Has Every Damn "Expert" Been Paid By Pfizer?

The conflict of interest mystery coincidentally plaguing so many legacy media outlets...

The Daily Mail loves its sensationalist headlines and last week was no exception.

On February 6th, capitalised in bold font, they published an article entitled, “EXCLUSIVE: Revealed, just SEVENTY-FIVE Brits have been killed by Covid vaccines as experts hail data as proof jabs are incredibly safe and NOT behind surging excess deaths”.

In short, it hailed new Office for National Statistics (ONS) data that found just 60 death certificates mentioned the vaccines as the underlying cause in England and Wales. The remaining 15 came from Scotland and Northern Ireland.

Suppose we should forget about the Office for National Statistics Regulation’s recent admission that ONS data is biased toward the vaccines and should not be used as an objective comparator.

Much of the article’s content was fortified with qualifying adjectives like “leading” and “official”. The author, Emily Stearn, sprinkled some disqualifiers in for good measure so readers were steered towards the correct conclusion. A few “anti-vaxxers” were also thrown in and Andrew Bridgen received some indirect scolding.

Stearn cited several experts throughout the piece. Among them was Amitava Banerjee, a professor who lectures at University College London and works as an honorary consultant cardiologist at University College London Hospitals and Barts Health NHS Trusts. Certainly, Banerjee’s qualifications are impressive. But it is what Stearn omitted about him that’s most intriguing.

According to DisclosureUK records, both Pfizer and AstraZeneca have paid Banerjee “service fees” in the past:

Stearn failed to disclose this information to readers. As she did with Banerjee’s internship at the World Health Organisation, which would have certainly shaped his approach to medicine. Instead, he was presented as an impartial expert.

It may be controversial to say but perhaps, just perhaps, readers may want to know if an expert judging particular pharmaceutical products has been paid by the same company that made those products.

Earlier in January, when Dr Aseem Malhotra sabotaged the BBC by airing concerns over the role of vaccines in elevated cardiac-related excess deaths, The Guardian committed the same “mistake”.

Vigilant citizen journalist HicksyAlex spotted that two of the three experts cited worked as paid consultants for Pfizer.

Like Stearn, the author failed to mention any of this information to readers - confronting them instead with the typical “extreme fringe”, “misguided”, and “dangerous” disqualifiers.

Are legacy media outlets uniquely predisposed to getting duped by Pfizer-paid consultants or are they really getting this lazy? Perhaps we’ve come to the point where paid consultancy work for Big Pharma corps is so common for members of the medical community that it serves more as an example of their complete coalescence.

Be like Billy. Billy follows the “experts”: