“Can the public really assume that the mainstream media (which pitches itself as a watchdog of political and economic powers-that-be) critically filters the statements of the medical industry and other interest groups-and do not simply function as megaphones, strengthening the industry’s advertising messages?
The HSN1 hysteria made it clear that the media hangs on the words and opinions of the establishment, perhaps most especially regarding medical science. This was also shown by the paper “Bitter Pill,” which appeared in, arguably, America’s most significant media journal, the Columbia Journalism Review (CJR) in the summer of 2005. It describes in detail with numerous examples, how the medical industry uses the media to play out their modem marketing script:
first by depicting scenarios of horror, creating the desire and demand for a remedy (typically in drug form)-and finally, the miracle substances come to the rescue, providing the pharmaceutical companies and their researchers high profits.
Not only do journalists naively trust the leading medical officials. “The news media too often seem more interested in hype and hope than in critically appraising new drugs on behalf of the public,” as CJR writer Trudy Lieberman outlines. ” [And] the problem has grown dramatically in recent years as direct-to-consumer advertising has increased, delivering ever-higher ad revenues to the nation’s media.”
In 1980, Big Pharma spent just $2 million in the USA on marketing and advertisements-but by 2004, this sum had swelled to several billions of dollars per year. And “instead of standing apart from the phenomenon and earning the public’s trust,” writes Lieberman, “the press too often is caught up in the same drug-industry marketing web that also ensnares doctors, academic researchers, even the FDA, leaving the public without a reliable watchdog.”
HSNl: No Evidence of Virus Existence and Pathogenic Effect
Like the media, the German Federal Consumer Protection Ministry, government ministries of countries like the USA, Canada and France, and the World Health Organization firmly assume that HSN1 is a “highly contagious” virus. Or as Anthony Fauci (director of the powerful American National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and one of the eminent figures in American viral science who had already contributed decisively to the establishment of the HIV = AIDS dogma) put it: HSN1 is “a time bomb waiting to go off.”
Later, in September 2006, the World Health Organization and the World Bank did a cost calculation, announcing that an avian flu pandemic could cost the world $2 trillion.
These are words with explosive force, which begs the question: Can these authorities, upon whom the media relies in its HSN1 reports, back up their statements “On the basis of profound analyses, we venture to offer the following prognoses of avian flu danger . . .” about an avian flu pandemic linked to such wide-reaching consequences with hard facts?..”