Why your supplements are bad, useless, and dangerous scams (according to Google)

Google beïnvloeding

Klik op de foto voor een
vermelding van de copyrights

Geplaatst door:
Bron:Green Med Info

Gekoppelde categorieen
(Verborgen) nieuws, Gezondheid, Media, TV subliminale boodschappen, Media en agenda

(Green Med Info) It’s been said that if Orwell were alive today and writing 1984, it would read more like a piece of journalism or non-fiction than a novel. You need look no further than Google's search to see evidence of Big Brother and the policing of thought, or the recent censorship attempts against independent and alternative media to understand what Orwell meant when he said: "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act."

[Part 2 of this investigative report is available here: GOOGLE: "Organic is a Lie, Supplements are Dangerous, Chiropractic is Fake," and Other Thoughts They Want You To Think]

Following closely on the heels of the June 24th release of Project Veritas' investigation into Google’s manipulation of search results and auto-suggestions to fit a specific sociopolitical and economic agenda, or its central “Source of Truth” database, we tested their hypothesis using two of Google’s own products: Google Search and Google Trends, the latter of which simply tracks the volume of specific keyword searches around the world. 

Figure 1: Google search auto-suggestions for "supplements are..."

Here’s what I discovered:  

As you can see, Google is literally putting thoughts into the heads of users, whom otherwise would probably never think them; quite to the contrary, we've found that often, Google's suggestions are the opposite of what most people are actually searching for on the internet today.

When you go to Google Trends you can see there are far more people who are looking for information on the value of supplements ("supplements are good") than 'how bad' they are. Moreover, there is evidence that some of Google's “auto-suggestions” are rarely if ever searched for anywhere, at any time. 

Figure 2: Comparing the search volume of "supplements are bad," "supplements are good," and "supplements are useless." See the trend graph here.

Here's another recently featured example directly relevant to vaccines, which we discussed in our original article about Google's decision to eliminate natural health and health freedom sites from their search results, including 99% of Dr. Mercola's organic traffic:

Google Trends shows that "vaccines cause autism," and not "vaccines cause adults," is the primary search made in the US over the past 12 months. You can see the profound disparity in volume between the two below: 

Were these mere suggestions, one could not rightfully accuse Google of manipulation. But their own product’s label explicitly states that these are “not suggestions, but predictions” -- predictions based upon the volume of "real searches."

Why would Google go out of its way to so blatantly “fix” a narrative around characterizing supplements as bad, or dangerous, or ineffective? Or, that vaccines are safe and have no causal relationship with autism? Who does that narrative serve? As we discussed in our Breaking News story yesterday about Google’s decision to scrub natural health websites like our own from its search results, it serves Google’s pharmaceutical advertisers’ and partners’ interests: 

“Mercola.com has been a source of whistle-blowing information about Big Pharma and Big Tech collusion for decades, so it is no surprise why Google would take this action against his platform, and similar ones. In fact, signs of the coming purge came back in 2016, when GlaxoSmithKline signed a $715 million contract to partner with Google, and with increasing partnerships with pharmaceutical companies in 2019 like Sanofi.  Google's parent company Alphabet is heavily invested in a vaccine company, Vaccitech, founded by scientists at Oxford University. Google, it appears, has become a pay-to-play operation, and contains a specific sociopolitical and economic agenda that is built directly into its search algorithms.“ 

Amazingly, you can do a wide range of searches like this and find all kind of red flags. 

For instance, you can search: “vaccines are harmful,” and Google will offer no auto-suggestions as if the phrase is never entered. But Google Trends shows the opposite is true, and it is a popular search phrase.

Or, try “CDC corruption.” The same thing happens. No auto-suggestions are offered. But Google Trends shows the term is googled as often as DNC Corruption, which has been an active search ever since the Wikileaks DNC email leaks were released in the 2016 election year. 

But Google’s attempt to manipulate thinking is also expressed in examples like this: when you enter the search term antivaxxers, you get the following auto-suggestions: 

Yet Google Trends shows that this is not a search that the public makes, globally, nor in the United States.

Clearly, they are trying to add to the dehumanization this bigoted slur intends to generate. What does "getting owned" actually mean? Urban dictionary's definition is probably closest to Google's intended meaning: "Getting beaten at something usually in a big or humiliating way.. also known as getting your ass handed to you."  Considering recent threats of imprisonment, and even hanging, within the mainstream media against vaccine safety critics and health freedom advocates, this could be defined as a form of hate speech.

Here's another balant example of Google revealing their hidden agenda: 

Really? Are people really typing "gmos are good" into Google search more often than "gmos are bad"? How about "gmos are good for the environment"?

Here's the truth, according to Google Trends

Once again we find Google inverting the truth, and auto-suggesting keyword phrases that aren't ever searched for. There is an entire Wikipedia page on the so-called "Search engine manipulation effect," which discusses search engine-related manipulation in greater depth. There is a researcher by the name of Robert Epstein who has exposed Google's ability to manipulate millions of voters on the topic of elections alone. His seminal paper, published in PNAS and titled, "The search engine manipulation effect (SEME) and its possible impact on the outcomes of elections," and co-authored by Ronald E. Robertson, reveals how biased search rankings can shift the voting preferences of undecided voters by 20% or more. Epstein has said in interview that the effect can be as large as 80% within undecided voters within certain political subgroups. 

We encourage our readers to continue to test out these various search terms and compare the auto-suggestions to the actual search volume found on Google Trends and to report what you find, either by making a suggestion beneath this article via social media or contacting us at [email protected] to share your findings. If you like, use a free, browser-based video screen capture program like Loom, and record your findings and share them. It is possible that Google will begin covering up what they are doing as news of this scandal travels far and wide. 

And for those who have not yet watched the groundbreaking Project Veritas video exposing Google's unethical practices, including a Google executive's admission that they plan to unduly influence the 2020 election, you can still watch it below (it's already been banned on Youtube and Vimeo, to give you a sense of its whistle-blowing importance): 

Note: By posting this video we are not endorsing Project Veritas or James O' Keefe's views per se, rather, we appreciate the opportunity he and his organization's journalistic efforts have provided to examine information that otherwise would not have come to light through mainstream channels.


Geplaatst door Redactie Earth Matters

Laatste artikelen in deze categorie

Lees alle artikelen in deze categorie

Dit artikel delen

Print artikelArtikel als PDF

Tip iemand over dit artikel:



Adolf Hitler
