“Power is spread throughout society. You and I are just as much conduits of power as a CEO or a member of congress: we internalize the norms of our society, and we end up policing ourselves and other people, whether we realize it or not. We all act as unwitting enforcers of the power structure” (Joshua Landy, 2018). A previous post touched briefly on the subject of power but never really looked at the power of written and oral language and how its usage can influence people's behaviour. The Covid19 pandemic provides us with several examples of how power through the discourse of language can communicate ideas, information and rules in order that people conform to what society considers to be the norm. How many of us have listened to politicians, military leaders or even a doctors who use their own brand of jargon to obscure, misdirect and disguise what they are saying in order to make it more palatable. George Orwell in his essay "Politics and the English Language" said: "Political language – and with variations this is true of all political parties, from Conservatives to Anarchists – is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.” (Orwell,1946) Language therefore can be used to obscure the truth, suppress knowledge and protect those that use it. Given that language is power “language can also corrupt thought" (Orwell,1946). It can also be misattributed either accidently or purposefully to give a comment more importance than it might have had.
The quote above is a powerful one. It suggests that governments who obscure the truth or blatantly lie will suppress those who go in search of the truth. Today with the continuing uncertainty surrounding Covid19 there is good reason to believe that the truth is being manipulated. However, while the words quoted are powerful do they lose some of that power if it was to be discovered that George Orwell never uttered them? Would it weaken the argument that this article will ultimately make or are they just powerful words regardless of who speaks or writes them? Take the time to research the quote on your favourite online search engine. You will find that a Selwyn Duke claims to have uttered those words and that they have been misattributed. So what point is being made and why? Well in 2009 the World Health Organisation made a decision to change its definition of what a pandemic is. The change in definition would have a number of consequences but the most significant would be to how quickly vaccines and medications would be recommended and distributed after the introduction of the new definition. The WHO for many years had defined pandemics as outbreaks causing: “enormous numbers of deaths and illness” but in early May 2009 it removed this phrase and the WHO now considers a pandemic to be the worldwide spread of a new disease. So they can now classify the transmission of a virus throughout a significant number of countries as a pandemic regardless of the severity of illness or the number of deaths.
In the video from 2010 Dr Wolfgang Wodarg, a German physician and epidemiologist who was the chair of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe’s Health Committee explains why the change in definition is significant. Some of the concerns expressed by Dr Wodarg were raised again in June 2010 by a British Medical Journal investigation supported by an investigative journalist from The Bureau of Investigative Journalism. So what were those concerns? The WHO would often refer to the International Health Regulations Committee Although the identities of scientists on the committee weren’t publicly known at the time, the British Medical Journal investigation revealed that many of the committee members who voted to declare a pandemic had financial ties to the flu vaccine manufacturers. The declaration of a pandemic allowed the pharmaceutical companies to push $18 billion worth of “dormant” flu vaccine contracts, to countries all over the world.
Over a decade ago a British Medical Journal and an Epidemiologist who was Chair for the Council of Europe’s Health Committee were questioning the strengthening of ties between the WHO and big pharma. Their concern being that any WHO recommendation implemented by government's globally in response to a disease would not be in the best interests of people but that of the WHO's paid donors. These concerns have not disappeared but the voices investigating such links no longer seem to be interested are suppressed or have simply faded into recent history. In early 2020 the WHO announced that the world was experiencing another pandemic "Covid19" it announced the pandemic based on the 2009 definition "spread of a new disease." not “enormous numbers of deaths and illness”. The initial response of the authorities was to implement lockdowns and mask wearing with some interest in identifying possible medical treatments. Towards the latter part of 2020 there was a shift in focus from treatment to prevention. The WHO and governments around the world started to promote vaccination and herd immunity.
In June 2020 prior to the change in direction from treatment to prevention the WHO definition of herd immunity read: "Herd immunity is the indirect protection from an infectious disease that happens when a population is immune either through vaccination or immunity developed through previous infection. This means that even people who haven’t been infected, or in whom an infection hasn’t triggered an immune response, they are protected because people around them who are immune can act as buffers between them and an infected person." The WHO recognised the importance of natural immunity and that herd immunity is achieved through exposure to the infectious agent. There was also an acknowledgement that achieving herd immunity would probably require the introduction of a vaccination programme for those who consented to medical intervention.
In October 2020 news about the progress of Covid19 vaccines increased and the potential for achieving herd immunity through vaccination seemed a possibility. With increasing interest from the media regarding vaccines the WHO made the decision to change the language used in its previous definition. In doing so it would change the public perception of how herd immunity is achieved. "Herd immunity’, also known as ‘population immunity’, is a concept used for vaccination, in which a population can be protected from a certain virus if a threshold of vaccination is reached. Herd immunity is achieved by protecting people from a virus, not by exposing them to it." (WHO October, 2020)
Now it is important to be clear, this article is not advocating that anyone deliberately exposes themselves to an infectious disease in order to achieve natural immunity. You may therefore ask what the concern is about the change in definition? The concern is that the change in both the herd immunity and pandemic definitions changes the public perception of when a global response is required and the nature of the response. it places greater emphasis on vaccine research and usage and less on treatment. It also raises public expectations of what is achievable with a vaccine. Many people who have questioned the efficacy of covid19 vaccines in the prevention of transmission and illness, have been told that either they do not understand how vaccines work, or the WHO never said vaccines prevent illness rather they reduce the symptoms. Language is being used to obscure and deflect genuine concerns, the quote below is taken from the WHO: "Vaccines work by training and preparing the body’s natural defences --- the immune system--- to recognize and fight off the viruses and bacteria they target. If the body is exposed to those disease-causing germs later, the body is immediately ready to destroy them, preventing illness." (WHO, 2020) Does the WHO quote say anything about reducing the symptoms of illness. Do you feel that it is an unreasonable expectation of anyone consenting to vaccination not to expect to fall ill? The next question that needs to be answered which takes us back to Dr Wodarg's concerns, who benefits from the changes in language. Why do seemingly unconnected individuals immediately leap to the defence of that language, while choosing to ignore previous statements? Are they shills posing as regular members of the public, celebrities, journalists or scientists protecting their own interests or simply people ignorant of the facts? Why is it important that we know who is behind the words why? Well words and images can be used to discredit others they may be wielded initially by people in powerful positions but they can become part of a common language. In the early months of the coronavirus crisis the focus had been on treatment through medication and other interventions. So let us examine these medications a little more and the discourse around them. Chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine, Ivermectin, vitamin and mineral supplements were all put forward as treatments or prophylactics. Prophylactic meaning to prevent infection. In May 2020 an article appeared in the Clinical Medicine Journal while the conclusion did not recommend the use of Chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine the authors did say: "Chloroquine is cheap, widely regarded as safe, has been used for decades, and early results of in vitro studies are promising; therefore further investigation is definitely warranted. However, so far there have not been enough translational investigations to say whether chloroquine could be an effective treatment in humans with COVID-19. The present in vivo data should be appraised critically, with full methodology and data available for peer review." Cathrine Axfors et al (2021) had a research paper published in April in the journal "Nature Communications" the findings were not favourable for the use of chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine in the treatment of Covid19. However, the Government of India specifically the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare continued to recommend it as an intervention to prevent infection. Support for its continued usage came from the the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) that stated: “What we have been doing in India is different from the studies done anywhere else in the world in the sense that we have been checking whether it could work as a prophylactic medicine, whereas everywhere else it was given to positive patients as a treatment option." From the brief and limited review of the literature there are still a lot of questions surrounding the use of chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine and it could well be argued that further research is required as stated by the authors Beattie RH, Sturrock, A and Timothy JT Chevassu (2020) in the Clinical Medicine Journal. In the same article they stated that "chloroquine was widely regarded as safe, has been used for decades."
Yet a month later in May 2020 the European Medicines Agency published an article that said: "Recent studies have reported serious, in some cases fatal, heart rhythm problems with chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine, particularly when taken at high doses or in combination with the antibiotic azithromycin".
Chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine are currently authorised for treating malaria and certain autoimmune diseases. In addition to side effects affecting the heart, they are known to potentially cause liver and kidney problems, nerve cell damage that can lead to seizures (fits) and low blood sugar (hypoglycaemia)." What is the truth behind chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine usage for Covid19? Well it is not the purpose of this article to recommend a treatment only to highlight the confusion and sometimes deliberate, offensive reporting and comments that are used to discriminate and dehumanise people who raise concerns about covid19 vaccines, lockdowns, mask wearing and vaccine passports.
This image was used in an American news paper and published online to ridicule people with concerns. The figure on the left is dressed in what appears to be hospital scrubs and is wearing a mask while the person who is refusing the covid19 vaccine is dressed like a clown with a tin foil hat. The implication that he is not just covid19 "anti-vax" but against all vaccines. the tin foil hat is used to discredit "anti-vaxxers" as idiots who believe in conspiracy theories.
There is no wish in this article to go down the route of whether the vaccines are safe or not. The concerns have been highlighted previously in the article "Cause And Effect". But let us explore the controversy around Ivermectin and how the use of this drug for the treatment of Covid19 has been reported.
The independent published a headline: "Doctor says gunshot victims forced to wait for treatment as Oklahoma hospitals overwhelmed by coronavirus patients". The headline was a repeat of one made by "Rolling Stone" magazine which Rolling Stone has been forced to retract. The Independent does make a partial retraction by highlighting that one hospital had denied the claims in their headline. But, that did not stop the paper from saying that people are "poisoning themselves with a drug most commonly used as a horse dewormer". In fact it doubled down on the people poisoning themselves by stating:
"Ivermectin is a veterinary dewormer primarily used on livestock animals. Doctors can prescribe a human version for individuals suffering from body lice or other parasites."
Many of the critics of Ivermectin fail to mention that William C. Campbell and Satoshi Ōmura discovered Ivermectin and won the Nobel Prize for their discovery of a new drug, Avermectin. "The derivatives of which have radically lowered the incidence of River Blindness and Lymphatic Filariasis, as well as showing efficacy against an expanding number of other parasitic diseases."
The war of words regarding Ivermectin rages on and it is important to see how words are used to create a narrative that is designed to influence you. Anderson Cooper in a broadcast made on CNN news introduced two guests to raise concerns about the use of Ivermectin before introducing his guests Cooper like many other news outlets in America and the UK stated that "it is more often used to deworm horse". Brian Stelter reinforced the notion that the medication was a horse dewormer while Dr Leana Wen made no attempt to correct either of them.
Dr Wen also went on to say that there were several research studies that showed the Ivermectin was not effective in the treatment of Covid19. Wen is not lying but she is distorting the truth. The American Journal of Therapeutics published a research paper by Bryant, Andrew, et al (2021) which concluded that: "With moderate certainty - Ivermectin treatment in COVID-19 provides a significant survival benefit." Some months prior to the journal publishing the research paper "Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of COVID-19 Infection: A Systematic Review, Meta-analysis, and Trial Sequential Analysis to Inform Clinical Guidelines". It was being reported that Slovakia had become the first EU country to give formal approval for the use of ivermectin for both prophylaxis and treatment of covid-19 patients. You would have thought that CNN and their medical expert would have been aware of that fact. The Joe Rogan controversy did not end there. Joe Rogan interviewed Dr Sanjay Gupta CNN's resident medical doctor on Rogan's own show and Gupta looks decidedly uncomfortable when challenged on the narrative CNN was peddling. We also hear that Rogan was prescribed Ivermectin by his doctor. In the next video Jimmy Dore deconstructs the interview and highlights the lies that are made by omission of facts.
Before concluding this article it is important to highlight some of the pushback from the mainstream media. Jimmy in his video does address the pushback from CNN but there are many others sources who jump on the bandwagon. Listen to "The View" hosted by Joy Behar.
In the video the guests discuss how to have rational discussions with people outside of their "bubble" and why calling them idiots is probably not effective. But, they introduce the idea that Rogan is a hypocrite because he has an outlet for selling masks and Dr Gupta had to take a test for Covid19 before entering the studio. They continue their attack by suggesting he is a transphobe and is islamophobic. Rather than present any medical facts the guests decided to try and destroy the messenger by using words to discredit him. The question that needs to be asked when listening to any celebrity, scientist, doctor regardless of who they are and your own personal bias is in whose interest are they speaking, are they being paid or perhaps they are afraid of being dismissed. You will need to examine carefully how news stories are presented what is being said or is being omitted from the reporting. Take a look at this BBC report at first glance it seems balanced https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-58170809 does it raise any concerns for you? A Financial Times report "Covid mission provides a boost for the vaccine industry" discusses the lucrative profits to be had from Covid vaccines and one undeniable fact is that the pharmaceutical industry is what you might call the biggest shareholder in the World Health Organisation. References https://www.philosophytalk.org/blog/foucault-power/ https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/340/7759/Feature.full.pdf https://journals.openedition.org/asp/2760?lang=en https://derby.openrepository.com/bitstream/handle/10545/621148/Professional_Language_final.pdf;jsessionid=B4F096A93D8740110990A526BAB14C7C?sequence=1 https://www.thoughtco.com/what-is-jargon-1691202 https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/looking-in-the-cultural-mirror/201608/george-orwell-s-politics-and-the-english-language-70 https://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/6510269-politics-and-the-english-language https://www.who.int/teams/ihr/ihr-emergency-committees https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/148945#pandemic-or-epidemic https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/03/11/coronavirus-pandemic-world-health-organization/5011903002/ https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-22446-z https://qz.com/india/1968541/india-distributed-over-100-million-hcq-tablets-for-covid-19/ https://www.mohfw.gov.in/pdf/RevisedguidelinesforHomeIsolationofmildasymptomaticCOVID19cases.pdf https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01619-8 https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/news/covid-19-reminder-risk-serious-side-effects-chloroquine-hydroxychloroquine
https://www.foxnews.com/media/rolling-stone-forced-issue-update-after-viral-hospital-ivermectin-story-false https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/gunshot-oklahoma-hospitals-ivermectin-overdose-b1914322.htm https://bit.ly/3jjorYC (Anti-Vaxxer Images) https://www.wsls.com/news/2021/08/28/you-are-not-a-horse-fda-urges-people-to-stop-taking-horse-deworming-drug-to-treat-covid-19/ https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/gunshot-victims-horse-dewormer-ivermectin-oklahoma-hospitals-covid-1220608/ https://www.nobelprize.org/uploads/2018/06/press-29.pdf https://www.rcpjournals.org/content/clinmedicine/20/3/278 https://web.archive.org/web/20201101161006/https:/www.who.int/news-room/q-a-detail/coronavirus-disease-covid-19-serology https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/violating-science-who-changes-meaning-herd-immunity/ https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/anti-vaxxers-protest-white-city-bbc-b1899914.html https://journals.lww.com/americantherapeutics/fulltext/2021/08000/ivermectin_for_prevention_and_treatment_of.7.aspx#JCL-P-11 https://medicalupdateonline.com/2021/01/ivermectin-gathers-pace-in-europe/ https://trialsitenews.com/slovakia-becomes-the-first-eu-nation-to-formally-approve-ivermectin-for-both-prophylaxis-and-treatment-for-covid-19-patients/ https://www.ft.com/content/0d6fd8a2-498c-4fd3-ba90-62acd544edc5 https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/who-definition-global-pandemic-benefits-big-pharma/ https://youtu.be/MHEcUdwylow https://youtu.be/4yiigLK8t0g https://youtu.be/3UhZ4at2DIs https://odysee.com/@drsambailey:c/howtospotcovidmisinformation:9 https://youtu.be/44B-OJcOXxc https://youtu.be/qzl-DrhTR2I https://youtu.be/7fQ6JklHjBc