by Richard Gale and Gary Null PhD, Progressive Radio Network
Who coined the term anti-vaccine or anti-vaxx? The derogatory term “anti-vaxxer,” which has been championed by the media and the medical industry’s experts who function as the media’s talking heads, are merely people who question the efficacy and safety of a heavy-loaded vaccination schedule for children. And this does not represent a small group of dissident individuals and parents. Rather it represents hundreds of thousands, or perhaps millions, of people in the US alone.
We might consider mainstream news sources, such as the New York Times, once a highly respected newspaper, now becoming a propaganda vehicle for “manufacturing consent”. In his book Public Opinion, political journalist Walter Lippmann, coined the expression “the manufacture of consent,” which was later further elaborated upon by Noam Chomsky in his critically acclaimed book Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media published in 1988. Chomsky defines the mass corporate media as “effective and powerful ideological institutions that carry out a system-supportive propaganda function, by reliance on market forces, internalized assumptions and self-censorship, and without overt coercion.” Chomsky’s insights remain every bit as relevant today for understanding the hidden motivations in today’s media to promulgate the official medical establishment’s vaccine doctrine and to demonize its opponents as they were over three decades ago for manufacturing consent to get Americans’ support behind the Cold War.
The media refuses to accept that those who have been vaccine damaged, or who have children who will suffer for the remainder of their lives from adverse vaccine events, have a legitimate right to speak their truth rather than being labeled as hysterical or crazy. All of these individuals and parents were pro-vaccine until they or their child became vaccine-injured. Similarly we saw the New York Times manufacturing consent for accepting falsehoods that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. And this was true across the mainstream outlets including the Washington Post, Fox, MSNBC, CNN and others. The Times fabricated that rationale to the public on behalf of the neo-cons in the Bush administration who were determined to have a war. None of the journalists publishing these lies have taken responsibility nor lost a night’s sleep because their fakery led to the death of millions.
Can you imagine that if you were a victim in the covert Tuskegee experiment carried out by the CDC, and you were one of the people who had syphilis who could have been easily treated but weren’t because you were a guinea pig and the federal agencies wanted to track how the infection would spread, and if you question the CDC’s wisdom, then you are therefore an anti-government subversive. You would be judged as anti-authority and therefore a delusional person. Similarly the CDC and the media, which has drunk the vaccine regime’s Kool Aid, is attempting to cast a net around those who oppose their authority by labeling them anti-vaxxers. It is not unlike being opposed to our invasions in Iraq, Libya and Syria and then being accused of being undemocratic and opposed to freedom because that is the moniker the government promoted to initiate its wars and foment regime change. The logic is completely reversed in order to generate and execute a faux public consensus.
Unlike the theatrical charade of America’s political discourse, when narrative directly impacts government-supported private financial interests, such as the pharmaceutical industry sales, then open freedom of speech and debate are smothered. According to Chomsky, “the smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow a very lively debate within that spectrum — even encourage the more critical and dissident views.” This strategy works, according Chomsky, when people believe they are actively engaged in the democratic process. However, for controversial issues that directly discredit industries that economically rely upon science, such as genetically modified crops, agricultural pesticides, and pharmaceutical drugs and vaccines, the public has no voice. Rather opposition is ridiculed and consent is manufactured in the shadows and through a wide network of media and internet resources to reach the public’s ears.
© 2019 Progressive Radio Network