Guide To Help Journalists Write About The Vaccine Topic

Rule #1: Start From The Presumption That Science Is Settled

Looking at the landscape there has been, and currently is, a deluge of drugs and medical devices that have harmed millions globally. There are continued revelations and proof of pharmaceutical companies cutting corners, putting profits over the safety and lives of their customers, engaging in criminal acts of fraud, improperly marketing and exaggerating the safety of dangerous products – these facts you must ignore. Despite the regular media attention drug company underhandedness receives, you should never connect the dots for your readers that those same criminal companies also make vaccines. Although internal documents and emails are continually revealing deceptive company practices and directives that lead to high death tolls at the hands of their products, you must never spotlight that vaccines are just another product as well. 

Rule# 2: Turn A Blind Eye To The Science

Here you must, at all costs, never give the view that there are two sides to this discussion. If you are crunched for time, you can cut and paste the tried and true industry talking points about science provided here: 

• The science is clear, vaccines save lives
• Vaccines are safe and effective
• The science is settled

Although logic may pull at your higher cognitive faculties and professional ethics in an attempt  to provide journalistic objectivity, it is imperative you do not fall victim to balance by trying to tackle the actual science. Providing balance and a voice to scientists, their published research, or any within the medical profession which cast vaccines, or the practice of vaccination, in a poor light will, at best, get your story taken down and may likely put your job in jeopardy. Despite these warnings, if you still must venture outside the guardrails provided, go no further than smearing Andrew Wakefield. The tired attempt is time tested and has been shown to provide a catch-all placeholder for actual scientific discussion. 

Rule #3: Make Parents Invisible 

We have received essential help as of late from the major Silicon Valley social media outlets in censoring the voices of parents who are reporting their vaccine injury stories. In addition, the wide net of censorship being cast by our Big Tech allies is also stopping the dissemination of actual science that may refute your limited and biased reporting. In short, the public will not see through your canned, cowardice attempt at the limited narrative of your choice which appeals to Big Pharma’s vaccine products. As a reporter, the idea of government colluding with monopolistic corporate power to censor its citizenry may be repulsive to your soul. If you must address the topic of censorship, you can rest easy because it is being done in the name of stopping misinformation. And as everyone knows, misinformation is never something we would produce, right? 

Communities are organizing in true displays of grassroots efforts. In the past, it was easy to gate-keep these movements by falsely underreporting their numbers and influence. However, as more people are now shooting video and live-streaming with their mobile devices, it has become harder to lie about these events and rallies. As seen recently during California’s vote of SB 276 at the state capital in Sacramento, our regional writers were overwhelmed and actually were scoped by the parents who live-streamed events of police arresting peacefully protesting parents.

You must never admit that vaccines cause harms. If you must write about the parents of vaccine injured children, do not sway from the statement “these are anecdotal stories.” Standards and practices approved by experts only allow us to admit to sore arms and occasional crying as official adverse reactions to vaccines. Anything else will, such as attempting to provide balance to the safety and science will, get your story taken down and most likely put your job in jeopardy.

Rule #4 Go Big On Discrimination

There are a few rules which are more confidential and land in the gray area of reporting and ethics. Nonetheless, their regular use has created the bedrock for which our skewed narrative lives and breaths – and the platform in which you exist. At all costs, you must incorporate our discriminatory buzz words handed down to us by pharmaceutical ad departments. These bumpersticker slurs are essential at shaping public opinion and ostracizing a growing population of the questioning public. Refer to anyone who doesn’t fully vaccinate themselves or their children with an ever-expanding vaccine schedule an ‘anti-vaxxer.’ Always omit evidence that the ‘anti-vaxxer’ may, in actuality, be an ex-vaxxer who did follow the schedule but questioned it, for any reason, after injury to themselves or a loved one. This rule goes double for any scientist whose research shows evidence that would make someone ask questions about the safety of vaccines. Healthcare professional at any level along with politicians also deserve a rapid one-sided discriminatory response if they show uncertainty about any vaccine.