Vaccinations and TV censorship

2024 Author: Seth Attwood | [email protected]. Last modified: 2023-12-16 15:55

Why not tell me about how I starred in a TV show on TVC about vaccinations? Why not tell? Moreover, this article (in contrast to the TV show "Oh, those kids" in the talk show "DOCTORS" dated 2010-28-09 on TVC) will be released without cuts.

Perhaps I would not have become involved in this graphomania, if not for one thing but …

Colleagues at work (homeopathic doctors), amicably refused the "honorable" mission to speak on a TV show about vaccinations. Each had their own good reason. Someone could not because of their employment, and someone for the reason that they had already been in such a "rework", and decided not to participate in this anymore, since the final was always like a "blueprint".

The skillfully cut of the footage completely killed the message (as it is customary to express it in marketing slang, and in Russian speaking - the idea) that the homeopathic doctor was trying to convey to the viewers, trying in vain to tell people the bitter truth about vaccinations … Instead of the cut-out frames of the poor fellow, a homeopath, against the background of, at best, his wandering smile (Jesuitically thinly inserted in the most inappropriate place) with a wide brush and already without cuts, a convincing story was drawn, woven from the opinions of the medical establishment about the necessity, importance, safety, and historical significance of vaccinations.

What remained in the minds and hearts of TV viewers after watching such a program? Right! An unconvincing image of a homeopathic doctor, unfoundedly opposed to vaccinations, who really did not say anything smart, and a skillfully formed conviction that vaccines are "power"! And none of the viewers would ever guess that there was so much information behind the scenes that everyone who filmed the program had something to think about …

The power of television is hard to exaggerate. It reliably churns out opinions in the desired manner, and this technology is “rolled back” and flawless … Do you remember how V. Pelevin said there about multimedia marketing? His goal is "to make a furrow in the mind of the viewer along which he could think further, deepening it with every movement of thought …". The desired depth and direction of the furrow is determined by the financial interests of the TV show sponsor.

Realizing everything that was happening, I, like my colleagues, for a long time rejected the proposed "honorable mission" also because I knew too well the cuisine of public opinion formation and all its manipulative technologies.

Where?

Unfortunately, sometime due to the miserable medical salary and the prevailing life circumstances, I had to work for almost ten years in the pharmaceutical business (first as a medical representative, then as a regional manager, and then as a marketing department manager) … Therefore, when the program editor began to actively convince me that that they were inviting me to an independent program, and there was no sponsor (and, accordingly, there would be no censorship), I could not believe her, hinting that the federal channel must have at least federal censorship …

As a result, I agreed to filming, but not because of the sudden confidence in the editor of the program, but simply because my conscience stubbornly and qualitatively reminded of myself, haunted … Well, at least someone should try to break through this wall of silence, suppression, active concealment of the truth about vaccinations! Even if it is a fight against windmills, and an absolutely hopeless occupation … Somewhere inside the hope wandered: "What if really uncensored?" And I went to the TV show like a lamb to the slaughter.

And then there was the usual scenario of cutting frames (again, like a "carbon copy") …

Since my entire speech on the TV show "Oh, those kids" on the TV show "DOCTORS" about the harmful effects of vaccinations was mainly based on arguments and facts, the editorial board had nothing else to do but cut them out, leaving only videos with no castrated arguments of the opponent, as well as shots with my smile and "emotional stories" from life. But for any thinking person in such a complex issue as vaccinations, which causes a huge amount of controversy, there must be at least some argumentation, otherwise what are all these emotions worth?

Here is such a nice and unpretentious censorship.

On the one hand, the TVC makes a democratic gesture and invites experts to speak out both “FOR” and “AGAINST” vaccinations, but at the same time, in a way invisible to viewers, at the right moments, it simply closes the mouth of those who are “Against”. A win-win scenario, the main thing is that no one looks into the kitchen while preparing this beautiful dish, which the viewer should eat …

And now a little more in detail about what thoughts were "thrown out" over the frame of the broadcast of the "DOCTORS" program on September 28, 2010.

1. I tried to convey to the audience in the audience (who will not let you lie, because I heard everything I said, and not just what was left in the "cut"), the information that vaccinations deplete the immune system. The opinion of the oncoimmunologist Professor V. V. Gorodilova (her open letter is posted on the Internet) that the continuous post-vaccination period (with such an intensive vaccination schedule) is often the reason for the formation of immunodeficiency and even cancer in children. I said that such children with weakened immunity, as a rule, constitute the category of frequently ill, and endless courses of antibiotics do not add to their health, which is why their mothers are trying to turn to alternative medicine.

2. I said that vaccination of newborns is an irresponsible madness, since babies' immune systems are still immature, and it begins to function within a certain "norm" only after six months, and that the child should be allowed to adapt, mature, and doctors should study his immune status (for immunodeficiency) before being introduced with vaccinations.

3. After my opponent objected that the ingestion of neurotoxic salts of mercury and aluminum (contained as a preservative in vaccinations) into our body is complete nonsense compared to what we get with food, I had to remind the doctors that different the way the poison enters the body have different consequences. It is one thing when the poison passes through the internal barriers of the body to neutralize toxins, and quite another thing is when the poison is injected directly into the blood, bypassing these stages (nature did not foresee that the salts of heavy metals would be injected into the blood of babies, therefore it did not have time to build evolutionary methods of protection from this trouble …).

4. I talked about the connection between vaccinations and the growth of autism among children, cited US statistics that if in 1950 (when the national calendar consisted of only four vaccinations) autism developed in only one child in 10,000, then today autism affects one out of 100 boys and one in 400 girls. Unfortunately, this information was cut out, like many other things. Viewers never learned that the neurotoxic effects of the mercury salts in vaccines are similar to those seen in Alzheimer's and autism. And since the male sex hormone testosterone increases the neurotoxicity of mercury, this explains the fact that there are four times more boys with autism as a result of vaccines than girls.

5. I also said that, in addition to the salts of heavy metals, viruses, bacteria, protozoa, fungi penetrate into vaccines during their preparation. The fact that many lots of vaccines are contaminated with mycoplasma infection (which is very dangerous, sincemycoplasmas can cause autoimmune diseases), avian leukemia virus (oncogenic virus).

6. I talked about the fact that our poor, tortured by huge receptions, outpatient doctors have absolutely no knowledge of clinical immunology (because, firstly, they were not taught such a discipline in medical institutes, and, secondly, from fatigue they have there is no desire to study it). For this reason, a pediatrician cannot be an expert on vaccines. From all this thought in the "cut" there was a phrase: "doctors do not have a desire to study this topic." I tried to convey the idea that before leading a child for vaccinations, parents should at least consult a baby with a specialist - immunologist in order to avoid post-vaccination accidents.

7. The episode with statistics data was put together in a very funny way. In response to my assertion that we do not have proper statistics on vaccination complications (I meant the availability of these data), an opponent's opinion was given that such statistics are available in a special institute that collects this data. However, as far as I remember, the next clarification of the opponent that this statistics is not available, the editors of the TV program cut off as unnecessary and inconsistent with the intended scenario.

8. When it came to the terrible outbreak of diphtheria, I gave an example of how the usual anti-epidemic measures can be successful on the example of Poland (they did not allow the spread of diphtheria from Ukraine to Poland, while in Russia the authorities desperately and unsuccessfully tried to solve the problem "Maximum vaccination coverage"). Then there was a very funny episode. My opponent was asked if she was vaccinated. It turned out that in childhood she was often sick, and for this reason she was not vaccinated (like her sister), which is why she had to get sick with whooping cough, the memories of which are engraved in the memory of her entire life. To the question: "Did your sister get sick too?" came the answer: "No, she was isolated from me." I tried to draw attention to this vivid example of the effectiveness of banal anti-epidemic measures, but the editors "stabbed" the entire footage episode (probably, as inappropriate to "the direction and depth of the graft furrow being laid in the minds of the viewer") …

9. Further, the opponent stated that our national vaccination calendar is not so long in comparison with other countries. She also lamented that parents who do not vaccinate their children deprive them of their internationally recognized right to be protected from infections. I tried to warn against blind faith in the kindness of international organizations and this kind of entrenched rights, and gave the example of the northern states of Nigeria, which boycotted polio vaccination in 2004, suspecting WHO of a sterilization campaign. Research carried out at that time found that this vaccine was capable of leading to infertility, since it contained estradiol (the main and most active female sex hormone), and during vaccination, the body produced antibodies to this hormone.

I was promised not to cut this episode at the exit from the TV studio, but it was destroyed, like the other: in 2007, information was leaked in the Ukrainian media that the mass vaccination against measles and rubella in Ukraine was a covert campaign to reduce the population. One of the sponsors of this "humanitarian vaccine" for Ukraine was a private foundation founded by the American billionaire Ted Turner (widely known for his struggle to authorize abortion and limit the birth rate in third world countries).

10. The final of the filming of the program was emotionally exciting, but it was also not included in the “cut”. The TV presenter asked me: "Could you give the mother of an unvaccinated child a guarantee that her child will not get sick or die from infection if he has not been vaccinated?"I had to answer the question with a question: "Could you give a guarantee to the mother of the vaccinated child that he will not suffer from this vaccination and will not become disabled?" There was no answer to my question.

After the program was aired, I wrote a letter to the editor, who persuaded me to shoot this video, and expressed my “non-positive” attitude to the censorship on the channel. In response, I received a letter stating that "it is impossible to broadcast 40-60 minutes of conversation with one doctor," and that my "speculations about some kind of censorship about vaccinations are more than delusional." …

By the way, realizing that cutting frames is inevitable, tk. Indeed, the program time is not enough for a full demonstration of the footage, even at the stage of negotiations before the TV shooting with the editor, I asked for my presence when the final version of the video was formed (so that the accents of my speech were not shifted), but I was denied this, promising that everything would be fine … But as it turned out, the concept of what is "good" is different for everyone …

In the letter I was also urged not to fight against windmills and directly hinted: "You are greatly exaggerating the significance and sensationalism of your speech."

I had to answer: “I had the opportunity to tell the bitter truth about vaccinations, but you cut off all the arguments that were given (which my opponent did not), and I, as a former marketer, understand why … God is your judge. Your program could have sounded convincing arguments, and if they were on the air, perhaps innocent children would have been saved from complications, because their mothers at least thought about what they are injecting their children with. Let it remain on your conscience."

The response message sounded already humanly: “Antonina, I myself am personally against vaccinations, as I personally suffered from them in childhood, getting to the hospital, and having recovered from the virus from which I was injected in kindergarten without the knowledge of my parents. And I am against vaccinations for newborns in the hospital. But that's my personal opinion. It may not coincide with the opinion of the head of the program, and even more so with the opinion of our leading doctors. But again, this has nothing to do with censorship. It's just that each program has an ideological leader (editor-in-chief, directors, producer), their professional right to approve and limit the range of topics, work on editing. Neither you, nor I have the authority and the ability to decide this for them, even with our great desire."

It's that simple. "They have the right to restrict" … Of course, the one who pays calls the tune. Who do you think pays in this case? Whose ears are they sticking out of the new program that is updating the topic of vaccinations in the current 2010? Don't you guess? And don't … Why do you need to know now. The work of laying a track in your brain is going on quietly and in a planned way, you don't need to guess about it …

This rut with each such program becomes deeper and deeper, and when the conviction that "vaccinations are strength" reaches the required degree, you will again be slipped another idea about the need to be vaccinated with some new vaccines (for example, against chickenpox, hepatitis A, etc.). Better yet, bring the degree of public opinion to the point where it will be possible to adopt a new law that will make vaccinations mandatory in Russia. Wow, how many vaccines can then be purchased in the country!

Here's a game …

It’s a pity that our children are involved with it … God knows, they are not guilty of anything! And, if the TVC had a real desire to show both points of view on this problem (and not "cut" the necessary personnel to create a foothold of public opinion in order to replenish the national vaccination calendar or tighten the current legislation), then many TV viewers would have a chance at least to find out what they are injecting their children with.