The Guardian’s Anti-Russian Vax Propaganda Plunges to New Depths

Just how vile the Russians are for having developed a (non-mRNA) vaccine against the alleged PLAGUE OF DEATH?

What a f****ing disgrace! I did develop a bit of a potty mouth while in the army, but I generally refrain from bad language on this blog. But there are times when it just spontaneously spews out in disgust at the sheer utter revolting vileness of the British press.

I know. It’s always been bad. But one could distinguish between the likes of The Sun and The Mirror on the one hand, and the more serious ‘broadsheet’ press on the other, treating the former not so as newspapers but as a type of entertainment while expecting some degree of seriousness from the latter. Alas, those days are long gone, especially when it comes to all things Russian. Instead of honest reporting, what we get from too much of the British press is a torrent of extreme Russophobic propaganda masquerading as news. It is truly a f***ing disgrace.

What brought on this rant? The answer is an article in today’s copy of The Guardian about Russia’s Sputnik V vaccine. Even by the rotten standards of The Guardian it plummets the depths of propagandistic nastiness, serving no purpose other than to incite hatred of Russia, while doing its darndest to undermine worldwide efforts to get us out of the covid pandemic. We’ve seen many (invalid) complaints about Russia spreading anti-vax propaganda. Well, here here we British anti-vax propaganda of the basest kind. It kind of makes you want to vomit.

The gist of the article is summed up in the headline and subtitle:

‘Is Russia’s Covid vaccine anything more than a political weapon?

Observers say the Sputnik V jab is aimed more at sowing political division than fighting coronavirus.’

WTF? I mean, really. WTF? Russian researchers really went to all the effort of developing a coronavirus vaccine so that they could ‘sow political division’ in the West? Listen to yourself speaking, man. Are you serious?

Unfortunately, author Jon Henley is, and embarks on a long explanation of just how vile the Russians are for having developed a solution to a worldwide plague.

To do this, Henley resorts to one of the techniques for writing bad articles I mentioned in a recent post – namely, citing a bunch of people who agree with the narrative he’s trying to spread, while ignoring any other voices or alternative explanations. It’s a hatchet job, pure and simple, designed to discredit both Sputnik V and the Russian Federation.

The article, in other words, is just one Russophobic comment piled up on another – Bam, bam, bam. Take that, Sputnik V! What it isn’t is fair and balanced reporting.

So it is that Henley starts us off with a statement that

Russia’s Sputnik V vaccine has yet to win EU regulatory approval and is likely to play little part in the bloc’s rollout, but it has already achieved what some observers say is one of its objectives – sowing division among, and within, member states. “Sputnik V has become a tool of soft power for Russia,” said Michal Baranowski, a fellow with a US thinktank, the German Marshall Fund of the United States. “It’s planted its flag on the vaccine and the political goal of its strategy is to divide the west.”

Baranowski’s evidence for this claim? He doesn’t provide any. Of course, he doesn’t. It doesn’t exist. Has anybody associated with the Russian government or the Sputnik vaccine ever stated such an objective? No. Baranowski’s accusation is entirely speculation on his behalf.

But Henley thinks that there is some evidence, and so brings out his second quote, this time from an EU official:

“Russia’s low vaccination rate just doesn’t tally with it having a supposedly cheap, easy-to-make and effective vaccine,” one EU diplomat said. “Either Moscow’s being altruistic, which seems unlikely. Or it’s prioritising geopolitics over Russians’ needs.”

This is just BS. Total utter BS. Putting aside the idea that Russians are incapable of altruism, if Henley spent even a micro-second checking, he’d discover that a) Russia does have a ‘cheap, easy-to-make and effective vaccine’, and b) the reason for the low vaccination rate in Russia is not that Russia is ‘prioritising geopolitics over Russians’ needs’, by for instance sending vaccines abroad while not distributing them at home, but a reluctance by Russians to take the vaccine. In Moscow, for instance, the vaccine is freely available for all, and has been for some time, but only about 10% of the city has bothered getting a shot. You can walk into the GUM shopping mall any time you like and get the vaccine. I’ve read that the line-ups are minimal. People just aren’t doing it.

That means that there are some genuine criticisms that can make of the Russian government’s handling of the covid crisis. It has done a very poor PR job persuading its population of the merits of getting vaccinated. But the accusation that it is favouring geopolitics over its own people’s needs is just plain false.

Henley, however, ploughs on regardless, wheeling out his third rent-a-quote, the Prime Minister of Lithuania, telling us that:

The prime minister of Lithuania, Ingrida Šimonytė, tweeted in February that Russia’s president, Vladimir Putin, saw the shot not so much as a “cure for the Russian people” as “another hybrid weapon to divide and rule.”

Well, if the Prime Minister of Lithuania says it, it must be true. Right?

To make sure we’re on ball, Henley next casts some doubt on the efficacy of Sputnik-V, though deigning to cite Russian health officials rebutting such doubts. But whether Sputnik works well or not isn’t really Henley’s topic. It could be 100% effective but still a bad thing, he implies, because it’s ‘dividing’ Europe (which is obviously more important than health issues – I find the callousness of the approach at this point rather startling). Thus the article tells us:

Whether or not the EMA –[European Medical Agency] approves Sputnik V and whether or not it ever arrives in sufficient numbers, observers argue it has already done significant damage, with EU national and regional leaders leveraging it for their own political ends. In some countries, it has caused mayhem: the Slovakian prime minister, Igor Matovič, was forced to resign this month amid a bitter dispute over a secret deal to buy 2m doses despite the disagreement of many in his four-party coalition. … Sputnik has also cost the health and foreign ministers of the Czech Republic – both opposed to the shot’s deployment without EMA approval – their jobs, fired by the prime minister, Andrej Babiš …  In Germany … three states including Bavaria have either struck or are negotiating Sputnik deals.

Obviously, Moscow somehow planned this all along! As if. And in any case, so what? Everyone and his dog is saying that EU’s vaccine program has been a mess. If states seek to go around it and vaccinate their people by getting Sputnik-V, isn’t that a good thing? But no, not for Mr Henley, who returns to his original source, writing that:

For Baranowski, Sputnik’s rushed approval, online propaganda and carefully selected destinations add up to a Russian strategy that is “neither innocent nor humanitarian. It is part of exactly the same game, of dividing the west, that we see in Moscow’s use of military power, cybersecurity, energy security.”

And it’s working, he said: “It’s dividing various European actors pretty well. Until Sputnik V has EMA approval – at which stage, of course, there’s no problem: the world needs vaccines – it’s become a political litmus test for whether you are for or against the EU’s programme. That’s eroding confidence. And that’s what Putin wants.”

 Ah, yes. ‘That’s what Putin wants’. Which is odd, because he’s never said so, nor given any indication that that’s what he’s thinking. But it seems as if Mr Baranowski has a means of getting inside Putin’s head. One of those Russian ‘directed energy weapons’ redesigned for a new purpose, maybe?

This isn’t serious reporting. It’s just an unsubstantiated thesis, with the author making up for the lack of concrete evidence by throwing in a bunch of quotes from hostile witnesses. It’s hateful. Insofar as it increase vaccine scepticism and may hinder the use of what appears to be a very successful medical product, it is also harmful. By publishing this, The Guardian has plunged so deep, it’s gone even beyond the lower depths. Shame on you, Guardian. Shame.

Source: Irrussianality

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
10 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Dale
Dale
3 days ago

I see two issues: (1) blatant anti-Russia propaganda in general (2) Russia fell for Covid-hysteria, like the rest of the world, it’s rush to develop Sputnik but a concomitant of that.

ken
ken
3 days ago

Even by the rotten standards of The Guardian it plummets the depths of propagandistic nastiness, serving no purpose other than to incite hatred of Russia, while doing its darndest to undermine worldwide efforts to get us out of the covid pandemic.”

Considering there is no pandemic it seems the pot is calling the kettle black.

The W.H.O. changed the criteria for a pandemic,,, From the Express in the UK:

“During the 2018 documentary “TrustWHO”, filmmaker Lillian Franck unearthed footage that showed WHO delegates six weeks before the level 6 pandemic was issued as having described Swine Flu as a “moderate” situation.

This description was given six weeks before the WHO changed its criteria for a level 6 pandemic, deleting “severity of illness” from the requirement of a pandemic phase.

It was thus made easier to enter the world into a serious global pandemic.”

WHY? Money of course.

“In the months leading up to the WHO’s declaration of the pandemic as a “level 6” contagion – the highest possible level – many countries including Italy, Germany, France and the UK made secret agreements with pharmaceutical companies.
These contracts obliged the countries to buy Swine Flu vaccinations only if the WHO raised the pandemic to a level 6.”

https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1281081/who-world-health-organisation-coronavirus-latest-swine-flu-covid-19-europe-politics-spt

Secret agreements with pharmaceutical companies…. I smell a rat,,, a rotting rat!

Moving on to Covid…

This alleged Sars 2 virus would have never made ‘pandemic’ level using the ‘old’ definition. It’s barely on par with the flu which the CDC and W.H.O. massaged the flu’s numbers as well combining it with Pneumonia.

And if it wasn’t for the manipulative PCR test, (97% false positives which reduces the deaths from 591,000 to 17,730), the Chinese video propaganda showing people collapsing in the street I doubt we would have ever even heard of Covid.

Now it took me 20 whole minutes to find this and there are dozens of articles stating how the W.HO. changed the criteria and I am no ‘journalist’.

Why on earth almost everyone wants to believe this bs when it is sooooo simple to disprove is a mystery to me…

Spam-Demic-423x420.jpg
XSFRGR
XSFRGR
2 days ago
Reply to  ken

The great mystery is the longevity of SPAM. Not only has SPAM been in production since WW 2 my survival stash has cans that are 14 years old. I opened one today, and it was excellent. I don’t know about the long term prospects of the cock roach, but SPAM is eternal.

Juan
Juan
2 days ago
Reply to  XSFRGR

Well, for short term consumption it’s OK (while you find fresher sources of protein); but that amount of nitrites will give you cancer if consumed long term.

Last edited 2 days ago by Juan
Mark
1 day ago
Reply to  ken

The WHO admitted that at least part of the reason it declared the Novel Coronavirus a ‘pandemic’ was because it felt people were not taking it seriously. So, obviously, it was necessary to scare them. Oh; and to set the proper tone for raising money, as well.

“WHO cited inaction as a major reason for the timing of the declaration.

“WHO has been assessing this outbreak around the clock and we are deeply concerned both by the alarming levels of spread and severity, and by the alarming levels of inaction,” Tedros said in a statement.

“We have therefore made the assessment that #COVID19 can be characterized as a pandemic.”

And remember this great blast from the past? Brought to you by the very same people who continue to declare themselves epidemiological experts, and to demand that they be listened to.

“You don’t need a face mask unless you have COVID-19 and are showing symptoms. Buying up masks takes away precious materials from the health workers who need them most.”

But then, of course, it was decided that masking was just too useful as a visible signal of compliance, and so asymptomatic transmission was invented.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/03/11/coronavirus-pandemic-world-health-organization/5011903002/

nnn
nnn
3 days ago

Guardian is a Zionist mafia tool

Helga Weber
Helga Weber
3 days ago

There is no reason to give this journasist a platform, so if you do not mention it, only the few who read the the Guardian would no, the rest of the world would not care.

Real news
Real news
2 days ago

PAul Robinson is a tool.. waste of time this article is… why do you do some real reporting and tell the people what’s in the Covid vaccine, for a virus that has never been isolated. Tell your readers that this mRNA vaccine is really a bioweapon that spreads this synthetic virus to anyone that is not vaccinated.

I guess like all MSM your just another puppet spreading disinformation and never once stopping to think and use common sense.

Mark
2 days ago

Oh, look! The New York Times has arrived at the same conclusion as the ‘anti-vaxxers’; just months later and using entirely different reasoning. According to the ‘experts’ the paper relies upon, herd immunity in the USA is not achievable! You don’t say.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/03/health/covid-herd-immunity-vaccine.html

According to them, herd immunity is unachievable because of variants and ‘persistent vaccine hesitancy’, a shameless last-ditch attempt to guilt you into ‘getting your jab’ for your community.

I have said, here and elsewhere and any number of times over the last couple of months, that herd immunity is unachievable through vaccination simply because the vaccines do not confer immunity. They promise only to mitigate your symptoms so that if you get it, you are not as sick and probably won’t die. Both major manufacturers, Pfizer and Moderna, are clear that their vaccine does not promise immunity, that you can still get COVID and if you do, you can still spread it to others. It is patently impossible to reach herd immunity under such circumstances. They now speak with increasing confidence – because the people did not rise up and behead them when they introduced the possibility – of regular six-month ‘boosters’ to ‘maintain your immunity’.

How is it possible for so many people to be so obtuse, so deliberately ignorant through such an unfolding revelation of the con? Look at the trillions your children are now committed to repaying, that went on unaccountable emergency handouts thrown into the wind. Wake up, for Christ’s sake.

Jerry Hood
Jerry Hood
2 days ago

British judaised fags, denying regular medical treatments to 10 million patients, they won’t admitt, but continue in their satanic, zionist attacks on Rusdia! Fuj,disgusting and degenerated morons! Tha ks God,pretty soon,these corruoted judaisers shall be swept away by coming Apocalypse!!!

Anti-Empire