Over the past year, Facebook has censored nearly every one of my articles and commentaries questioning the science behind lockdowns or mask mandates. More recently, it has placed a blockade on any information raising questions about the vaccines. Facebook has also blocked people from sharing my articles promoting cheap, lifesaving drugs, such as ivermectin, or even studies showing how sufficient doses of vitamin D and zinc can prevent critical illness from SARS-CoV-2.
In each instance of censorship, Facebook has posted a notice misleading anyone who wishes to share the article into thinking that the particular points raised in the article were independently fact-checked and found to be false. First, it’s critical to note that almost no article Facebook employees censor is fact-checked by anyone; they merely rely on an initial fact-check of one person’s article critical of masks — just to give an example — and then trot out that same fact-check as an excuse for zapping any article questioning the wisdom of mask-wearing, even if the points raised in said article are completely different from the issues addressed in the first fact-check.
However, there is something much more insidious going on with the fact-checking industry. The inmates are running the asylum and the foxes are guarding the henhouse. When the vaccines began to be dispensed to the public in December, FactCheck.org started “SciCheck’s COVID-19/Vaccination Project” to specifically focus on the flow of information pertaining to the vaccines. The site has a disclaimer on the top of the website stating: “SciCheck’s COVID-19/Vaccination Project is made possible by a grant from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.”
Comically, the next sentence reads, “The views expressed here do not necessarily reflect the views of the foundation.”
In fact, the views expressed almost assuredly do reflect the views of the foundation. FactCheck.org claims, “The goal is to increase exposure to accurate information about COVID-19 and vaccines, while decreasing the impact of misinformation.” Yet have you ever seen the organization offer balanced coverage or flag a single post on the other side of this debate as false, no matter how outlandish the claim might be, including articles advocating experimental emergency use authorization vaccines for little children?
Indeed, we all know the goal is to promote only positive information and zero concerns about the vaccine at all costs. Facebook, which is the largest promoter of their work, has openly made this its policy.
The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, which is one of the largest supporters of this project, just happens to get 15% of its assets through Johnson & Johnson stock, according to its 2019 financial statement! And the CEO of the foundation is none other than Richard Besser, the former acting director of the CDC under Obama and ABC News’ former chief health and medical editor. This is “the system” at its best! The only “independent” arbiter of fair news about the vaccines must come from a source tied to one of the very makers of this vaccine, with billions of dollars on the line. The government, media, and social media are all bound by a circuitous web of corrupt influence, misinformation, and cowardly censorship.
Remember, the omnibus bill that passed in December contained $1 billion of taxpayer funding to help market the vaccine. Thus, the regulation of speech through social media is not, at its core, coming from a private free market.
One of the most anti-scientific and self-serving lies promoted by FactCheck is the government-vaccine complex misinformation that somehow there is no natural immunity to this virus and that those already infected must be vaccinated, thereby incurring the risks of an experimental gene therapy for nothing.
Rep. Thomas Massie forced the CDC to correct a report that implied there is evidence that the current vaccines on the market can convey a greater degree of immunity than prior infection. FactCheck.org cannot allow Massie to get away with taking away market share from its donors by dissuading people with prior infection from getting the vaccines, so the site wrote a hit piece on him trying to suggest that he had made an error.
With over 3,400 reported deaths and tens of thousands of adverse reactions reported to the CDC’s surveillance system – and it’s well known that just a fraction of those events are reported – how can we allow the government to actively work with a corporate and tech monopoly, funded by the very people who stand to benefit, to censor important data, science, and medical information? We have already seen the government temporarily suspend one vaccine, while the CEO of Pfizer conveniently waited until people already got sucked in to say they will need a third shot and likely more. Nothing to see here? Pure as the wind-driven snow?
Based on the CDC’s own statements in recent months, people like Fauci were wrong about surface transmission, they were wrong about sowing fear about outdoor transmission, they were wrong about limiting indoor transmission to droplets and six feet and therefore wrong about masks; they were wrong about Florida vs. lockdown states, and they were wrong about shutting schools and rampant child transmission. Are we really to believe that there is no need to have a fair and open debate about accurate information about an experimental and rushed vaccine built upon new biotechnology?