John Ward Uncategorized

AN INQUIRY INTO MEDIA ENQUIRIES

Why do hacks never ask the questions real people want answers to?

When a balanced history of Contrick19 is finally written, it remains my expectation that the social, broadcast and press media will be the recipients of the most almighty drubbing in communications history….if, that is, the freedom to publish via internet and print books still exists.

This is not exactly breaking news for those who are awake and still firmly fixed by gravity onto the real world of Planet Earth. But the best form of providing foundations for an opinion will always be exemplification by the use of unanswered questions about the mismatch between ‘official’ narratives and the objective data.

This post offers a primer – for all those ideologue “reporters” in contemporary Western media sets – about what Robin Day and Ed Murrow used to do, and Tucker Carlson at Fox News still does.

Albeit set largely in an Anglo-American-Gallic context – I am a great believer in ‘write what you know’ – there follow ten perfectly reasonable and yet puzzling questions that not many citizens across the world care about these days….but enough do to make it worth my while showing what might be achieved if lightweight media activists stopped scoring infantile political points, and started doing their job – viz: calling State power to account.

  1. A question for President Trump: It is clear you have little or no faith in Dr Fauci, Mr President. It is equally clear that he (and the CDC he controls) have strong Pharma links, and he has suppressed the use of effective management drug cocktails to reduce the death rate for Covid19 victims. Can you explain to us therefore why he hasn’t been fired in favour of somebody like Robert F Kennedy Jr?
  2. A question for President Macron: Would you like to explain to us why your long and unhealthy copainisme relationship with the drugs giant Sanofi has helped that Big Pharma cowboy outfit to avoid both prosecutions for malpractice and huge tax bills since 2010? Also why you let them slag off the distinguised Professor Didier Raoult whose HCQ cocktails could’ve saved the French State millions of euros in Covid19 victim recovery management….and tens of thousands of lives?
  3. A question for UK Prime Sinister Mark Sedwill: Given that Neil Ferguson had already cost the British State £18 billion in needless livestock slaughter on the basis of wildly alarmist predictions about BSE et al, why did you wheel out this 3-time loser as a credible adviser on Covid19? Did you note that his research & cod-science modelling claptrap is entirely funded by Pharmaceutical and billionaire vaccination interests?
  4. A question for Prime Minister Boris Johnson and President Macron: Why did you agree to your economy being subjected to 100% Lockdown when only circa 1 in 6 of your populations are defined as ‘vulnerable’ to death from Covid19….and 90% of them aren’t economically active? All of this data was available to both of you….why didn’t you overrule the idiot modellers? As achievers of the highest Office in the land, The People have the right to expect, at the very least, your competence in such matters.
  5. Another question for Prime Minister Boris Johnson and President Macron: Both your countries lost in the region of $3trillion US in gdp as a result of Lockdown….this is (for both of you) roughly 12 times the cost of defending your NHS and Assurance Maladie respectively: so why did you opt to screw up the economy rather than invest in the national insurance infrastructure? Please bear in mind that this is an ethical as well as economic question: use both sides of the paper, and avoid woffle, as examples of same will be deducted from your scores.
  6. A question for all three examinees: Given that firm quantitative data from India via Saudi Arabia to Australia has now demonstrated conclusively that Covid19 is far less able to spread under conditions of high temperature and humidity (as is the case with Coronavirus generally) why do your Health “authorities” cling to the idea that this is untrue?
  7. A question for Boris Johnson and Emmanuel Macron: one of the few things all virologists can agree upon is that single-layer face masks are 98% ineffective in controlling the spread of C19. So why as of Monday are we all legally required to wear these abominations while in shops?
  8. A question for Boris Johnson: who appointed Professor Peter Horby to carry out Covid19 drugs trials under the auspices of Oxford Recovery…..trials that flagrantly misused the recommended administration of HCQ in order to find in favour of Remdesivir – a drug 63% less effective than HCQ cocktails – and probably resulted in the needless death of some 35 patients?
  9. And yet another question for Boris Johnson: would you like to explain to us please why numerous medical professionals have testified to the falsification of death certificates – and casual assumptions that Covid19 was the cause of death among other pathogens – and yet the UK’s biggest funereal provider (the Cooperative Movement) reports “no significant rise in demand”?
  10. And one final question for all three contestants: why is it that none of the statistics at https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/ bear any relationship at all to the illiberal measures being considered to contain a virus that yesterday killed 946 people in the US, 114 in the UK, and 14 citizens of the French 5th Republic?

These questions go unanswered for all kind of reasons: the media have now kept the public in the dark for so long on Contrick19, even to ask them would leave some people baffled; and all three men are careful to avoid contrarian interviewers.

But that they add up to a pattern is undeniable. For example, to reject the relevance of such questions is to suggest that our politico-bureaucratic élites are mathematically dyslexic, economically illiterate, and incapable of reading engagingly expressed medical opinion condemning Lockdown, extolling herd immunity, and raising doubts about the possibility of a viable Coronavirus vaccine in the first place. Or even, taking on board that an inevitable reduction in the global population of 0.0064% represents a cull of the old and ill that is almost homoaeopathic in its nature…and most certainly not a “reason” to plunge the global economy into a slump of unparalleled severity.

The very least the open-minded among us ask is that people ponder the question “cui bono”, and then follow the money. This is not a case of conspiranoia, but detection: of motives (and there are many) of pre-Covid dirty linen, of political opportunism, of engorged medical researcher egos, of plans to destabilise elected governments, of new excuses for Brussels to cry foul on Brexit, and of the US hegemonist desire to add a Chinese demon to the Russian one.

At base, Covid19 is a developing demonstration of Nineteen Eighty-Four incarnate: Hate rallies, invisible threats, bogey men, ‘permanent war’ – and above all, yet more rationales for surveillance and control.

Enjoy your Sunday lunch.