What the EMA Leak Tells Us On... Media Honesty

Or the lack thereof

Normally, if media were honest, you’d have been reading the details of the EMA leak in a ‘reputable’ paper somewhere, in the same way The Sunday Times exposed the Thalidomide birth defect scandal in 1968, not only reporting on the case, but also going so far as litigating on behalf of the affected mothers who took such a poisonious drug.

However, the media outlets are not honest, which is why you’re mostly reading about the EMA leak in a tiny, obscure Substack.

A number of media outlets “reported” on the EMA leak, to simply acknowledge the leak happened, but zero had even covered the contents of the leak and had maliciously failed to disclose the alarming details within.

Even the BMJ’s coverage, which actually bothered to look at the leak, tackles the more concerning aspects of mRNA instability, is incomplete, as it only covers one of many alarming aspects raised.

For example, it did not cover the alarming signs of collusion between pharmaceutical companies and health “regulators”, or the bypassing of safety mechanisms like the requirement to declare ‘Unforeseen Variations’ to the public, or the warning signs of blood clots in the Johnson & Johnson shot.

The BMJ, ironically, has one of the better outcomes, because it is one of the few organisations that actually bothered to act on the information presented, and even contributed additional knowledge in the process.

An Alarming Trend

The BMJ won’t have been the only organisation to have received access to the EMA leak. There are numerous organisations that I’m told were offered copies, including, but not limited to:

• The Guardian

• The Independent

• The Daily Mail

• Breitbart

• Fox News

• WikiLeaks

• Project Veritas

• Tim Pool (Timcast)

• Steve Kirsch

You would think such prime real estate for a leading story - perhaps even the first to break the story - or even being the one to lead the moral charge, would have been incentive enough for media outlets to report on the EMA leak.

Alas, no. The Daily Mail only reported on the EMA leak after the BMJ had made such details public. Details the Daily Mail already reportedly had access to. Even then, the Daily Mail story was simply a hackeyed regurgitation of what the BMJ itself had reported. It didn’t contribute anything new or expand any further on the original reporting.

Time is of the Essence

As the BMJ article notes:

[…] several journalists—including from The BMJ—and academics worldwide were sent copies of the leaks […]

It begs the question why a peer-reviewed medical journal was able to cover this subject faster than all the other media outlets not subject to such constraints. The BMJ is understandably restricted to only publish what it can peer review, a particularly challenging task considering the Health ‘Regulators’ were failing their basic duty at transparency.

The media outlets have no such constraints. They can move quicker, cover more ground, invite more open-air speculation from a wider variety of sources. They could have at least the decency to warn the public of the issues involved.

When it comes to saving lives, time is of the essence, for the longer the public remain ignorant on the dangers, the more exposed to those dangers they are, being unable to act.

If media outlets are willing to drop the ball on something as damning a subject on this, more concerned with appeasing their corporate pharmaceutical advertisers than they are with saving lives, there is something fundamentally wrong with society and the wider media networks.

If you like my work, be sure to support it by sharing the article link with other people, subscribing or even becoming a supporter. Thank you!