‘Vaccine’ Side Effect Narrative Management and the Mainstream Media

Introduction

Covid-19 ‘vaccine’ side effects are extremely common. According to Pfizer’s own documentation, there is a 9-page list of possible side effects of the mRNA jabs. The state, media, and international actors, however, were determined to get the entire population jabbed. Some of this involved direct coercion, such as sacking care home workers and threatening to sack NHS staff. However, a large part of convincing people to get ‘vaccinated’ for Covid relied on the mainstream media, and in particular how that media dealt with claims of side effects from the Covid jabs.

The Function of the Media

Despite various protestations from the media that their job is to present the truth and hold the establishment to account, in reality they act as a crucial part of that establishment. Their role is to present narratives that support the establishment in a palatable way, and to keep any debate within very narrow grounds (the territory of what Ryan Cristian has dubbed the ‘two party illusion’). The mainstream media’s compliance with government narratives is ensured in multiple ways, including overlap of interests, financial incentives via advertising, cultural commonality and plain laziness (such as it being easy to spout government press releases as ‘news’). In the last analysis, it can also be maintained through state force – witness what happened to Julian Assange when he released information about US war crimes.

The Beginning of the Jab Rollout

The UK mainstream media – with very few exceptions (Peter Hitchens is the only example that comes to mind) – backed lockdowns from Day 1, and in fact pushed for harder and longer lockdowns. Lockdown sceptics were smeared as conspiracy theorists and mocked. But this was only a taste of what was to come with the miracle jab.

The idea of a vaccine has always been promoted by some people as the ultimate way out of lockdowns. Initially, the government itself did not put as much emphasis on ‘vaccination’ as the way out of lockdowns, given that they were still pretending lockdown would be only short term. This narrative became more and more important as lockdowns dragged on, with the government and media trying to encourage compliance with the lockdowns by urging that we would soon have the ‘vaccine’ and give it to enough people and that the nightmare would then be over.

The media portrayed the ‘race for the vaccine’ in a positive way, as the hero pharmaceutical companies that were going to save us from the deadly plague. Any problems, such as a case of transverse myelitis during the Oxford/AstraZeneca ‘vaccine’ trial, were quickly smoothed over and forgotten about. The media was happy to repeat claims from the manufacturers of the injections. This BBC article, while it does suggest in a mealy-mouthed way that the data is limited further down the article, it does say that it is safe and likely to be highly effective (referring to the Pfizer product).

With the availability of the jab, this started to go into overdrive. The first man to be given the jab in the UK outside of clinical trials was called William Shakespeare. This was manufactured and used in order to give a positive view of the ‘vaccine’. While a BBC article contained many puns on Shakespeare works, the actual purpose of this propaganda was to associate the ‘vaccine’ with one of the greatest British figures in history. The respect that a large number of British people have for Shakespeare is subconsciously transferred to the jab by this manipulation (or at least, that is the intention). There are also further attempts to use patriotic ideas as a means to promote the jab, in particular by bragging about the British ‘vaccine success’ compared to the continent, as Britain had given the vaccine to many more people early on in the rollout.

Drips and Drabs: The Beginning of the Catastrophe

Despite the constant praise for the jabs, the extreme danger of these injections was clear to anyone paying attention very quickly. Testimony quickly popped up online alleging mass death in care homes after the jabs. Vaccine injury stories began to pop up on TikTok, Facebook and Twitter from January 2021, for example testimony from Shawn Skelton, Angelia Desselle and Kristi Simmonds, interviewed by Del Bigtree back in April 2021. Death and injury reports in the US Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) began to skyrocket early on in the rollout. In other words, anyone paying attention could figure out these jabs were extremely dangerous by February 2021.

How did the media deal with these reports of side effects from these novel mRNA injections? The most obvious response is to stonewall all cases of major negative side effects, and indeed we do see aspects of this. If I search on google (as this is what non-conspiracy theorists are likely to be using) for ‘covid 19 vaccine side effects’, I find standard pages from the NHS downplaying the risks of the jab.

Holding Back the Flood?: The Case of the Astra Zeneca Blood Clots

However, a strategy of denying all side effects (other than the minor ones like a sore arm) was not credible. Instead, the mainstream media employed a strategy well known in the media: to acknowledge the critique but focus down on a very small aspect in order to whitewash the whole.

This technique of narrative management was identified by Chomsky and Herman in their famous work, Manufacturing Consent. They give an example from the Vietnam War. When criticism of the war in 1960s America began to become more prominent, the media could not completely ignore the crimes being committed against the Vietnamese people. So, the media focused in on one atrocity that took place during the war, the massacre carried out at My Lai by American soldiers. The point of the media drawing so much attention to this crime was to isolate it from the rest of the war, to make it into an exceptional event. This served to whitewash the fact that the complete destruction of Vietnamese villages and murder and rape of civilians were standard American practice.

It is this form of narrative management that we first observe when the reports of adverse events start to drip out over the first few months of the rollout. They picked one specific side effect – the blood clots reported after the AstraZeneca jab – and used that to obscure all of the other side effects being reported after both types of ‘vaccine’ (the beginning of the rollout in the UK was AstraZeneca and Pfizer, with some Moderna added later). They looked only at the risk of this one side effect, declared it to be rare, and then claimed based on this that the ‘vaccines’ were safe. Simply ignoring all claims of side effects would cause them to lose credibility, while acknowledgement of this one point allowed them to maintain credibility and make it look as if they are allowing some degree of criticism and debate. We must remember that this period in time was crucial, as it was important to the establishment to get as many people to take the jab as possible, and at this point, only older age groups had taken the ‘vaccine’.

As such, reports such as the following cropped up in the mainstream media:

Unusual blood clots in the brain have been detected in a handful of people after they were injected with the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine. […]

The organisation [European Medicines Agency] has to figure out whether the reported clots are a side-effect or a coincidence that would have happened naturally. This is incredibly hard when dealing with rare events. If, on the other hand, one in every 10,000 people was having serious blood clots then the answer would be obvious.

BBC

The British Government’s website contains a statement addressing the AstraZeneca jab from the 7th April 2021:

There have been reports of an extremely rare adverse event of concurrent thrombosis (blood clots) and thrombocytopenia (low platelet count) following vaccination with the first dose of AstraZeneca ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (AZD1222). There has been no signal for thrombosis/thrombocytopenia following receipt of other COVID-19 vaccines approved for use in the UK (Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna).

Note the declaration that this side effect has not been observed with the Pfizer or Moderna ‘vaccines’ – which is false. It is however convenient, as it allows the establishment to scapegoat the AstraZeneca jab for all problems, while pushing the Pfizer and Moderna.

The media also went as far as to publish testimonies of those injured by Vaccine Induced Thrombotic Thrombocytopenia, while stressing the rarity of such a side effect:

Osteopath Joseph Robinson, 32, suffered brain damage from a rare blood clot after his first AstraZeneca dose in February.

He had to quit work after VITT – vaccine-induced thrombotic thrombocytopenia – left him with memory loss and speech and language impairments.

Today’s Reality: Sudden Adult Death Syndrome

The media strategies worked on the vast majority of people. Official data on the number of people in the UK who took a Covid jab can be debated, with conflicting numbers from different sources, as well as some exaggeration of numbers jabbed for propaganda purposes. However, it is clear that the majority of people took at least the first 2 doses of the covid jabs.

Nowadays, we have a different type of media propaganda, focusing on reassuring the minds of people who have taken the jabs that it was the right decision. No one is trying to convince the unvaccinated with rational argument at this point – if they ever were. Meanwhile, a massive amount of unexplained death is happening all across the world. Mark Crispin Miller on Substack has been chronicling the masses of people who are now ‘dying suddenly’, often with no cause of death mentioned in the news coverage. These include people of all ages, races and a large number of different countries.

The media, on the other hand, is trying to ignore this mass death as much as possible, while also trying to normalise random heart attacks and dropping dead. The ‘health story’ has been a long-term fixture of the British media – with the fact that the Daily Mail always runs stories about everything causing cancer being a running joke. (That said, in retrospect, given how toxic everything is perhaps they had a point). Now, these often-bizarre health stories are focusing on heart attacks, with a number complied here by Naked Emperor:

BBC – Devoted football fans experience ‘dangerous’ levels of stress

Express – Heart attack: Does skipping breakfast increase your risk?

Daily Mail – Expert warns that shovelling snow can be a deadly way to discover underlying cardiovascular conditions as straining the heart with physical activity could cause sudden death

Of course, none of these articles mention the ‘vaccine’ even though the British government admit that the jabs can cause heart issues.

Most likely these stories are being published because more heart attacks are being observed by ordinary people in their lives and it serves to associate the heart attack with anything other than the jab. Even if the reader thinks these stories are stupid, they may still have a subconscious effect somewhere. (Though, sometimes, these stories are so idiotic that I wonder if they almost want you to know subconsciously what has been done to you – if you took the jab – and for you to live in terror of dropping dead any minute.)

The media are also playing a role in normalising ‘Sudden Adult Death Syndrome’ (SADS) meaning when an adult suddenly dies with no clear cause of death. A large number of these deaths are most likely jab induced. As Mark Crispin Miller has observed in his series, no cause of death being listed is becoming much more common in death articles in the mainstream media. The media is currently running generic articles on SADS, claiming that people should get their heart looked at if they are at risk:

People aged under 40 are being urged to have their hearts checked because they may potentially be at risk of Sudden Adult Death Syndrome. 

The syndrome, known as SADS, has been fatal for all kinds of people regardless of whether they maintain a fit and healthy lifestyle.

Daily Mail

Conclusion

The media serves as an important way to manage the narrative around the Covid-19 ‘vaccines’: both in order to encourage uptake, deflect from side effects and normalise the carnage being caused by these extremely dangerous products.