Posted by Sam Fenny - Memes and headline comments by David Icke Posted on 11 August 2022

The BBC’s “Unvaccinated”: Undisclosed Conflicts of Interest – Part 2

Part II of Iain’s series breaking down the BBC’s “Unvaccinated” documentary – Read Part I here.
Ispeculated in a previous article that the BBC would attempt to establish a narrative that would promote and support the UK government’s proposed Online Safety Act. And that is precisely what it did in its would-be documentary, “Unvaccinated with Hannah Fry.”

As presenter of the show, Prof. Fry got the relevant propaganda ball rolling when she introduced the segment that supported the UK government’s censorship agenda. She said:

I am really starting to realise that the problem here isn’t so much about a lack of information as it is about this ocean of misinformation that is incredibly hard to wade through. [. . .] The question is how do you possibly tell, when you see things like this, how do you possibly distinguish fact from fiction.

How indeed.

Next, the BBC filmmakers turned their attention to Will Moy, who hammered home the same message when he spoke directly to the participants on the show. Moy is the founder and CEO of the online fact-checking service Full Fact.

When participant Nazarin suggested that the scientific and medical evidence raising concerns about the jabs should be given equal weight to the studies that support the jab rollout, Moy responded:

Let’s be careful about equal, right. I mean, there is very good evidence that the vaccines are safe and effective.

Was fact-checker Moy stating an actual fact?

In Part 1 of this series, we pointed out that the UK Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) has not investigated the potentially huge number of serious adverse reactions and deaths that may have been caused by the jabs.

Absent reliable data on the overall level of risk, no plausible risk-benefit analysis exists. And, absent a risk-benefit analysis, there is no evidence, let alone any “good evidence,” to prove that the jabs are “safe and effective.” Thus, Moy’s alleged fact wasn’t a fact at all.

Moy’s comment to Nazarin also exposed a recurrent theme that ran throughout “Unvaccinated with Professor Hannah Fry.” Namely, the show was riddled with undisclosed conflicts of interest.

Moy intimated that the evidence proving the jabs were “safe and effective” outweighed evidence to the contrary. He was correct only in the sense that the overwhelming number of papers produced thus far have been supportive of the jabs.

But just because there are more “pro-jab” papers it doesn’t mean the evidence these papers provide is stronger than the contrary evidence found in the relatively few papers that question the jabs.

What the proportionately large number of pro-jab papers does indicate, though, is that funding directly and measurably influences the premises and conclusions of so-called scientific research.

This funding bias has long been known to have contributed to a crisis in science. The crisis has been marked by far too many papers that are apparently producing weak conclusions to order.

On the subject of the COVID-19 jabs, for instance, research is frequently funded by the pharmaceutical corporations whose products the papers evaluate. And because government is in league with those very same pharmaceutical corporations, forming what are called public-private partnerships, government’s funding can also present potential conflicts of interest and subsequent bias.

The Cochrane Collaboration conducted a systemic review, published in a February 2009 issue of the British Medical Journal, on the influence of industry funding of published papers studying influenza vaccines.

Cochrane ascribed a “concordance” score to the papers, indicating the degree to which the conclusions were evidenced by the reported study results. If the results strongly supported the conclusion, the paper received a high score; if not, it was given a lower score.

In total, 70% of studies were favourable to the flu jabs but only 18% of papers received a high concordance score. The Cochrane review suggested a high degree of bias in more than half (56%) of the papers. The lowest bias risk was given to just 4% of the papers.

Cochrane established that higher concordance was dependent upon methodology. Where methodology was sound, the likelihood of the study supporting the “efficacy” of the respective jab was lower:

[T]he higher the probability of concordance, the lower the probability that a study’s conclusions were in favour of vaccines’ effectiveness[.]

Cochrane also found that corporate and unknown funding was associated with low concordance and unjustified results in favour of the jabs:

[P]oor methodological quality was associated with a discrepancy between results and conclusions, and this in turn was associated with optimistic conclusions in non-government sponsored studies.

Read More: The BBC’s “Unvaccinated”: Undisclosed Conflicts of Interest

The Trap

From our advertisers