“Shut Up and Take the Octo-Jab”: Media Sells Sci-Fi Shot for Viruses That Don’t Exist – While Burying the Leukemia Cases That Do

Once again, it is time for your regularly scheduled lesson in journalistic malpractice. Behold the latest widely-covered magical jab story! This morning’s particular example appeared in the UK Daily Mail below the guffaw-producing headline, “Scientists create new coronavirus jab that even works on viruses they haven’t discovered yet in a bid to beat the next pandemic.”

In short, the study reported that scientists glued eight viruses together in a “protein nanocage.” Forget about bivalent jabs. This is an octo-valent jab — a viral sampler platter. The simplistic idea is that more is better; a shotgun approach. By overloading eight different types of viruses all into a single shot, doctors can quell jab hesitancy —folks are less resistant to one than eight separate pricks.

Not only that, but the scientists wonder whether, maybe if they just shoot ‘em all in at the same time, it might produce magical effects protecting against even more brand-new variants trickling out of the latest lab leak. You never know.

If it were an anti-jab study, they’d have laughed like hyenas. This octo-jab trial was a preliminary study. It “works” in mice which, while promising, is just a start. We’ve cured cancer in mice more often than Pfizer has bought the CDC lunch. But that didn’t stop the media from spinning it like salvation lies just one more jab away.

This story highlights one of the media’s favorite psyops, which I call ‘hype the hypothetical.’ Pre-clinical vaccines make page one. But massive adverse events registries appear on page … none. The inconvenient truth —forgotten among peer-reviewed case studies and declining (or negative) efficacy research— somehow never interests the media, even though otherwise they always love a good health crisis.

But only when they can blame you, for gobbling fast food, having a second chardonnay, or scrolling to much. It’s never the shots.

Not only that, but by this point we’ve lost count of the banker’s boxes of case reports that have been published showing things like people growing tumors on their eyeballs (or even more inconvenient places) after getting various vaccines. Take, for one example, this case report, which didn’t get a single mention on CNN, NBC, or anywhere else outside of PubMed. It reported a case of Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia following a bivalent mRNA booster — just one more grain of sand on a growing seashore of “rare coincidences.”

 
There was not a word in corporate media warning about possible lymphoblastic leukemia. Don’t even bother looking. Reporting it wouldn’t “boost confidence.” But … possible octo-valent magic juice that blocks future viruses from alternate dimensions? Sure! Let’s lead with that!

Studies throwing shade on jabs never make the news cycle. If the study flatters Big Pharma while whispering sweet nothings about safety, it’s splashy headline material. If it questions the holy jabs, it’s “misinformation,” “just a mouse model,” or “anecdotal,” and it promptly gets memory-holed, nevermore to be seen.

Call it one-sided, biased, slanted, psyops, or whatever you want. Folks, this isn’t journalism. It’s fake news; press releases dressed in dollar-store lab coats. The sad truth is that whenever we see positive science news these days, we must assume someone paid for placement. It’s most likely just a strategically timed PR push for a grant cycle, IPO, or political narrative.

You might recall last month’s news that HHS Secretary Kennedy called the big journals “sock puppets” for Big Pharma, and vowed that the NIH would publish all its study findings online. Critics hysterically condemned that promising development as if it were something that sprang out of a late chapter from the Book of Revelation.

But to many of us outside the pharmaceutical priesthood, it sounded more like long-overdue reform. After decades of selective publication, paywalled data, and ghostwritten trials massaged to fit sponsors’ desired conclusions, Kennedy’s system-wide spotlight threatens the prestige journals’ cozy cartel.

Kennedy’s plan may be “radical,” but so was pretending that JAMA still represents neutral science. Shame on you, media.

Remember what I literally just told you about how media only reports terrifying health stories when they can somehow blame you? Exhibit B conveniently landed yesterday in the same UK Daily Mail, headlined with a foghorn of faux drama: “Warning over record highs of Victorian ‘bleeding disease’ in the UK.”

 
And there it was. Just below the spooky banner photo was the line, right on cue: “Health officials warned the number of travellers returning to the UK with the highly contagious—and potentially deadly infection—is now at an all-time high.”

Honestly, I do not know how these people live with themselves. By ‘Victorian bleeding disease’ —a quaint, exotic-sounding Gothic moniker suggesting something novel— they just meant typhoid. Even worse, it actually is a new kind of treatment-resistant typhus, not some antique viral fragment that melted out of a climate-changed glacier somewhere.

The term “Victorian bleeding disease” was especially rich. It’s a dark, Gothic label that sounds like something scraped off a haunted operating table at Bedlam. But the bug is not exotic. Or new. It’s just typhoid. A grim, gut-eroding bacterial infection that’s been around since long before Queen Victoria ever strapped on her first corset — and one that used to be easily treated with antibiotics. Used to be.

Buried several paragraphs down, diligent readers discovered this newfound fear is no quaint relic. The treatment-resistant strain of typhoid is the direct result of decades of antibiotic abuse and a strange new population-level immune dysfunction, which we shall return to momentarily. In other words: it’s iatrogenic —medically caused— not imported.

But admitting those uncomfortable truths would imply some form of institutional responsibility, so instead media reached for the trusty fallback: blame us, hapless travelers and holiday-goers, not the system.

This isn’t just lazy journalism. It’s deliberate misdirection. You can faintly hear the echoes from the spin room discussion: “How can we report on the return of a deadly, drug-resistant disease without hinting that our pharma-overload and immune-wrecking policies may have something to do with it?”

I know!, the vape-addicted editors cried. Let’s just call it a “Victorian bleeding disease,” slap in a stock photo of an airplane over Heathrow, and blame the plebes for going to the Amalfi Coast without wearing their masks.

It is well known that the covid jabs —administered in successive rounds to a whopping 90% of British— caused immune dysregulation in a significant subset of recipients. We’re not talking fringe theories here. We’re talking peer-reviewed findings showing persistent elevation of IgG4 antibodies, the subclass that tells the immune system to stand down. And that’s only one problem.

But instead of any speculation about what else —besides “traveling,” hardly a new development— might have caused 700 British victims to succumb to this latest outbreak of a well-controlled, third-world bug, instead media tearfully informed readers of their own carelessness— while peeking between their fingers to see if we bought it. It would be infuriating if it weren’t so laughably obvious.

We really don’t hate the media nearly enough.

Read more