BBC article on misinformation groups

[beentoldcomputersaysno]

The BBC has actually published an article on disinformation groups HART, UsforThem (obviously not named Government's links with them as it is the BBC). Wonder why they've timed this now?

www.bbc.com/news/health-58783711

They have probably "timed" it after correct journalistic scrutiny.

Which reputable sources do.

I'd personally add the "anti-dementors" to that list of groups.

I'm so glad HART and UsforThem are now being revealed for what they are - the damage they've done is enormous.

Agree with pp - there's a lot of respected titled individuals with links to government in this group - whilst other outlets have already reported on them I'm guessing somewhere like the BBC really needed to do their due diligence before committing to print.

Several seemingly grassroots groups have sprung up appearing to be operating separately - but they seem to consist of a relatively small number of overlapping members.

Leaked chat logs from the anti-lockdown Health Advisory and Recovery Team show members discussing putting their message against vaccines out under the banner of another organisation, the UK Medical Freedom Alliance, "if it is too inflammatory for Hart".

Another member discussed sharing research from a third vaccine-detracting body, the British Ivermectin Recommendation and Development Group, because "psychologically this then looks like two groups of professionals agreeing with each other (making the content more believable as it looks like two separate groups)".

Members of these organisations also have links to Us for Them, which says it represent parents, and the campaign group Safer to Wait.

FINALLY. Hopefully some of their more ardent followers will consider their claims with a bit more scrutiny now.

Probably been released now after the JCVI /Hart/Us4Them links.

@NandJ

I'd personally add the "anti-dementors" to that list of groups.

And BIRD, FLCCC and PANDA

They do love jazzy acronym don't they

The good old BBC

A most murky, intertwined collection of groups we ever did see. I wonder what (who) will come out when the minutes of the JCVI recommendation meeting are eventually published?

And as for the very sudden spin on the LFTs. We are now expected to believe that is has just been discovered that they are in fact much more accurate than previously thought. Nothing to do with the fact that the PCR labs are going to be scaled down. I'd like to know just who has made millions of pounds from these LFTs .

Glad BBC have finally acknowledged and it's out, although much of this info has been around for ages, which is why I wondered about timing. Do you think it will make some in government think twice, or not make any difference?

'I wonder what (who) will come out when the minutes of the JCVI recommendation meeting are eventually published? '

Any idea when they'll be published?

www.independent.co.uk/news/science/covid-vaccines-jcvi-booster-children-b1932903.html

They are still being prepared and claim administrative reasons for the delay surrounding covid 19 minutes.

Interesting that prior to covid there was never a delay in publishing.

@Lostinacloud - oh it's been reported in more depth by others if you don't like BBC - here's an example https://bylinetimes.com/2021/10/01/inside-the-radicalised-anti-vaxxer-network-influencing-government-vaccine-advisory-panel/

@mrshoho yeah I saw that, just foolishly hoped they may have got round to committing to a date!

@Lostinacloud

The good old BBC

What exactly is your point here?

All the statements made in the articles can proven correct by a very cursory web search.

They are composed of all the same members, pretending to be independent.
The chat logs have been leaked which verify the things quoted from article (and there were far more damaging that could have been picked up on)

I wouldn’t put JCVI on same level at all.

@MarshaBradyo

I wouldn’t put JCVI on same level at all.

I agree, but there needs to be a solid investigation as to whether any of JCVI are associated with these groups or members of them.

If their decision making was influenced by misinformation from anti-vaccine groups that's obviously problematic.

@NandJ

I'd personally add the "anti-dementors" to that list of groups.

What a random thread of MNers? Glad you think we're so important and influential 😂

Better add the Good News threads for not predicting 100,000 cases per day too

@NandJ

I'd personally add the "anti-dementors" to that list of groups.

You reckon the long running thread in chat where a few mumsnetters chat amongst themselves about stuff? You think that’s worthy of a BBC investigation? 🤣

@leafyygreens, my point is that mainstream media has sadly become not much more than a government mouthpiece.
I welcome any other group that seeks to question, or at least highlight, some of what is not being asked of the government and of which is never challenged by mainstream media.
The data on covid is there for everyone to see, published by the ONS or PHE but nobody other than people from these groups ever seems to look at it and ask questions, like why do we need to vaccinate children and teens with a vaccine that is still administered under emergency status, with known serious side effects, when the risk to this age group of serious illness or death is pretty much zero. Especially now we all know that the vaccine protects the host and doesn’t stop spread. Comments from Fauci himself admitting that viral load is just as high in vaccinated carriers as those unvaccinated just got ignored. Same as any questions about natural immunity and the requirement for recovered people to have a vaccine. I want to know the answers and follow up action to these proven scientific developments and knowledge growth but the bbc don’t ask.

Yes well the Hart Chat logs where you can see these DISinformation wankers discussing how to dupe the public (it's not misinformation as it is deliberate) are all online for anyone to read and Hart have confirmed that it is their conversations. Stuff like 'how to persuade a kid that it's 'cool' not to be vaccinated' and advice from a Cambridge Analytica guy about how to nudge people who are normally socially conscientious into ditching mitigation measures.

That it has taken months to have any sort of mention in the MSM (it was also mentioned in the Times the other day) is completely slack on their part. I assume that the groups involved are quite litigious.

[quote Lostinacloud]@leafyygreens, my point is that mainstream media has sadly become not much more than a government mouthpiece.
I welcome any other group that seeks to question, or at least highlight, some of what is not being asked of the government and of which is never challenged by mainstream media.
The data on covid is there for everyone to see, published by the ONS or PHE but nobody other than people from these groups ever seems to look at it and ask questions, like why do we need to vaccinate children and teens with a vaccine that is still administered under emergency status, with known serious side effects, when the risk to this age group of serious illness or death is pretty much zero. Especially now we all know that the vaccine protects the host and doesn’t stop spread. Comments from Fauci himself admitting that viral load is just as high in vaccinated carriers as those unvaccinated just got ignored. Same as any questions about natural immunity and the requirement for recovered people to have a vaccine. I want to know the answers and follow up action to these proven scientific developments and knowledge growth but the bbc don’t ask.[/quote]

It's clear that the disinformation/nudge campaign worked extremely well with you. You come out with all the well-worn lines.

And I could say exactly the same about you following the nudge campaign from the bbc to immediately label anyone asking any questions against the narrative as an anti vaxxer You have come out with the standard response to anyone having an alternative look at things.

@Lostinacloud

And I could say exactly the same about you following the nudge campaign from the bbc to immediately label anyone asking any questions against the narrative as an anti vaxxer You have come out with the standard response to anyone having an alternative look at things.

Uh-huh. You're better-read, too, I suppose?

@Lostinacloud
“why do we need to vaccinate children and teens with a vaccine that is still administered under emergency status, with known serious side effects, when the risk to this age group of serious illness or death is pretty much zero.”

Probably because this is the reality for some kids who catch covid:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/coronavirus/4373563-any-parents-think-their-child-has-long-covid-symptoms

and the data on “known serious side effects” of the vaccine doesn’t seem to show anywhere near the number of adverse reactions that covid infection does. Not to mention deaths:

mobile.twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/1447606330571870210

“Looks like 64 people aged 1-19 have died from Covid in England since March 2020 - 12 of them since the start of September 2021 (a really
considerable monthly increase).”

But yeah. “Alternative look”.

@BewareTheLibrarians it's 85 in England. twitter.com/tigressellie/status/1447629089314115589?s=21

I struggle on these boards sometimes. There's a difference between saying kids aren't affected as badly and saying there's practically no risk to them. Letting it run rife through kids and not trying to mitigate that at all sits really badly with me. There are studies showing risk of diabetes, thinning of grey matter, other organ damage, a whole host of long covid symptoms and that's just what we know so far. I think a lot of people who minimise covid in kids are aware of this, as they appear on boards where links to these sorts of studies are pointed out and linked to again and again.

I posted the original post as a bit of a good news story, which to me it still is. The deliberate disinformation spread is awful (to me).