Media Continue Fake News Campaign Against Mercola
Yet another hit piece has been published blasting “anti-vaccine” influencers for sharing viewpoints that go against the status quo. This time, the article was published by The Center for Public Integrity, which claims to use investigative reporting to reveal the “causes and effects of inequality.”1
The title of the article — “Spreading Vaccine Fears. And Cashing In.” — and its content, however, reveal that it’s far from actual journalism and nothing more than biased propaganda.2
In the interest of full disclosure, I’m publishing my full response to reporter Liz Essley Whyte below. Whyte contacted Mercola.com in April 2021, stating she was “writing an article about anti-vaccine activists for whom activism is also a way to make money” and asking if I’d be willing to do an interview with her. My team asked for a list of questions and, after repeated follow-ups, those were provided about one month later.
Among them, “What is your response to critics who say your frequent criticism of mainstream medicine, including vaccines, serve to build a customer base and boost your profits?” and “How much does Mercola.com (and/or any other Mercola-branded companies) do in sales and/or profits (in dollar figures) per year? How has that grown over the years? How did the pandemic affect those figures?”
You can see that they’re trying to build a case that websites such as mine — which is solely interested in sharing the truth — are only out to make profits or are exploiting the fear generated by mainstream media to sell supplements. But as I stated previously, the real profiteers in this pandemic are not people selling supplements online but billionaires who are only getting richer.
Meanwhile, in their “investigative” piece, The Center for Public Integrity ignored the majority of my responses to their questions, publishing only this:3
“Disagreeing with big pharma and the federal agencies they’ve captured is a detriment to anyone,” Mercola said in a statement. “Placing yourself in the crosshairs of these coordinated attacks is not financially or personally beneficial.”
My Full Response to The Center for Public Integrity
If Whyte were truly interested in opening up a conversation about the spreading of fear by mainstream media and its implications to society and COVID-19 vaccinations, it would have been crucial to publish my response — but Whyte did not choose to include it.
For some background, in April 2021, Whyte wrote an article for The Center for Public Integrity titled, “I’m Pregnant. Here’s Why I Decided to Get the Coronavirus Vaccine.”4 Even her doctor told her that whether or not to get the experimental vaccine while pregnant is “a personal choice,” which she said “wasn’t exactly useful advice.” Ultimately, Whyte wrote, “I concluded the clear benefits of getting vaccinated outweighed unknown and possibly nonexistent risks.”5
In my view, giving these vaccines to pregnant women is beyond reprehensible. This experimentation is doubly unforgivable seeing how women of childbearing age have virtually no risk of dying from COVID-19, their fatality risk being a mere 0.01%.6 Pregnant women simply do not need this vaccine, and therefore any risk is likely excessive.
This does give you some insight into Whyte’s personal beliefs about vaccination, which were evident in her journalism as well. As for my response to Whyte’s questions, you can read it for yourself now, in its entirety:
Unfortunately, disagreeing with big pharma and the federal agencies they’ve captured is a detriment to anyone. Pharmaceutical PR groups, lobbied politicians, and the controlled media groups criticize those who interfere with the plan to vaccinate everyone from cradle to grave, even if they’re compromised. Placing yourself in the crosshairs of these coordinated attacks is not financially or personally beneficial.
Medical risk taking is a personal choice, and that choice must be preserved, and that’s exactly what we stand for — preserving the health freedoms of our global community while also exposing false health information provided by pharmaceutical public relations campaigns.
While you may promote the EUA [Emergency Use Authorization] vaccine to pregnant women based on a 20-week rat study, others find that to be reprehensibly negligent advice. The truth is that COVID vaccination for pregnant women is an experiment, and there is not adequate safety testing for these novel injections — even if the V-Safe program states quite clearly that only preliminary information is available.
Unlicensed COVID vaccinations during pregnancy is experimental. To suggest that safety data is ‘piling up’ is deliberate misinformation. Preliminary Findings of mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine Safety in Pregnant Persons | NEJM.7
Adverse neonatal outcomes included preterm birth (in 9.4%) and small size for gestational age (in 3.2%). Among 221 pregnancy-related adverse events reported to the VAERS, the most frequ
Article from LewRockwell