‘Independent’ Press Regulator PURGES UNN due to our coverage of Vaccine Deaths and the Ukraine conflict!

David Clews

Unity News Network
(UNN)

Response to IMPRESS investigation

Thank you for inviting me, as head of Unity News Network (UNN), to respond to the outcome of your investigation into our output. 

When we joined IMPRESS we did so under the impression that IMPRESS membership would help UNN to build as a trusted source of news and commentary with protection from malicious or politically-motivated complainants. We also did so because we actually wanted to adhere to a different standard of journalism such as not hacking the phones of dead girls, door-stepping everyday people, smearing everyday people with lies etc. 

When we joined we explicitly asked whether we would retain full editorial control and we were told IMPRESS does not get involved in editorial content. We also asked whether IMPRESS would scrutinise social media output. We were assured that we would be free to exercise our discretion. 

I am taking this opportunity to respond to some misconceptions, ideological bias and censorial attitudes leading to your verdict of immediate termination. I would like to add that upon being informed of this investigation we resigned with immediate effect from IMPRESS as we believed that the outcome had already been determined against us. The questions looked like a pre-written hit piece by someone at The Guardian or The BBC and as we will talk about later with your board members it really wasn’t a surprise! 

Your investigation outlined two themes of concern to IMPRESS: tweets and articles on covid vaccine safety, and on the conflict in Ukraine – both topics of major public concern. I shall deal with each of these in turn. 

 

Vaccine safety

 

According to your report, UNN has posted tweets that are ‘critical and speculative’ on vaccine injuries and deaths. To be critical is surely to be expected of an independent news medium that focuses on events inadequately covered in mainstream media. It is no secret that Ofcom has instructed newspapers and broadcasters to avoid criticism of covid vaccines, including any suggestion of iatrogenic harm. Speculation, based on rational judgement and context, may be vital if it appears that important information is being withheld. Therefore, neither critique nor conjecture are necessarily faults but actually the ‘bread and butter’ of independent journalism. 

IMPRESS appears to consider the official narrative on covid vaccines as sacrosanct. Does IMPRESS regard Lockdowns as being universally effective in ‘stopping the spread’? The overwhelming consensus now is that lockdowns were a complete;y ridiculous policy with many of the architects of this policy like Anthony Fauci doing their utmost now to distance themselves from it.

I regard it as a duty to be ‘questioning the government’s actions during the pandemic’. You state that ‘this is a matter of public safety and considering the prevalence of disinformation and misinformation that has hampered the public health response to the pandemic’. The view of UNN, like other sceptics of the covid regime, is that the biggest spreader of misinformation is the mainstream media, whipped by government and massive funding from predatory organisations like the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (an unacceptable conflict of interest). 

Misinformation persistently published by mainstream media includes the mantra that the covid vaccines are ‘safe and effective’. This message is repeated despite compelling evidence to the contrary: – 

• Yellow Card, VAERS, EUDRA.pharmacovigilance systems rely on reporting by healthcare practitioners and members of the public, and it is admitted by the MHRA that fewer than a tenth of events are reported on Yellow Card. This proportion is likely to be lower with covid vaccines due to deterrence of criticism of the vaccine. 
• The Centers of Disease Control V-Safe system data on ten million US citizens, 8% needed medical treatment 
• Dr. Aseem Malhotra’s systematic review. This cardiologist recommended suspension of the covid vaccination programme until the trial data are independently analysed
• Pfizer’s data report to the Federal Drug Administration released after court order (Pfizer had previously contracted to withhold these data for 75 years) showed strong indication of  serious adverse reactions
• Numerous other scientific studies showing vaccine harm 

IMPRESS focuses on tweets about a spate of young and fit athletes who have died since the covid vaccination began.  I must emphasise that our tweets asked a question rather than stated a definitive link to the vaccine. Your report presents numerous replies by UNN followers on Twitter, which are not our responsibility.  Some people believe that the vaccines are completely safe; others that they are causing injuries –  opinions expressed on Twitter are not for us to moderate. As a media regulator you are now holding publishers responsible for what people say on Twitter? We followed IMPRESS guidelines on comments on our website but will you now be rolling this out to all of your publishers that they must moderate all comments on all social media platforms and respond to them all accordingly? 

The investigation included two articles by a regular contributor. These articles were clearly marked as opinion. An article on dismissal of a military doctor who facilitated informed consent for soldiers who were expected to take the covid vaccine.  The Moderna vaccine was described as ‘mRNA gene therapy’, ‘unlicensed’ and ‘experimental’ IMPRESS, by contrast, describes this vaccine as ‘approved and licensed by the relevant medical regulatory authority’. Both are correct: the vaccine was given approval but only for emergency use. The vaccine was indeed experimental as it remained on trial, with no long-term safety data.  It was therefore not fully licensed.  Regarding gene therapy, presumably IMPRESS is aware that MRNA is short for messenger ribonucleic acid, which is a genetic substance.  Is IMPRESS aware of research showing that RNA can be reverse-transcripted to DNA in liver cells? 

IMPRESS refers to refutation by ‘fact checkers’ of assertions made here and by other websites on vaccine injuries in army personnel. Is IMPRESS aware that Reuters is funded by Thomson Reuters who are actually major players in the pharmaceutical industry? Or that the Chairman of Thomson Reuters James Smith is on the board of Pfizer? Full Fact is also another organisation that receives huge amounts of funding from Big Tech companies and even Medical industries as well.  Does IMPRESS understand that the sudden emergence of ‘fact checkers’ was simultaneous to the mass vaccination, and that these unaccountable organisations exist for the purpose of censorship? Instead of tackling misinformation, they are suppressing information that should be in the public domain (particularly as informed consent is needed for any medical treatment).  

We should not need to remind IMPRESS of the public safety risk of mass administration of a drug before full testing for effectiveness and safety. Without such evidence it is not possible to know the risk-benefit ratio. But more crucially, unknown health hazards may result in serious injury or death and in the case of the Covid vaccination programme this is exactly what has happened. The lessons of the thalidomide scandal appear to have been swept aside as though it didn’t happen. There is growing evidence of a decline in births and consistent excess mortality since covid vaccination began. These patterns are similar across countries with high vaccination rates.  The failure of governments and health authorities to investigate this, and the failure of mainstream media to report this worrying trend, is scandalous. 

Does IMPRESS believe that the covid vaccines are safe? If so, it has fallen hook, line and sinker for the propaganda peddled by an unholy alliance of government and Big Pharma. UNN is exercising a public service duty by raising questions and concerns about the surge in deaths among younger adults since covid vaccination. Many of these deaths are of cardiovascular cause, and it is now an established fact that blood clots and myocarditis are related to these experimental injections. 

Does the death of BBC Journalist Lisa Shaw not make you want to ask questions? Her death certificate clearly states that this was a result of an adverse reaction to the Astra Zeneca vaccine. Her husband Gareth Eve continues to fight for justice to this day. Should we just ignore his and others’ fight for justice because it makes IMPRESS feel uncomfortable? Hundreds of other families up and down this country are now receiving cheques for £120,000 after the death of their loved ones. The pharmaceutical companies had any liability waived. So in the future if an IMPRESS title wants to highlight an injustice by large corporations they now have to be frightened you might try and shut them down?

The second article is on the imposition of covid lockdown around the world, the Great Reset promoted by the World Economic Forum, and the threat of communism and technocracy. Why this article was the subject of IMPRESS enquiry is not explained. Have we just imagined that the head of the World Economic Forum, Klaus Schwab, wrote a book called ‘The Great Reset’? It is an opinion piece on concerns raised by thousands of other commentators, and there is no statement of fact that IMPRESS challenges. Is IMPRESS denying that the Great Reset exists as a globalist project? Even if IMPRESS believes this to be no more than conspiracy theory, there is no legitimate ban on writing about power and the motives of the powerful – particularly at a time when fundamental human rights are being trampled upon, alongside a huge transfer of wealth from poor to rich.  

May I suggest that press regulators such as IMPRESS turn their attention to more serious threats to public safety, as in vile commentaries on the unvaccinated, arguably incitement, which appeared regularly after the vaccines were introduced.  Consider these examples:

• Sean O’Grady, associate editor of the Independent, wrote that ‘anti-vaxxers’ should be denied access to the NHS
• Ann McEvoy in the Evening Standard described the unvaccinated as ‘lethal liability’ that society cannot afford
• In the Daily Mail, Andrew Neil urged punishment of the unvaccinated  
• On LBC Radio, Nick Ferrari proposed £100 regular fines for the unvaccinated
• Television presenter Jeremy Vine suggested forced injection of those who refuse the vaccine

Whilst these are not titles that you regulate, have you investigated all of your titles to ensure that they haven’t been producing content like this? Have you checked all the comments of all of their followers on social media to ensure that they are behaving?

 

Ukraine

 

War in Ukraine is another topic on which IMPRESS appears to believe that only one version of truth is permissible. This conflict, perhaps unknown to IMPRESS, actually began in 2014 after a US-sponsored coup.  The UK has not declared war, and there are no legal restrictions on reporting and expression of opinion on what is happening in Ukraine.  UNN has a right to present contrary evidence and views.  

The investigation into UNN was launched after a complainant (a ‘third party journalist’) took umbrage to the popular former England footballer Matt le Tissier retweeting our thought-provoking question about whether we should believe the reported ‘Bucha massacre’ after two years of relentless scaremongering and exaggeration about covid-19. IMPRESS seems to believe that the Bucha massacre is an indisputable fact. However, more critical observers have noted anomalies in the official story, some believing that the corpses on the roadside were actually citizens killed by the Ukrainian military for alleged collaboration with the Russian army, which had temporarily occupied the area. 

Are you at IMPRESS saying that the Ukrainian regime of President Zelensky is not engaged in any way, shape or form a campaign to try and elicit sympathy from the West to get weapons and financial support?

• Is IMPRESS aware that the Human Rights Commissioner of Ukraine Lyudmila Denisova was removed from her post due to lying about apparent Human Rights abuses by Russian soldiers in order to elicit sympathy from Western Powers? 
• Is IMPRESS aware of the story of the ‘Ghost of Kyiv’ of a Ukrainian fighter pilot that was terrorising their opponents was completely made up?
• Is IMPRESS aware of the Snake Island story where the official narrative at the start was the Russians then killed the Ukrainians when in fact they were taken hostage?
• Is IMPRESS aware of the Gold Teeth torture chamber story that actually turned out to be a complete lie and fabrication? 

Just to confirm as well the NordStream Pipeline attack was of course the Russians who did it. Of course it makes sense that as the Russian state owned Gazprom company funded the pipeline to the tune of billions it makes total sense that they would blow it up themselves just in case the German’s got cold feet (literally) and asked for the taps to be turned back on. Neither Joe Biden or Victoria Nuland saying the USA would do whatever it takes to stop Nordstream matters at all. Would this kind of rhetoric be more acceptable to IMPRESS despite it defying any logic or sense?

Much of the Ukraine segment of the investigation is irrelevant to UNN. The Twitter activity of Matt le Tissier is not our responsibility, yet IMPRESS goes into detail with a selection of negative replies to him by people who obviously believe the official narrative as gospel truth.  If IMPRESS were balanced, the high proportion of replies supporting le Tissier would also have been mentioned. But it is ludicrous to blame UNN for any of these exchanges. 

IMPRESS also mentions an image shown of Ukrainian citizens tied to lampposts as punishment. I’m not sure why this is raised. Is it because IMPRESS doesn’t believe it happened? There are numerous well documented reports of military style justice being meted out by the Ukrainian regime on innocent civilians, are we not allowed to talk about this? Will publishers no longer be able to discuss conflicts around the world if their editorial policy does not fit with the policies of the British Government?

So, any alleged brutality by the Russians is fact, but any Ukrainian atrocities (including by self-declared Nazi militia) are lies? Verily, truth is the first casualty of war.  I would expect a press regulator to appreciate that there are always two sides to any story. 

Our editorial position on the Ukraine conflict has been clear from the start. We are completely opposed to this needless war and want it to end. We are not the only ones to take this position and then find ourselves being smeared and lied about so we are in good company!

 

Conclusion

My initial response to the IMPRESS notification of spurious allegations by a journalist (who is known to attack rival independent media) was to immediately withdraw from IMPRESS. I did not see any good grounds to investigate UNN other than an opportunity to sanction a news network that counters the official narrative. My prediction of a foregone conclusion has been validated by the material presented in the report, which demonstrates bias, lack of objectivity and the use of Twitter activity twice removed from UNN output to justify its conclusions. 

IMPRESS seems to take the stance that only state-approved facts or opinions may be published. This is not journalism; it is not freedom of expression; it is not the diversity of flourishing and free media. Instead it is a revival of Soviet-era Pravda, a partisan and propagandist newspaper that boasted of tractor production figures in the same way that today’s mainstream media boast of vaccination rates. Useless tractors abandoned in the Steppe, however, are trivial compared with the injuries caused by experimental mRNA injections and the threat of World War Three cheered on by warmongering journalists.  A civic democracy relies on independent, critical media, journalists who are unafraid to report truth, and commentators with the courage to express views that the authorities want to silence. For IMPRESS to take the ultimate action by terminating UNN membership for ideological reasons begs the question: who regulates the regulators?

As an organisation you have picked your side and that is the side of fear, state control and self preservation. One quick glance at your advisory board shows that these are political appointees and are completely biased. They may call themselves journalists or rights activists but rather they are nothing but poor propagandists having to rely on the scraps thrown by corporate elites to survive. Now we aren’t going to mention any of the other titles you regulate out of respect for their work but a cursory glance of their content and output on social media would easily see them fall foul of the ridiculous standards you have set us. 

UNN has been going now for 5 years. During that time we have never had a single legal action raised against us. We had one previous complaint made against us by another individual who uses money and power to influence and IMPRESS immediately buckled under that as well. We have a massive and loyal audience and are entirely funded by small donations and regular people. We keep ourselves to ourselves and don’t engage with the MSM but rather cultivate and grow an audience through penetrative and rigorous analysis of alternative views and theories. 

We all know where IMPRESS got their initial funding from and where you now seek funding. You are not an impartial press regulator and never will be. It looks more and more apparent that you are positioning yourselves in line with the state and their prevailing ideology. That is absolutely fine but please don’t pretend to be otherwise. We have never lied about who we are or what we do in order to ‘fit in’.

Alas we are the lucky ones in that we just face mockery, censorship and our lives being made awkward. When a real journalist like Julian Assange rots in a solitary prison cell in this country it shows how far we have fallen. 

Kind Regards,

David Clews