CNN Takes Another Stab at My Best-Seller
Analysis by Dr. Joseph Mercola Fact
Checked
·
August 4, 2021, CNN aired a hit piece on me based
on a fabricated report by the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH), which
has since been refuted by Facebook
·
October 4, 2021, CNN aired a follow-up, urging
Amazon to get into the book burning business by banning sale of my best-selling
book, “The Truth About COVID-19: Exposing the Great Reset, Lockdowns, Vaccine
Passports, and the New Normal”
·
They claim my book is full of “lies,”
“misinformation” and “mistruths.” But not a single piece of evidence to back
that up is presented
·
By and large, the COVID shot is unnecessary for
most people, for the simple reason that most people aren’t at risk of dying
from COVID-19
·
Your risk of dying from COVID-19 is less than 1%,
and your absolute risk reduction from the COVID shot is right around 1% (maxing
out at 1.3%). This means it is mathematically impossible for COVID “vaccines”
to have a favorable impact on public health
August 4, 2021, CNN aired
a hit piece on me based on a fabricated report by the Center for Countering
Digital Hate (CCDH) — a report that has since been refuted by Facebook itself.1
According to the CCDH,2 I am No. 1 of a dozen individuals responsible for 65% of all
anti-vaccine content on social media and should therefore be stripped of my
First Amendment rights to free speech and banned from all platforms.
For their first broadcast, CNN reporter
Randi Kaye, who wasn't wearing a mask at the time, tracked me down as I
bicycled around my home town to ask me about why I say masks don't work, and
whether I "feel responsible" for the deaths of unvaccinated people —
a strange perspective indeed, considering the COVID shots CNN is pushing may
have killed more than 200,000 otherwise healthy Americans so far.3
The U.S. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting
System (VAERS) had as of September 24, 2021, received 15,937 reports of deaths
shortly after the COVID injection,4 and a report by Steve Kirsch provides compelling evidence that side effects
are underreported by a factor of 41. That means the death toll may be closer to
250,000.
Does CNN regret having lured all of these
people to their deaths by refusing to report anything negative about these
experimental injections? At the end of that segment (below), Kaye decries the
success of my best-selling book, "The Truth About COVID-19: Exposing the
Great Reset, Lockdowns, Vaccine Passports, and the New Normal," refusing
to even state its title.
So far, the book has sold more than
250,000 copies, and all proceeds are being donated to the National
Vaccine Information Center (NVIC), the oldest and largest vaccine safety advocacy group in the U.S.
LINK: https://youtu.be/flfzBU0LwhU
CNN Takes Another Stab at My Book
October 4, 2021, CNN aired a follow-up on
the book's success — this time providing its title — while urging Amazon to get
into the book burning business rather than being a book seller. Like something
straight out of George Orwell's "1984" newsspeak dictionary, CNN host
Anderson Cooper said my book is loaded with "mistruths" about COVID.
I guess "misinformation" doesn't pack the same punch it once did.
They also still referred to me as a
"superspreader of misinformation," even though Facebook has published
data showing that between the 12 of us "superspreaders," we actually
only account for a minuscule 0.05% of all vaccine-related content on that
platform. As noted by Monika Bickert, vice president of Facebook content policy:5
"… these 12 people are responsible for about just
0.05% of all views of vaccine-related content on Facebook. This includes all
vaccine-related posts they've shared, whether true or false, as well as URLs
associated with these people.
The report6 upon
which the faulty narrative is based analyzed only a narrow set of 483 pieces of
content over six weeks from only 30 groups, some of which are as small as 2,500
users.
They are in no way representative of the hundreds of
millions of posts that people have shared about COVID-19 vaccines in the past
months on Facebook.
Further, there is no explanation for how the
organization behind the report identified the content they describe as 'anti-vax'
or how they chose the 30 groups they included in their analysis. There is no
justification for their claim that their data constitute a 'representative
sample' of the content shared across our apps."
Show Us the Evidence, CNN
CNN uses the oldest propaganda trick in
the book in its latest report. If you just spew out enough derogatory terms
about your opponent, people will forget the fact that you provided zero proof
to back up your position.
They claim my book is full of
"lies," "misinformation" and "mistruths." But not
a single piece of evidence to back that up is presented. They don't even
provide any specific examples of what these "lies" might be. My book
is fully referenced, and none of those references has been publicly disputed or
refuted as false.
A journalist accusing someone of lies had
better well have proof of those lies. To produce a story without that proof is
unconscionable and certainly not representative of honest journalism.
As Kaye mentions, CNN also contacted my
publisher, Chelsea Green, for comment on a series of questions. Below are the
answers provided by president and publisher Margo Baldwin to CNN's AC360
producer Stephen Samaniego:
CNN Question: Why did Chelsea Green publish a book so
full of misinformation?
Chelsea Green Answer: What misinformation? There is no
misinformation as far as we are concerned. I might ask the same thing of CNN
and the misinformation it perpetuates about the lab leak origins of the virus: www.cnn.com/2021/03/31/health/lab-leak-coronavirus-theory-comic-book-scn/index.html
CNN Question: Do you feel any responsibility at all
for giving an author who is peddling lies about COVID a platform to profit from
those lies?
Chelsea Green Answer: What lies? Please elaborate on
the lies you are referring to.
CNN Question: Do you feel responsible for contributing
to the misinformation that is out there about COVID and the vaccines?
Chelsea Green Answer: No, we feel we are contributing
to the truth about COVID, as many other eminent scientists and doctors are also
courageously doing.
CNN Question: How much money had the book grossed for
Chelsea Green Publishing?
Chelsea Green Answer: I think you can figure that out
for yourselves.
CNN Question: What was Dr. Mercola's compensation for
writing the book and how much has he earned from sales royalties?
Chelsea Green Answer: That is confidential information
but Dr. Mercola has said publicly that he is donating all his earnings from the
book to The National Vaccine Information Center, a nonprofit organization
dedicated to vaccine safety.
In a statement accompanying her answers,
Baldwin added:
"These are not serious journalistic questions.
They are simply attempts by CNN to shut down debate and censor speech. We call
it out for what it is: intimidation tactics to be used against anyone who dares
to question the narrative that CNN is peddling.
Our responsibility is to the public and to stand up for
free and open exchange of information. If you have questions about any of the
facts in the book, check out the sources and examine the evidence instead of
simply dismissing it as 'misinformation.'"
Show Us the Lies
In an email response to Baldwin's request
for elaboration on the supposed lies he's referring to, Samaniego stated:
"There are too many for me provide you a
comprehensive list but a few top line ones that stick out …
That the vaccine trials were rigged, that the vaccines
are part of unprecedented and dangerous experiment, that a large amount of data
suggests that vaccines may be completely unnecessary, vaccines cannot prevent
or reduce transmission or infection hospitalization or death. According to the
CDC the vaccines are nearly 100% effective at preventing serious disease and
death."
Baldwin replied to this short-list with
the following mainstream media links, none of which, by the way, has been
accused of being superspreaders of mistruths:
"The trials were designed specifically to
succeed. www.forbes.com/sites/williamhaseltine/2020/09/23/covid-19-vaccine-protocols-reveal-that-trials-are-designed-to-succeed/?sh=21270ac65247
Removing the placebo groups from vaccine trials will
prevent accurate data from long term studies from being known. www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2021/02/19/969143015/long-term-studies-of-covid-19-vaccines-hurt-by-placebo-recipients-getting-immuni
The experiments are continuing through 2027 as the FDA
APPROVAL requires Pfizer to submit study results analyzing risk of myocarditis
and pericarditis, and risk to long-term infant development in pregnant women.
Study results reports will be submitted to the FDA for review on Oct 31, 2025
and May 31, 2027 respectively.
Nearly 60% of gravely ill patients are fully
vaccinated, while stating the Pfizer vaccine is just 39% effective. www.sciencemag.org/news/2021/08/grim-warning-israel-vaccination-blunts-does-not-defeat-delta and www.cnbc.com/2021/07/23/delta-variant-pfizer-covid-vaccine-39percent-effective-in-israel-prevents-severe-illness.html."
Are COVID Shots Necessary?
The one question Baldwin did not address
was whether the COVID shots are even necessary. My next book, which will focus
on the so-called COVID "vaccines," will go into this question in
great detail, but the fact of the matter is the shots are, by and large,
unnecessary for most people, for the simple reason that most people aren't at
risk of dying from COVID-19.7,8,9,10,11
Data from a Wake Forest Baptist Health
study12,13 suggest
the overall death rate from COVID-19 is around 0.1%.14 Stanford University's disease prevention chairman Dr. John
Ioannidis has calculated the infection fatality rate as being between 0.05% and
1%, with a median of 0.25%. For those under the age of 45, the infection
fatality rate is near zero, and between the ages of 45 to 70, it's between
0.05% and 0.3%.15,16
Yet another study17 published in the Annals of Internal Medicine put the overall
noninstitutionalized infection fatality rate at 0.26%. People younger than 40
have an infection fatality rate of 0.01%, while those 60 and older had a 1.71%
risk of dying from the infection.
Now, if your risk of dying from COVID-19
is near zero, even if the injection is 100% effective at preventing death,
you're not getting any benefit since you weren't at risk of dying in the first
place.
This is not rocket science. So, CNN either
cannot wrap their heads around these simple data points, or they ignore it
because they don't want you to understand just how small the risk of COVID-19
actually is, and how great the risks of the COVID injections are in comparison.
If the latter is true, then they are complicit in the deaths of tens of
thousands of Americans, and perhaps hundreds of thousands.
How Effective Are the COVID Shots, Really?
And, there's more. A number of studies
have also looked at the absolute risk reduction provided by the COVID shots,
showing they're near useless. While, at the outset, vaccine makers all boasted
very high effectiveness for their COVID shots, independent reviews suggest
their claims were massively overstated from the get-go.
As it turns out, they're all using one of
the simplest and oldest statistical tricks in the book: conflating relative and
absolute risk reduction. Pfizer, for example, claimed its mRNA shot was 95%
effective. How did they get that number? In trials reportedly involving tens of
thousands of people, 170 were diagnosed with COVID-19 during the trial.
Of those, 162 were in the placebo group
and eight were in the COVID shot group. From this, it is inferred that the shot
prevented 154 out of 162 people from developing COVID-19. That's 95%. However,
this is the relative risk reduction. The absoluterisk reduction is actually
less than 1%.18
When calculating absolute risk reduction,
you compare the frequency of an outcome in the treatment group compared to
untreated controls. As a hypothetical example, if 20% of the control group
develops COVID-19, compared to just 12% of those who got the jab, then you have
an absolute risk reduction of 8%.
That then means that if 100 people got the
COVID shot, eight would not get COVID-19. This is the most accurate and helpful
way to present data when you want people to be able to make an informed
treatment choice; if you want to manipulate and deceive them, you would use the
relative risk reduction.
Dr. Ron Brown published a paper detailing
the problems with this kind of reporting bias specifically as it pertains to
COVID-19 mRNA "vaccines." In "Outcome Reporting Bias in COVID-19
mRNA Vaccine Clinical Trials"19 Brown
calculates the absolute risk reduction for Pfizer's and Moderna's injections,
based on their own clinical trial data, so that we can compare them to the
relative risk reduction reported by these companies. Here's a
summary:20
·
Pfizer/BioNTech
vaccine BNT162b2 — Relative risk reduction: 95.1%. Absolute risk
reduction: 0.7%
·
Moderna
vaccine mRNA-1273 — Relative risk reduction: 94.1%. Absolute risk
reduction 1.1%
As noted by Brown, "Reporting
absolute risk reduction measures is essential to prevent outcome reporting bias
in evaluation of COVID-19 vaccine efficacy."
In a July 1, 2021, commentary in The Lancet Microbe,21 Piero Olliaro, Els Torreele and Michel Vaillant also argue for the use of absolute risk reduction when discussing vaccine efficacy with the public. They too went through the calculations, coming up with the following:
·
Pfizer/BioNTech
— Relative risk reduction: 95%. Absolute risk reduction: 0.84%
·
Moderna —
Relative risk reduction: 94%. Absolute risk reduction: 1.2%
·
Gamaleya
(Sputnic V) — Relative risk reduction: 91%. Absolute risk reduction: 0.93%
·
Johnson &
Johnson — Relative risk reduction: 67%. Absolute risk reduction: 1.2%
·
AstraZeneca/Oxford
— Relative risk reduction: 67%. Absolute risk reduction: 1.3%
The Data Prove COVID Shots Are Not a
Viable Answer
As you can see, the absolute risk
reduction for all of these COVID shots is below 1.3% (and those numbers can
only go down as the effectiveness of the shots wane). And, as just mentioned,
your risk of dying from COVID-19, provided you're not ill and living in a
nursing home, is around 0.25%.
So, again, if your risk of dying from
COVID-19 is less than 1%, and your absolute risk reduction from the COVID shot
is right around 1%, that tells us the mathematical possibility of these COVID
"vaccines" having a favorable impact on public health is very close
to zero.
Hence, stating that COVID shots may be
unnecessary for most people is not a lie. It's a commonsense conclusion that
can be verified by anyone, in a number of different ways, using a number of
different data sources. Unfortunately, CNN is no longer in the business of
relaying verifiable data or facts.
Rather, they're a propaganda mill for The
Great Reset agenda, which needs vaccine passports to be implemented across the
world. And in order for that to happen, people need to be convinced that
COVID-19 is a lethal scourge that must be prevented, even if it costs us our
freedom and the health, lives and livelihood of hundreds of millions of people.
I am donating all proceeds from this book
to NVIC to help us protect our rights. NVIC works across all of the US, the are
the oldest and most powerful voice we have in defending medical choice. Please
help raise awareness by purchasing The Truth About COVID-19 while you can, and
increase the visibility on Amazon so others will become aware of this important
book before the censors have it banned. Thank you if you already have a copy,
it has truly made a difference!
- Sources
and References
·
1, 5 Facebook August 18, 2021
·
2, 6 CCDH, The Disinformation Dozen
·
3 SKirsch.io/vaccine-resources
·
4 OpenVAERS Data as of September 24,
2021
·
7 The Mercury News May 20, 2020
(Archived)
·
8, 17 Annals of Internal Medicine
September 2, 2020 DOI: 10.7326/M20-5352
·
10 Scott Atlas
U.S. Senate Testimony May 6, 2020 (PDF)
·
11 John
Ioannidis U.S. Senate Testimony May 6, 2020 (PDF)
·
12 Wake Forest
Baptist Health COVID-19 Study
·
13, 14 WFAE.org July 2, 2020
·
15 Greek Reporter June 27, 2020
·
16 South Florida
Sun Sentinel July 14, 2020
·
18 The BMJ Opinion November 26, 2020
·
19, 20 Medicina 2021; 57: 199
·
21 The Lancet
Microbe July 1, 2021; 2(7): E279-E280
