Conspiracy Theorists And The Debate The Elites Don’t Want To Have

It’s always a bit disappointing to witness the witch hunt launched by mainstream media when one of their number breaks ranks and actually questions the official narrative. So unquestioningly supportive of the official narrative are most jounalists that a recent example of heresy committed by Eammon Holmes, co — presenter of a daytime TV news magazine show sent a shockwave through the establishment and even made the main news that evening.

On the Easter Monday edition of This Morning, reporter Alice Beer was debunking one of the more bizarre effects of the current crisis — the spate of attacks on 5G phone masts, carried out, it would seem, by people who believe them to be exacerbating or even facilitating the spread of Covid-19. Eammon agreed emphatically with Alice, let’s be clear about that, so I think we can safely say he doesn’t really believe that a virus can be transferred from bats to humans via radio waves. But a codicil to his comment annoyed to many viewers so much that thousands, well hundreds, well OK, a few were straight on the phone to the regulator to complain about mainstream TV news spreading ‘conspiracy theories.’

So what did Mr. Holmes say that triggered the snowflakes and science worshippers so much? “What I don’t accept,” he said, doing his I may be a twinkly Irishman most of the time but I can do serious too look , “is mainstream media immediately slapping that down as not true when they don’t know it’s not true … it’s very easy to say it is not true because it suits the state narrative.”

It may have escaped Eammon that he is part of mainstream media but we’ll skip that for now. While I agree that a virus cannot be transmitted by Electromagnetic Radiation in any frequency range, there are two quite important points which suggest Eammon Holmes was right to say there is no evidence that radiation from 5G masts is harmless.

Without getting technical (who’s got time to read a technical explanation of the effect of radiation on living tissue?) 5G is a much higher intensity of radiation than previous cellular or radio / TV frequencies and as everybody knows radiation is harmful (anyone out there not heard of Chernobyl? Or Hiroshima?) Different circumstances in both cases but electromagnetic radiation harmed living tissue all the same. It isn’t the strength of radio activity alone that does the damage, it’s the strength multiplied by the duration the duration, so a low dose for a long period can be more damaging than a short sharp blast. Look up Banana Equivalent Does if you don’t believe me. Yes bananas are radioactive, (it’s the potassium they contain,) they give of a higher level of radiation than most other edible plants.

OK, eating even a hundred bananas a day is not going to give you COVID-19, but bombardment with radiation is known to harm the immune system, which would make people more vulnerable to virus infection. So while 5G cellular network signals will not give you coronavirus, they might well make you more vulnerable to the virus.

Secondly, in the 1980s and 90s there were long running arguments about whether cellphones caused brain damage. The phone companies, which were making millions from sales and subscriptions denied it, governments, which were making £££$$$billlions from selling operators’ licences, backed them.

Years later it was admitted that yes, walking around with your mobile phone clamped to your ear all day could cause permanent harm. No problem, we could easily be safe by taking a few simple precautions, limit usage, use a hands free set contained in an insulating case, that kind of thing. We are going down the same road now with 5G and many doctors and researchers are questioning the wisdom of this. So Alice Beer was merely parroting corporate propaganda and in my habitually sceptical opinion Eammon was right to question her. He could have phrased his response better, but even I am not sceptical enough to think This Morning is entirely scripted and who among us has never phrased a spontaneous response poorly.

Whacky conspiracy theorists and crazy rumours are negative things to be sure. But the question is how clear is the distinguishing line between genuine ‘crazy talk’ and unwelcome but legitimate questions which authorities do not want to answer. And, concurrently, how do we tell whether journalists are doing their job of asking those questions, or whether they are shilling for the government’s official line on any issue?

To take one example: asking whether the virus originated in a Chinese lab has, curiously, been dismissed by official sources since the start of the outbreak as ‘crazy talk,’ but not by this author although I never went so far as to claim it WAS created in Wuhan, confining myself to reporting scientists and biological warfare pundits who suggested there was evidence that it might have been, and reminding readers that The People’s Republic Of China does not have a great record on reporting problems to the rest of the world . But is it crazy to ask these questions, given what we know about the proximity of the Wuhan virus lab to the ‘wet market’ which the Chinese government tells us is the source of the virus, and the known shoddy safety standards at that lab? Should we trust the assurances of a totalitarian state without question, and dismiss those who challenge it as swivel eyed nutters? The Washington Post, not generally known for its conspiracist ravings, doesn’t seem to think so:

Washington Post — Wuhan lab safety issues

Genuine conspiratorial nonsense — faked moon landings, Bilderbeg shape shifting lizards, suggestions that Jeffrey Epstein killed himself to cheat justice, and the like — needs to be separated from hard questions which go against the official grain. Otherwise journalists simply end up being useful idiots for power. I remember the fake Iraq War dossier that all the mainstream journalists lapped up, whilst laughing at the ‘crazy talk’ which suggested it might be cooked up, of course Saddam Hussein had secret weapons of mass destruction that posed an existential threat to the west, only swivel — eyed lunatics could doubt such an established truth, we were told. And we all know how that played out.

I’m old enough to remember the assassination of President Kennedy (it was mid evening when the news broke in Britain, I was at a school speech day at the time and I’m sure the news spoiled the night for my former teachers, who would have been ready to rejoice because they knew that when I shuffled off the stage with my certificates they would have seen the last of their most disruptive and under — performing pupil.) It was the Kennedy assassination that led to the phrase “conspiracy theorist” being coined. We will never know the full story of what happened that day in Dallas but the questions asked by ‘conspiracy theorists’ over the following years totally debunked the official narrative.

Mainstream media’s smug dismissals of conspiracy theorists can easily make them look like a New World Order a stooges while on a longer timeline the conspiracy theories turn out to be much closer to the truth than the official narrative.

Classifying people warning about the possible dangers of 5G alongside ‘conspiracy theorists’ who claim, for example, that the world is hollow and a master race of highly intelligent, technologically advanced, non humans live beneath our feet, in order to them look ridiculous, might fool some gullible types but is certainly not a scientific approach. It has been well known for many years (but generally suppressed) that cellphone radiation can be harmful (sic) and that children living close to cell phone towers have higher rates of leukaemian on other cancers tha normal. Listen to Frank Clegg, former president of Microsoft Canada in this YouTube video or do your own research which will reveal many respected scientists and a lot of research published in peer reviewed journals warn of genetic damage, neurological disorders and changes to the reproductive system as a result of prolonged exposure to radiation from phones and wi — fi. I would suggest that you do your own research into this for fairness’ sake.

Eammon Holmes did not, to my mind, say anything particularly outrageous, but then the theme and central lesson of my very expensive education was that we should question everything. He might have avoided much the opprobrium cast his way if he had merely quoted the late Christopher Hitchens: “What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.” Unfortunately spontaneous responses do not give us a lot of time to think of apposite replies.

RELATED POSTS:
The Coronavirus Response Is The Biggest Assault On Freedom Since World War 2
Coronavirus deaths: Are The Authorities Deceiving Us?
Is This The Smoking Gun That Proves China Has Lied About The Coronavirus OutbreakLockdown-Backlash Begins: Angry Crowd Surrounds Capitol, Demands
Conspiracy Theory Of The Month — Patriotism (satire)
Ian Thorpe’s articles on Medium

Opted for comfortable retirement before I was fifty due to health problems and burn out. Now spend my time writing and goofing around. Home: northern England..

Get the Medium app

A button that says 'Download on the App Store', and if clicked it will lead you to the iOS App store
A button that says 'Get it on, Google Play', and if clicked it will lead you to the Google Play store