Conspiracy theories will kill you says BBC
A lesson in British deep state propaganda
The British deep state is getting ready for another push toward totalitarianism. On 23rd June, the BBC published a brazen propaganda piece penned by deep state actor, Marianna Spring (a fake name for a fake reporter). It’s an excellent example of how propaganda works on simple minds. The conflation of death by cancer with ‘conspiracy theories’ is one of the most blatant and disgusting pieces I’ve seen yet. The aim is to excite the emotions; feelings of sadness, anger, and blame, and to tie them to the dog whistle ‘conspiracy theorist’ meme.
It’s almost a year since Paloma Shemirani died of cancer after refusing chemotherapy, so it’s unclear how long Spring has been sitting on this story. However, the meandering nonsense in the article fails the most passive of tests for journalistic integrity and (dare I use the word?) truth. It’s always sad when someone dies, especially someone young. And the mother-daughter relationship described sounds troubled and unhealthy, as so many are. However, to use this situation to ascribe deathly influence to conspiracy theories, and then push for more censorship on social media, is cheap manipulation of the narrative for political ends.
The reasoning used for taking this line, and reportedly voiced by Paloma’s brothers, is that Paloma’s mother, Kate, was distrustful of the medical establishment. She strongly discouraged Paloma from using chemotherapy. (She didn’t do this via social media.) However, it is clear from the article that Paloma, a 23-year-old Cambridge graduate, was considered to hold legal capacity for making her own decisions, and was very intelligent. Doctors told her chemotherapy offered an excellent chance at recovery, and sadly she decided not to use it. Her brothers believe she might still be here if she had, and they might be right. They feel guilty for not being more proactive in their sister’s care. It seems clear they were not there with her when she died, despite the severity of her illness.
None of this has anything to do with shape-shifting lizards, which are thrown into the mix with 911, Alex Jones (the American loud mouth ranting goon, who once had some journalistic merit having exposed a weird child-sacrifice ritual at the secretive Bohemian grove). This deliberate mixture is deployed to conflate scepticism about the ethics of the medical establishment with a range of random and fantastical sounding ideas. The implanted meme is simple. Trigger: Are you sceptical about the establishment narrative on something? Response: You must be one of those dangerous, lizard-fearing, Sandy Hook conspiracy nuts.
Emotions help bypass reason. It’s why advertisers use ridiculous imagery, such as people driving cars around cities with no traffic, or across a deserted, sunny landscape. They want you to feel. Not to think. If they showed reality, the commercials wouldn’t be effective. The British deep state propaganda machine operates in the same way. You’ll see it all the time in smutty tabloids. Photos of semi-clad celebrities are jumbled together with tales of injustice, or acts of war and violence. Words are carefully placed together for subliminal programming. The aim may be to sell, to coerce, or to brainwash. Never to educate.
The BBC is a little different. More insidious. It dons a cloak of respect, and portrays itself as balanced. Behind the mask is a twisted, two-faced, control freak who seeks to distract and mislead; the British establishment. If their propaganda doesn’t work, and in the main part it does, there are police batons, secret courts, black lists, undercover machete-wielding agents, and more. However, their main weapon, as with all despotic regimes, is the public.
The real surface story in Paloma’s case is one of a dysfunctional family, a tragic death, and a young woman who seemed to make a bad decision. That’s what free society permits. Wrong choices, as tragic as they may be. But, there’s a deeper story here, too. That of a British public believed to be incapable of rational, sober decision-making. A mass that must be shielded from all opinions, save for those approved of by their state. This herd of coddled geese are so emotionally inept, and lacking in self awareness, that simply reading something on social media could lead to them making a decision that leads to a tragic death (even with an elite education).
What a confession! Yet, what muddled logic. To address the issue requires more exposure to different opinion (not abuse), more personal empowerment, more advice on how to decide for yourself, and more encouragement for calm, intelligent discourse. Spring offers the opposite: the dangers of being coddled need tackling through more coddling; the hazard of coercive, emotionally-driven decision-making must be addressed through the use of articles that use coercive, emotionally-driven narratives, and subliminal associations between dog-whistle terms and avoidable tragedy.
If Spring was capable of expressing independent thought, she would know that the other tricks she deployed, using someone else’s voice, exposes her ineptly naive grasp of science, and total lack of journalistic integrity. For example, mocking the idea of sunscreen causing cancer, or Wi-Fi being dangerous. RF radiation is already classed as a possible carcinogen, it is known to cause infertility in men, and has been proven to cause wide range of undesirable biological effects. You should read about it here »».
Similarly, sunscreen ingredient oxybenzone has been found to cause cancer in animal experiments and is associated with endocrine disruption. The levels found in people correlate with sunscreen use (more use, more potential carcinogen in your body). Additionally, some sunscreens have been found to contain contaminants such as benzene, which is linked to causing cancer (see my mini-review at the bottom of this article).
The choice isn’t the way Marianna Spring portrays it: that you either wear sunscreen (all of which is perfectly safe), or you get sunburn and skin cancer, you stupid, lizard-fearing weirdo! This is specious medical disinformation. There are numerous ways you can navigate the problem of carcinogenic sunscreen: be more selective over which product you buy, have fun making your own safe(r) sunscreen, limit the time you expose yourself to the sun, or the ancient trick of covering your body with loose-fitting clothing and wearing a hat.
The final meme to be implanted by Spring was laden with anxiety and fearmongering: ‘… a warning of the potential consequences for people who believe anti-medicine conspiracy theories …’. That warning being death. She implies that you’ll die if you believe conspiracy theories. We want to stop you from seeing them for your own good. It’s the same abuse her article accuses Kate Shemirani of committing.
As if current world events weren’t obnoxious enough, this trash piece, given prominence as a top story of the day, makes it clear that there’s an agenda in motion. A new push to ready the masses for some truly despicable act of fascist control. Coinciding with the recent move to categorize Palestine Action as a terrorist organization for the act of riding e-scooters and spraying paint, it is anxiety-provoking. Just not for the reasons the caricature that is Marianna Spring would want you to believe.
Mini-review on sunscreen and its links to cancer.
Sunscreen formulations have been documented to contain several ingredients that are known, or suspected, to pose carcinogenic and genotoxic risks. Multiple independent studies have identified organic UV filters, such as oxybenzone (benzophenone‐3) and octocrylene, as chemicals of concern. Oxybenzone has been associated with endocrine disruption, DNA damage, and other toxicological endpoints linked to carcinogenic potential. Octocrylene has been shown to degrade over time into benzophenone, a compound with recognized mutagenic and genotoxic properties [1, 2].
Research has demonstrated that formulations containing octocrylene can exhibit a significant increase in benzophenone concentrations. Even if the original formulation is within regulatory limits, degradation processes during storage or use may enhance consumer exposure to a suspected carcinogen [2, 3]. In addition, several studies have detected benzophenone residues in human tissues and fluids, including breast milk and urine, demonstrating systemic absorption and potential long‐term risks related to genotoxicity and endocrine disruption [3, 4].
Apart from these organic compounds, inorganic sunscreen ingredients such as nanostructured titanium dioxide (TiO₂) have also attracted scrutiny. TiO₂ has strong UV-blocking properties, but its nano‐sized forms (especially those with high anatase content) can exhibit photocatalytic activity under UV irradiation. This photocatalysis leads to the generation of reactive oxygen species (ROS), which has been shown to induce oxidative DNA damage under experimental conditions. This process is linked to genotoxic outcomes and increased cancer risk [5, 6]. Some products also fail to provide protection, but mask sun damage through the use of anti-inflammatory ingredients [3].
In the USA, the FDA has banned certain harmful ingredients. Even so, it is doubtful whether it can be trusted to adequately protect the public due to powerful industry lobbying and conflicts of interest. California’s Proposition 65 requires that products containing benzophenone carry explicit cancer warnings [3]. In Europe, regulatory agencies such as the Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety (SCCS), and the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), have actively reviewed and revised guidelines governing the use of both organic UV filters and nano‐formulations. For instance, the SCCS has recommended the use of predominantly rutile-phase TiO₂ to minimize photocatalytic activity and mitigate the generation of harmful ROS [5, 7].
Manufacturers have taken steps toward modifying formulations for better photostability and a reduction of potential harm [6, 8]. Despite these improvements, ongoing research continues to call for further refinements in testing protocols and stricter controls, given that not all potential risks have been fully addressed by current regulations [4, 7]. Limited attention is given to the additional risk of accidental ingestion of sunscreen through contact with the mouth, or contaminated bathing water.
1. Alnuqaydan, A. M. (2024). The dark side of beauty: an in-depth analysis of the health hazards and toxicological impact of synthetic cosmetics and personal care products. Frontiers in Public Health, 12, 1439027.
2. Downs, C. A., DiNardo, J. C., Stien, D., Rodrigues, A. M., & Lebaron, P. (2021). Benzophenone accumulates over time from the degradation of octocrylene in commercial sunscreen products. Chemical research in toxicology, 34(4), 1046-1054.
3. Paul, S. P. (2019). Ensuring the safety of sunscreens, and their efficacy in preventing skin cancers: challenges and controversies for clinicians, formulators, and regulators. Frontiers in Medicine, 6, 441674.
4. Paiva, J. P., Diniz, R. R., Leitao, A. C., Cabral, L. M., Fortunato, R. S., Santos, B. A., & de Padula, M. (2020). Insights and controversies on sunscreen safety. Critical Reviews in Toxicology, 50(8), 707-723.
5. Solaiman, S. M., Algie, J., Bakand, S., Sluyter, R., Sencadas, V., Lerch, M., ... & Barker, P. J. (2019). Nano-sunscreens–a double-edged sword in protecting consumers from harm: viewing Australian regulatory policies through the lenses of the European Union. Critical reviews in toxicology, 49(2), 122-139.
6. Serpone, N. (2021). Sunscreens and their usefulness: have we made any progress in the last two decades?. Photochemical & Photobiological Sciences, 20, 189-244.
7. Nitulescu, G., Lupuliasa, D., Adam-Dima, I., & Nitulescu, G. M. (2023). Ultraviolet filters for cosmetic applications. Cosmetics, 10(4), 101.
8. Egambaram, O. P., Kesavan Pillai, S., & Ray, S. S. (2020). Materials science challenges in skin UV protection: a review. Photochemistry and photobiology, 96(4), 779-797.
9. Suozzi, K., Turban, J., & Girardi, M. (2020). Cutaneous photoprotection: a review of the current status and evolving strategies. The Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine, 93(1), 55.