[Using eye scan technology which logs what you read, they have shown most people read only the headlines or just the first part of any article, so they will read the Now GPs run out of flu vaccine: article and think flu vaccine has run out, whereas the last line reads ‘The vaccine manufacturers/suppliers still have stocks available for ordering.’ ]

See fearmongering: Missing Vial  One plane ride away'  Foreign viruses  Quotes  Fake vaccine 'scarcity'  Cases Double

[2011 Jan 20] Flu death toll doubles: As virus claims 254 lives, GPs face being stripped of their power to order jabs

[2011 Jan] Julian Assange's Deal With the Devil By ISRAEL SHAMIR  Furthermore, they skilfully arrange the information in order to mislead us. The headline might scream MURDER MOST FOUL but the article describes an unavoidable accident. We do not look beyond the headline, but the headline has been written by the editor and not the journalist who penned the article.
    In the case of Belarus, the Guardian published three cables the day before elections in order to maximize the exposure and to influence the results of the election. One of the headlines, published on December 18, 2010 said: “WikiLeaks: Lukashenka’s [sic] fortune estimated at 9 billion USD”. It was a very misleading headline. Wikileaks made no claims about Lukashenko’s wealth. Read the entire article, and you will find that it was nothing more than a US embassy employee who had heard a rumor and transmitted it to the State Department. Only in the second to last sentence of the article do they mention that the cable admits: “the embassy employee couldn’t verify the sources [sic!] or accuracy of the information”.
    So a corrected headline would read: “Wikileaks reveals: US diplomats spread unverifiable rumors about Lukashenko’s personal wealth.” But the Guardian made it appear as if it was Wikileaks itself that made the claim.
    Let us suppose that one day Wikileaks will publish cables from the Russian Embassy in Washington to Moscow Centre. Shall we expect to see in the Guardian a screaming headline like: "WikiLeaks: The Mossad behind 9/11!!"
    Isn’t it more likely we would be soberly told: “Wikileaks reveals that Russian diplomats in Washington report the persistent rumors on Israeli involvement in 9/11”?