THIS WEEK: STRONG OPINION AND OBSERVATION. You've been warned. Research resumes next post.
(I include no links here, and few "buzzwords" so as to keep this post share-able in these increasingly filter-happy media times. View my previous posts for ideas or terms to search.)
Pandemic and social unrest (two of the top 5 events for "advanced preparedness" buffs) currently grip the world.
Most of us instinctively turn to "mainstream" media (MM) to keep tabs and determine what to do, how to stay safe, or make our voices heard. Me included.
But is uncritical, face-value use of MM a good idea?
Remember, MM, in cahoots with and co-opted by shoddy science, tainted academia and bottomless-pocket "special interests" has outright lied to or misdirected the general public for over 50 years on matters of public health--especially nutrition and wellness.
I and many others have written extensively on the 100% non-reliability of MM, including major social media platforms, related to diet and health. Verification is not hard to find (for now) and if you need proof it's just an online search or two away. For now. Did I say, "for now?" (See below, that door may be closing.)
The first thing we learned, as we regained our health in the Ancestral/Paleo/Keto-sphere was...everything we'd been told about food, all our lives, was (and is) pretty much horse-puckey. Manure. Bull-crap-eeola.
This intergenerational disinformation campaign has created surging (and highly profitable) populations of those with diabetes, metabolic syndrome, heart disease, Alzheimer's, cancer, RA and numerous autoimmune conditions like Crohn's, IBS, MS, and lupus. Most of these conditions are acknowledged to be "diseases of lifestyle," (or are directly affected by it)--a lifestyle entrenched in MM nutritional advice. Which, by the way, kills hundreds of thousands each year. These numbers are all online.
Compare that to the virus.
And today, reading between the lines in all the breathlessly urgent (and increasingly similar) MM posts and articles on the virus and unrest..I for one begin to suspect more of the same.
Please take the time (you may have to hold your nose) to compare articles on any currently top-of-mind subject. Do you find that many of them sound the same, especially after the first paragraph or two? Do you find that they often "disclaim" at the end whatever the headline asserts or alleges?
Taken as a whole, most virus articles, citing "experts" ad nauseam, show that no one really knows what is going on or what to do about it--but give advice or direction that is apparently sensible only because "experts" say it is. Virtually every statistic trumpeted at one time or other by "experts" has been subsequently debunked, reversed, questioned or qualified, from test accuracy to death toll.
Weirdly, MM also cannot seem to agree if the current civil unrest is "real" or manufactured by special interests, or a little of both. MM tends to downplay the deliberate-agitation angle, but cannot seem to ignore it. You really need to read between the lines here, and go outside the MM for second opinions. The implications are chilling once you see what MM is not willing to report or discuss.
"Alternative news sources" are still just a few searches and clicks away. I strongly encourage that you view these as often as you view MM. ALL these sources have their own agenda--but can provide a balance against the panicky tidal wave in MM.
You may still panic, but at least you'll be experiencing "informed panic."
I try to remind myself that the "truth" is probably somewhere between the extremes of MM and the alternative viewpoints.
EXPERTS: PART OF THE PROBLEM?
MM typically reports info from various scientists, researchers and their studies, as well as outdated public policy guidelines and academia. The experts.
MM has carefully built up the perception, over time, that these same "scientific" sources know better than the "average" person about what is good for them or their community. We are now seeing gross, wholesale intrusions into our daily lives and routines, driven by supposedly "expert" advice, with yet more to come.
Most of us comply, despite profound contradictions in MM articles, posts, podcasts or segments--all of which are supposedly sourced from experts (examples: we get the virus from surfaces, then maybe we don't; masks good vs no mask is ok; lockdown good, then lockdown was never needed--!--; some drugs work, then they don't...but then these same drugs being are being taken preventatively by world leaders, in secret!--search this one, it's awesome; etc, etc.)
How expert, in fact, are these people? Do most consumers even realize how contradictory and often nonsensical MM information is on any given day? Should we willingly cooperate with this apparently wild scrabbling at solutions or directives? Is this MM-generated cognitive dissonance now so paralyzing that we can only numbly cooperate with the newest lockdown-du-jour?
If that is overall goal, then MM and the experts are doing their job.
CAN WE STILL FIND ALTERNATIVE VIEWS?
Yes, but this may change sooner than you think. Search for them soon.
MM news site narratives have always been controlled by high bidders, and this has not changed. Conflicting viewpoints and inconvenient facts don't show up, or do so only in a dismissive or de-bunking context.
Now, however, major social media corporations have suddenly and aggressively started filtering content, with a strong bias against info that contradicts the MM. In some cases the deletions, "shadow" bans or simple refusals to post content are shockingly ham-handed and obvious--if you're paying attention.
Once considered viable outlets for non-mainstream views, the most popular/most heavily used platforms now not only shy away from or simply remove items that challenge the MM status quo, but also have begun to block or filter other social media platforms that don't toe this line,--making it increasingly harder to "share" links to controversial ideas or reporting.
The most popular Western world search engine is apparently also complicit, burying results or sites in direct proportion to their algorithmically detected "non-conformity."
Yes, ladies and gentlemen, we are suddenly looking down the barrel of the big C-word. (Rhymes with "SENSOR," Mr. Spock.) In this day and age. In the name of public health.
There are huge dollars behind this (at the very least), and it is not going away any time soon.
What is it about conflicting or alternative viewpoints (or little-known events) that the general public must not be exposed to? In making up our own minds, might we possibly make the "wrong" informed decision?
That is, a different decision than the one dictated to us by "experts?"
In a MM-dominated climate of "good" vs. "bad" info, alternative and Ancestral diet practices are probably already on the Endangered Idea list. At some point, sufficient processed-food and drug company dollars will be brought to bear that Paleo will become Pariah, or even shown somehow to be "discriminatory"...and removed from public view. Ditto for keto and all whole-food regimens that include meat. Is it a coincidence that a public health crisis, and massive social unrest--which seem to "allow" the commandeering of information flow--arose just as the the awareness of MM food prevarication and disinformation (with their attendant obscene costs and death toll) was achieving critical mass?
DAVID WHITESIDE IS NOT A DOCTOR and does not give medical advice or treatment. He offers research, information and personal experience only. Nothing you read on this website or blog should be construed as medical advice or as intended to supersede information you get from your medical professional. Following the advice given here or on any recommended resource site does not create a doctor-patient relationship or create liability for David or anyone else. David is not liable for any loss or complication you experience from following any diet or taking any action that might appear to be recommended here. You should check with your properly accredited medical professional if you think you are injured or ill.