Saturday 25th December 2021
Journalists call for Christmas truce to stop division turning into war
Society has become polarised around the issue of Covid vaccines and it is worrying to imagine where this schism could be pushing normally right-thinking people.
There are two camps drawing battle lines in the digital world, those who are injected and demand everyone else be injected, and those who want to remain uninjected for now or permanently while keeping their freedoms.
In the non-digital world there is another group, which outnumbers both the other two groups put together, that simply wants the vaccinated and unvaccinated to be able to coexist in peace.
Let’s move back to the first group for a moment, though, as it seeks to influence the largest of the three groups. This group is small in number but sometimes has the platforms to shout loudest.
Without naming names, as HTL understands that hostility against journalists and commentators is rising in parallel with hostility against the unvaccinated, here are some headlines from this month.
The unvaccinated have become a lethal liability we can ill-afford
Make the unnjabbed face their own lockdown so we can live our lives
It’s time to punish Britain’s five million vaccine refuseniks: They put us all at risk of more restrictions. So why shouldn’t we curb some of their freedoms?
There have been several precursors to the robust views above that have also been topped by equally strong headlines in national newspapers this year, including: “No job. No entry. No NHS access; It is only a matter of time before we turn on the unvaccinated.”
The language is stark and unambiguous, and appears to be written by people who believe the unvaccinated are a huge problem for society, a problem great enough to warrant the loss of freedoms and punishment.
The power of these headlines should not be underestimated, indeed many readers only ever read the headlines of a story and perhaps the first two or three paragraphs if the author is lucky.
So how will those headlines make the third group feel, the one that wants to live in peace with their unvaccinated/vaccinated brothers and sisters?
If they are unvaccinated they are possibly going to be feeling anxious and this could lead to fear and even anger against the vaccinated. Perhaps they will be led into thinking many injected people share the opinions expressed in those headlines.
If they are vaccinated they are also possibly going to be feeling anxious and this could lead to fear and even anger against the unvaccinated. Perhaps they will be led into thinking the uninjected could be disrupting everyone’s lives or, worse still, causing the death of others.
And so we now have a split in this third group, many of whom will join with either of the other two groups, depending on their vaccine status.
Is the language used in those headlines something we should be worried about? Are polarised splits in opinion a fact of life, something we just have to deal with? Or is there a way we can encourage respectful debate and perhaps even move aside the debate altogether and allow for peaceful coexistence between opposing groups?
Perhaps a Christmas truce is needed. Even if it is temporary, let us for today try and live with each other, injected and uninjected, accepting and respecting other points of view.
If we can then perhaps hold on to that feeling of mutual respect, it can lead to understanding, and from there to coexistence in peace.
We emailed four major UK newspapers for a right of reply to this article but none responded within the specified time frame of three working days.
Happy holidays to one and all from the team at HTL.
Tuesday 19th October 2021
Newspapers ‘censored’ news and ads on natural approach to Covid
Holding the Line exclusive
By Roger Guttridge
A medical research organisation claims it was blocked at every turn after trying to publicise its research into a natural, science-based approach to Covid-19 in the mainstream media.
Paul Anthony Taylor, executive director of the international Dr Rath Health Foundation, said major newspapers refused to publish not only articles on their findings but advertisements that they were willing to pay tens of thousands of dollars for.
Holding the Line has evidence that more than $40,000 was accepted by the Washington Post only to be returned after advertising executives were overruled.
UK-based Mr Taylor said: “Since the beginning of the pandemic, our scientific researchers in California did a lot of work with coronaviruses and nutrients and found that combinations of specific micronutrients were extremely effective in blocking coronavirus infections.
“We wanted to put a piece in major newspapers. We talked to several international papers and without giving a reason they just said they couldn’t do that.
“When we realised they wouldn’t publish an article, we thought we would do a paid-for ad with information.
“We talked to senior people in the ad departments of the New York Times, the Washington Post and other international papers and they all turned us down.”
Mr Taylor said studies published by the Foundation’s researchers in peer-reviewed scientific journals demonstrated that specific combinations of micronutrients were capable of blocking all known infection pathways of the coronavirus, including viral binding as well as its multiplications (replication) inside human body cells.
See details of the studies here:
PRESS RELEASE: Natural Compounds Block Binding Site Of Coronavirus To Its ‘Entry Port’ On Human Body Cells
“The ‘entry point’ of SARS-CoV2 into the human body is the so-called ACE2 receptor, found on the surface of human body cells,” said Mr Taylor.
“The binding of the virus to these receptors is currently being targeted by coronavirus vaccines.
“Our research shows that specific micronutrients can inhibit this binding and, at the same time, the multiplication of the virus inside the cells.”
The World Health Organization defines micronutrients as “vitamins and minerals needed by the body in very small amounts” and warns that the deficiencies can cause “severe and even life-threatening conditions”.
Mr Taylor said that despite providing evidence for a science-based alternative to coronavirus vaccines, their researchers’ work in this area received no media attention.
“We agree that alternative Covid-19 news appears to have been censored, seemingly with the intention of creating one ‘official’ narrative,” he said.
“There is no doubt that this lack of balance in reporting has led to public understanding of the pandemic being based on a distorted version of the truth.
“But I have a strong suspicion that the truth will eventually come out.”
Mr Taylor stressed that the not-for-profit Dr Rath Health Foundation’s research was science-based and that no fewer than 125 previous studies by their researchers had been published on the US National Library of Medicine’s PubMed website.
Link to previous DRHF studies on PubMed:
He added: “I can only conclude that their coronavirus findings have essentially been censored in the media.”
Holding the Line has received copies of extensive email correspondence between the Dr Rath Health Foundation and senior advertising staff of both the Washington Post and the New York Times.
On July 2, 2020, the Washington Post’s international sales director offered the Foundation a $3,150 discount off the original $44,100 price and hinted at the possibility of a further discount if they would be flexible on positioning the advertisement.
She was clearly eager to clinch the deal.
A price of $40,600 was later agreed and paid on July 3.
On July 6 the copy for the display advertisement was sent and an insertion date of July 8 agreed.
But later that day, the sales director sent another email quoting the Washington Post’s legal department, which said it would “not accept any advertising for a treatment that claims to treat a serious medical condition unless it has been approved by the FDA” (US Food and Drug Administration).
Mr Taylor replied: “The main point is that the ad doesn’t mention any product. It is simply reporting on a new study conducted by our scientific researchers.
“FDA approval would only be required if the study was making health claims regarding a specific product.
“In other words, even if we were to ask for ‘approval’, the FDA could only give it if we were to apply for it in the context of a specific product.”
On July 7, the sales director wrote: “As you appreciate, there is a huge amount of sensitivity around Covid-19 communication [and] the legal team has instructed that we will not be able to run this advertisement.”
Plans to advertise in the New York Times were also fairly advanced when the paper’s legal department decided it would not publish.
Jörg Wortman, the Dr Rath Health Foundation’s publishing co-ordinator, replied to the New York Times advertising sales department: “We knew that the content would be controversial. But we also knew that it is pure science, what we wanted to present in these crazy times, and only science will offer a perspective to the people.
“I am a bit sad that your legal department made this political decision.”
It is clear from the correspondence that the paper’s advertising executives made further efforts to print the advertisement.
But after further discussions, the legal department announced: “Advertisements for herbal and/or other dietary supplements that claim to prevent, treat or cure serious medical conditions are unacceptable.
“Supplements that generally claim to improve health, energy, stamina and wellbeing are acceptable, but in this situation, Dr Rath is clearly saying that micronutrients and supplements can help treat, prevent and cure Covid.
“Additionally, the FTC (US Federal Trade Commission) has been sending warning letters to marketers to stop making claims that their products can prevent or treat Covid-19.
“The FTC stated that there is no scientific evidence that any products or services can treat or cure Covid-19.”
Armed with this information, the New York Times’s client lead for advertising and partnerships told Mr Wortman: “The only way we could take this ad is if the ad doesn’t talk about supplements and how they can help with Covid, which I think is the whole point of the ad.”
Holding the Line invited both the Washington Post and the New York Times to comment but neither has responded.
Notes to editors:
Holding the Line email:
Holding the Line spokesman:
Tel: + 44 7901 821550
Dr Rath Health Foundation spokesman:
Paul Anthony Taylor
Friday 1st October 2021
Calling all journalists – your country needs you!
• Journalists concerned with Government-led Covid narratives that have dominated the mainstream media across the world can still make a stand – you are NOT alone.
• Holding the Line: Journalists Against Covid Censorship aims to promote best practice and offer solutions to ensure balanced debate returns to the media industry.
• Covid deaths, vaccine harm, and PCR and other Covid tests have NOT been put under sustained scrutiny in the media – HTL aims to empower journalists to do this.
• Freelancers have been blacklisted by media outlets for seeking to write counter-narrative stories and reporters have been ridiculed/warned by managers for offering an alternative view.
• Journalists should be able to question the established narrative without fear of prejudice and hostility from colleagues/managers and the public.
Covid-19 jabs are killing thousands and permanently disabling tens of thousands more – and that’s official.
Figures reported through the UK’s Yellow Card scheme, VAERS in the US and EudraVigilance in Europe indicate that the experimental injections have already killed more people in a few months than more than 70 other vaccines put together over the previous 30 years.
According to Dr Joseph Mercola, writing in the August-September 2021 Nexus Magazine, the statistics mean the Covid jabs are about 500 times as deadly as the seasonal flu vaccine and seven times more dangerous than the H1N1 jab.
Yet the scary stats remain largely unreported to the public.
Why? Because censorship and propaganda are causing mainstream media to present a one-sided picture to their audiences.
SAGE, the scientific advisory group, specifically advised the UK government in March 2020 to “use media to increase sense of personal threat” among the public.
And that’s why a group of British journalists have launched Holding the Line: Journalists Against Covid Censorship. And they are keen to invite others to join them in the fight.
Their aim is to help restore balance to the Covid/vaccine debate and educate fellow journalists and the wider public about the facts, figures and scientific opinions that are being censored across the mainstream.
A spokesperson for Holding the Line said: “If you look behind the curtain of propaganda, it soon becomes obvious that virtually nothing has been fully and accurately reported.
“An early example is the reporting of so-called Covid deaths.
“As most people now know, these are not necessarily Covid deaths at all but deaths of people who tested positive in the previous 28 days mostly using a PCR test that doctors, scientists and even the World Health Organisation say produces false positives.
“Law courts in Portugal and Austria have already declared PCR tests unreliable yet they were the basis of worldwide lockdowns and crackdowns on personal freedom.
“Forced to provide verified mortality data, a Portuguese court ruled that of 17,000 alleged ‘covid deaths’ between January 2020 and April 2021, only 152 were actually from Covid.
“The other 16,848 embraced a whole range of death causes including accidents.”
The spokesperson stressed that the group’s aims did not include “having a go” at fellow journalists.
He said: “Many journalists are being misled like everyone else and even those that are aware often find their hands tied by publishers and editors who are following the official agenda.
“We know freelancers who have been blacklisted by media outlets for seeking to write balanced stories that challenge Covid narratives that have been established in the mainstream media through constant repetition rather than being built on scientific data.
“Others have been warned that they could be in breach of contract if they cross the line.
“One of our members received an official warning from her newspaper.
“Another was taken off air by his radio station for being too ‘controversial’.
“A third has been branded as a ‘conspiracy theorist’ for putting forward a story that questioned the safety of the Covid injections.”
The spokesperson said there was a popular myth that anything that failed to tie in with the governmental narrative was social media “disinformation” from so-called anti-vaxxers.
“That is plain wrong,” he said.
“Hundreds of doctors, virologists, bacteriologists and other scientists are seeing their posts removed from the internet on a daily basis simply because their studies and views disagree with the official narrative.
“Many are leaders in their fields – people like Dr Robert Malone, celebrated as the inventor of the mRNA technology now being used in the Pfizer and Moderna jabs.”
In a podcast interview in June 2021, Malone warned that the spike protein in the jabs was not behaving as expected.
Instead of staying near the injection site, it was biologically active and leading to blood clots, bleeding disorders, heart problems and neurological damage as well as accumulating in women’s ovaries.
Within two days the interview on Bret Weinstein’s podcast was pulled by YouTube and Weinstein given a warning.
Malone’s lauded contribution to the development of the mRNA vaccine was then excised from the Wikipedia entry.
The spokesperson said: “This is typical of what’s going on. We could provide numerous other examples.
“Governments claim to be led by science but in reality they are being led by Big Pharma and the so-called fact-checkers and Big Tech algorithms that censor on a grand scale.”
Past or present journalists interested in joining Holding the Line: Journalists Against Covid Censorship should email JournalistsAgainstCovidCensorship@protonmail.com. Anonymity will be respected if required.
Note to editors:
For interview requests or more information please contact:
Or feel free to contact any of our group spokespersons:
Sonia Elijah SoniaElijah@protonmail.com
Tony Gosling firstname.lastname@example.org
Roger Guttridge email@example.com
For urgent media enquiries, please contact Tony Gosling on Tel: 07786 952037