us with a balanced viewpoint of the pandemic and the vaccines being touted as the only solution to the problem. 


According to the Surgeon General, there have already been some steps taken to build a healthier information environment:


1.) Trusted community members, such as health professionals, faith leaders, and educators, have spoken directly to their communities to address COVID-19-related questions (e.g., in town halls, community meetings, via social and traditional media)


2.) Researchers have identified leading sources of COVID-19 misinformation, including misinformation “super-spreaders”


3.) Media organizations have devoted more resources to identify and debunk misinformation about COVID-19


4.) Some technology platforms have improved efforts to monitor and address misinformation by reducing the distribution of false or misleading posts and directing users to health information from credible sources


5.) Governments have increased their efforts to disseminate clear public health information in partnership with trusted messengers

It has become very clear that these "trusted" individuals are generally disseminating only one side of the pandemic narrative.


He does note that there is much more to be done and that, most importantly, each of us has a role to play as follows:


1.) By taking a moment to verify whether the information that we are reading on social media is accurate and whether the source is trustworthy before we choose to share it with other people.  


2.) When talking to friends and family who have misperceptions, we can ask questions to understand their concerns, listen with empathy, and offer guidance on finding sources of accurate information.


He then suggests the following areas of action that need to be taken:


1.) Equip Americans with the tools to identify misinformation, make informed choices about what information they share, and address health misinformation in their communities, in partnership with trusted local leaders


2.) Expand research that deepens our understanding of health misinformation, including how it spreads and evolves; how and why it impacts people; who is most susceptible; and which strategies are most effective in addressing it


3.) Implement product design and policy changes on technology platforms to slow the spread of misinformation


4.) Invest in longer-term efforts to build resilience against health misinformation, such as media, science, digital, data, and health literacy programs and training for health practitioners, journalists, librarians, and others


5.) Convene federal, state, local, territorial, tribal, private, nonprofit, and research partners to explore the impact of health misinformation, identify best practices to prevent and address it, issue recommendations, and find common ground on difficult questions, including appropriate legal and regulatory measures that address health misinformation while protecting user privacy and freedom of expression


Given that there is significant disagreement regarding the source of the "novel" coronavirus, the actual deadliness of the coronavirus (i.e. dying with or dying from) and the use of novel vaccines that may or may  not be safe because they were rushed to market in unprecedented haste and that researchers and medical professionals who do not share the prevailing and government-promoted narrative have been shutdown by social media platforms and threatened by their professional organizations and employers, I found this part interesting:


As well, given that the mainstream media has been complicit in promoting the narratives of Big Government and Big Pharma, this is also interesting:


The Surgeon General also lays a substantial share of the problem with medical disinformation at the feet of Big Tech:


....a viewpoint that is obviously shared with Joe Biden as shown here:

Let's look at the summary of the advisory noting that the Surgeon General's greatest concern is the link between health misinformation and COVID-19 vaccine reluctance:


"During the COVID-19 pandemic, health misinformation has sowed confusion, reduced trust in public health measures, and hindered efforts to get Americans vaccinated. And misinformation hasn’t just harmed our physical health—it has also divided our families, friends, and communities.


While health misinformation has always been a problem, today it spreads at unprecedented speed and scale. We are all still learning how to navigate this new information environment. But we know enough to be sure that misinformation is an urgent threat, and that we can and must confront it together.


The only way to address health misinformation is to recognize that all of us, in every sector of society, have a responsibility to act. Every single person can do their part to confront misinformation. But it’s not just an individual responsibility. We need institutions to recognize that this issue is their moral and civic responsibility, too, and that they are accountable."


From my perspective, one of the key problems with accessing accurate medical information during the pandemic has been the lack of transparency by governments and their officials who repeatedly change their minds about various aspects of the pandemic including this:


...and government leaders doing this while the rest of us are locked down:


...and social media companies banning anyone, no matter how qualified that they are, who provide a viewpoint that doesn't follow their limited pandemic narrative and then changing their minds once additional evidence comes to the forefront as shown here:


....and professional organizations who take actions against their members who have taken a stance that contradicts the stance on the pandemic of their professional organization: on earth, as mere mortals, are we supposed to winnow the "medical truth" from the "medical misinformation" when even governments, health officials, medical researchers, other scientists and physicians can't agree on the COVID-19 narrative and are promoting their own version of medical misinformation which benefits them?  Following the money seems to be the mantra that we all need to keep in mind during the pandemic since each interest group is promoting the narrative that benefits its stakeholders.

In part two, we'll take a closer look at the proposal to battle the "scourge" of medical misinformation from one of the world's most influential Foundations.