Please do your own research. The information I share is only a catalyst to expanding ones confined consciousness. I have NO desire for anyone to blindly believe or agree with what I share. Seek the truth for yourself and put your own puzzle together that has been presented to you. I'm not here to teach, preach or lead, but rather assist in awakening the consciousness of the collective from its temporary dormancy.
The Machiavellian quote (sic) that “if you’re going to come at the king, you best not miss,” may be about to bite Mark Zuckerberg and his army of fact-checking mercenaries.
While Zuckerberg may feel omnipotent atop his opaque algo-world but the so-called ‘fact-checkers’ – so expert at shutting down any narrative-conflicting-information (on behalf of, and often at the behest of, the Biden administration) – may have met their match by claiming that one of the world’s oldest and most prestigious medical journals delivered “false information” that “could mislead people.”
As we detailed in early November, The British Medical Journal (BMJ) – a weekly peer-reviewed medical trade journal, published by the trade union the British Medical Association – published a whistle-blower report calling into question data integrity and regulatory oversight issues surrounding Pfizer’s pivotal phase III Covid-19 vaccine trial.
Brook Jackson, a now-fired regional director at Ventavia Research Group, revealed to The BMJ that vaccine trials at several sites in Texas last year had major problems – including falsified data, broke fundamental rules, and were ‘slow’ to report adverse reactions.
When she notified superiors of the issues she found, they fired her.
“A regional director who was employed at the research organisation Ventavia Research Group has told The BMJ that the company falsified data, unblinded patients, employed inadequately trained vaccinators, and was slow to follow up on adverse events reported in Pfizer’s pivotal phase III trial. Staff who conducted quality control checks were overwhelmed by the volume of problems they were finding. After repeatedly notifying Ventavia of these problems, the regional director, Brook Jackson, emailed a complaint to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Ventavia fired her later the same day. Jackson has provided The BMJ with dozens of internal company documents, photos, audio recordings, and emails.” – The BMJ
Very soon after, as the worrisome story went viral, BMJ soon would get a taste of what Facebook, Google, and others are doing to independent media platforms. As TrialSiteNews.com reports, even though BMJ is one of the most prominent medical journals and the information was rigorously peer-reviewed, strange things started occurring.
For example, readers would try to post some of the information on social media such as Facebook to share with their networks. But “some reported being unable to share it [the information].” Moreover, those individuals that were simply sharing this content, peer-reviewed from The BMJ, were warned by Facebook that, “Independent fact-checkers concluded, “This information could mislead people.”
Moreover, they were told, “Those trying to post the article were informed by Facebook that people who repeatedly share ‘false information’ might have their posts moved lower in Facebook’s News Feed.”
In addition, some group administrators received notices from Facebook that the information was “partly false.”
Readers were sent to a “fact check” performed by Lead Stories, a third-party fact-checker.
And so, as possibly the top experts in the world when it comes to medical research information, BMJ has now been forced to fact-check the ‘fact-checkers’.
Having received no response from Facebook or from Lead Stories, after requesting the removal of the “fact checking” label, the BMJ’s editors raise a “wider concern”:
We are aware that The BMJ is not the only high quality information provider to have been affected by the incompetence of Meta’s fact checking regime…
Rather than investing a proportion of Meta’s substantial profits to help ensure the accuracy of medical information shared through social media, you have apparently delegated responsibility to people incompetent in carrying out this crucial task.
Fact checking has been a staple of good journalism for decades.
What has happened in this instance should be of concern to anyone who values and relies on sources such as The BMJ.
In addition to the points raised by BMJ and in the comments below, there is a limit to what independent fact checking can accomplish.
For example, are their fact checkers conducting their own scientific experiments validating claims and outcomes of a scientific paper? Are fact checkers reaching out to sources from a news article and verifying quoted information? When “breaking news” or “scoops” are reported presenting totally new information about the world, how can that be verified against other information that – by virtue of something being new – cannot be verified by other preexisting sources?
If the fact checking process is limited to verification based on other information that is currently available, and if the fact checking process cannot distinguish between factual information and the opinions people hold as a result of that information, the outcome will be an inevitable echo chamber that reinforces currently dominant views or whatever preexisting biases are present.
… and that is exactly what the establishment wants.
We are Fiona Godlee and Kamran Abbasi, editors of The BMJ, one of the world’s oldest and most influential general medical journals. We are writing to raise serious concerns about the “fact checking” being undertaken by third party providers on behalf of Facebook/Meta.
In September, a former employee of Ventavia, a contract research company helping carry out the main Pfizer covid-19 vaccine trial, began providing The BMJ with dozens of internal company documents, photos, audio recordings, and emails. These materials revealed a host of poor clinical trial research practices occurring at Ventavia that could impact data integrity and patient safety. We also discovered that, despite receiving a direct complaint about these problems over a year ago, the FDA did not inspect Ventavia’s trial sites.
The BMJ commissioned an investigative reporter to write up the story for our journal. The article was published on 2 November, following legal review, external peer review and subject to The BMJ’s usual high level editorial oversight and review.
But from November 10, readers began reporting a variety of problems when trying to share our article. Some reported being unable to share it. Many others reported having their posts flagged with a warning about “Missing context … Independent fact-checkers say this information could mislead people.” Those trying to post the article were informed by Facebook that people who repeatedly share “false information” might have their posts moved lower in Facebook’s News Feed. Group administrators where the article was shared received messages from Facebook informing them that such posts were “partly false.”
Readers were directed to a “fact check” performed by a Facebook contractor named Lead Stories.
We find the “fact check” performed by Lead Stories to be inaccurate, incompetent and irresponsible.
It fails to provide any assertions of fact that The BMJ article got wrong
It has a nonsensical title: “Fact Check: The British Medical Journal Did NOT Reveal Disqualifying And Ignored Reports Of Flaws In Pfizer COVID-19 Vaccine Trials”
The first paragraph inaccurately labels The BMJ a “news blog”
It contains a screenshot of our article with a stamp over it stating “Flaws Reviewed,” despite the Lead Stories article not identifying anything false or untrue in The BMJ article
It published the story on its website under a URL that contains the phrase “hoax-alert”
We have contacted Lead Stories, but they refuse to change anything about their article or actions that have led to Facebook flagging our article.
We have also contacted Facebook directly, requesting immediate removal of the “fact checking” label and any link to the Lead Stories article, thereby allowing our readers to freely share the article on your platform.
There is also a wider concern that we wish to raise. We are aware that The BMJ is not the only high quality information provider to have been affected by the incompetence of Meta’s fact checking regime. To give one other example, we would highlight the treatment by Instagram (also owned by Meta) of Cochrane, the international provider of high quality systematic reviews of the medical evidence. Rather than investing a proportion of Meta’s substantial profits to help ensure the accuracy of medical information shared through social media, you have apparently delegated responsibility to people incompetent in carrying out this crucial task. Fact checking has been a staple of good journalism for decades. What has happened in this instance should be of concern to anyone who values and relies on sources such as The BMJ.
We hope you will act swiftly: specifically to correct the error relating to The BMJ’s article and to review the processes that led to the error; and generally to reconsider your investment in and approach to fact checking overall.
Fiona Godlee, editor in chief
Kamran Abbasi, incoming editor in chief
As current and incoming editors in chief, we are responsible for everything The BMJ contains.
There has been an unfortunate shift in Western educational practices in the past few decades away from what we used to call “critical thinking.” In fact, critical thinking was once a fundamental staple of US colleges and now it seems as though the concept doesn’t exist anymore; at least not in the way it used to.
Instead, another form of learning has arisen which promotes “right thinking”; a form of indoctrination which encourages and rewards a particular response from students that falls in line with ideology and not necessarily in line with reality.
It’s not that schools directly enforce a collectivist or corporatist ideology (sometimes they do), it’s more that they filter out alternative viewpoints as well as facts and evidence they do not like until all that is left is a single path and a single conclusion to any given problem. They teach students how to NOT think by presenting thought experiments and then controlling the acceptable outcomes.
For example, a common and manipulative thought experiment used in schools is to ask students to write an “analysis” on why people do not trust science or scientists these days. The trick is that the question is always presented with a built-in conclusion – that scientists should be trusted, and some people are refusing to listen, so let’s figure out why these people are so stupid.
I have seen this experiment numerous times, always presented in the same way. Not once have I ever seen a college professor or public school teacher ask students: “Should scientists today be trusted?”
This is NOT analysis, this is controlled hypothesis. If you already have a conclusion in mind before you enter into a thought experiment, then you will naturally try to adjust the outcome of the experiment to fit your preconceived notions. Schools today present this foolishness as a form of thinking game when it is actually propaganda.
Students are being taught to think inside the box, not outside the box. This is not science, it is anti-science.
Educational programming like this is now a mainstay while actual science has taken a backseat. Millions of kids are exiting public schools and universities with no understanding of actual scientific method or science in general.
Ask them what the equations for Density or Acceleration are, and they’ll have no clue what your are talking about. Ask them about issues surrounding vaccination or “climate change”, and they will regurgitate a litany of pre-programmed responses as to why the science cannot be questioned in any way.
In the alternative media we often refer to this as being “trapped in the Matrix,” and it’s hard to think of a better analogy. People have been rewarded for so long for accepting the mainstream narrative and blindly dismissing any other information that when they are presented with reality they either laugh at it arrogantly or recoil in horror. The Matrix is so much more comfortable and safe, and look at all the good grades you get when you say the right things and avoid the hard questions and agree with the teacher.
Given the sad state of science in the West these days surrounding the response to covid as well as the insane and unscientific push for forced vaccinations, I thought it would be interesting to try out this thought exercise, but from an angle that is never allowed in today’s schools:
Why don’t people trust the science and scientists anymore?
This is simple: Because too many scientists have been caught lying and misrepresenting their data to fit the conclusions they want rather than the facts at hand. Science is often politicized to serve an agenda. This is not conspiracy theory, this is provable fact.
That’s not to say that all science is to be mistrusted. The point is, no science should be blindly accepted without independent examination of ALL the available facts. This is the whole point of science, after all.
Yes, there are idiotic conspiracy theories out there when it comes to scientific analysis, but there are a number of scams in the world of science as well.
The usual false claim is that the average person is ignorant and that they don’t have the capacity to understand scientific data. I do find it interesting that this is the general message of the trust-science thought experiment. It fits right in line with the mainstream and government narrative that THEIR scientists, the scientists they pay for and that corporations pay for, are implicitly correct and should not be questioned. They are the high priests of the modern era, delving into great magics that we dirty peasants cannot possibly grasp. It is not for us to question “the science”, it our job to simply embrace it like a religion and bow down in reverence.
Most people have the capacity to sift through scientific data as long as it’s transparent. When the facts are obscured or spun or omitted this causes confusion, and of course only the establishment scientists can untangle the mess because they are the ones that created it. Let’s look at a couple of examples directly related to human health…
GMO Crops And The Corporate Money Train
The propaganda surrounding Genetically Modified Organisms is relentless and pervasive, with the overall thrust being that they are perfectly safe and that anyone who says otherwise is a tinfoil hat crackpot. And certainly, there a hundreds if not thousands of studies which readily confirm this conclusion. So, case closed, right?
Not quite. Here is where critical thinking is so useful and where reality escapes the indoctrinated – Who paid for these studies, and do they have a vested interest in censoring negative data on GMOs?
Well, in the vast majority of cases GMO studies are funded by two sources – GMO industry giants like Monsanto, Dupont and Syngenta, or, government agencies like the FDA and EPA. Very few studies are truly independent, and this is the problem. Both the government and corporations like Monsanto have a vested interest in preventing any critical studies from being released on GMO’s.
Monsanto has been caught on numerous occasions hiding the dangerous health effects of its products, from Agent Orange to the RGBH growth hormone used in dairy cows. They have been caught compiling illegal dossiers on their critics. The industry has been caught multiple times paying off academics and scientists to produce studies on GMOs with a positive spin and even to attack other scientists that are involved in experiments that are critical of GMOs. Research shows that at least half of all GMO studies are funded by the GMO industry, while the majority of the other half are funded by governments.
There has also long been a revolving door between GMO industry insiders and the FDA and EPA; officials often work for Monsanto and then get jobs with the government, then go back to Monsanto again. The back scratching is so egregious that the government even created special legal protections for GMO companies like Monsanto under what is now known as the Monsanto Protection Act (Section 735 of Agricultural Appropriations Bill HR 993) under the Obama Administration in 2013. This essentially makes GMO companies immune to litigation over GMOs, and the same protections have been renewed in different bills ever since.
Beyond the revolving door, the government has approved many GMO products with little to no critical data to confirm their safety. Not only that, but in most cases the government has sovereign immunity from litigation, even if they’ve been negligent. Meaning, if any of these products is proven to cause long term health damage the government cannot be sued for approving them unless there are special circumstances.
If they could be held liable, you would be damn sure the FDA would be running every conceivable test imaginable to confirm GMOs are definitively safe without any bias attached, but this is not the case. Instead, the government actively propagandizes for GMO companies and uses hired hatchet men to derail any public criticism.
I, for one, would certainly like to know for sure if GMOs are harmful to the human body in the long term, and there is certainly science to suggest that this might be the case. There have been many situations in which specific GMO foods were removed from the market because of potentially harmful side effects. Endogenous toxins of plants with modified metabolites are a concern, along with “plant incorporated protectants” (plants designed to produce toxins which act as pesticides).
There is data that tells us to be wary, but nothing conclusive. Why? Because billions of dollars are being invested by corporations into research designed to “debunk” any notion of side effects.
If the same amount of funding was put into independent studies with no bias, then we might hear a different story about the risks of GMOs. All the money is in dismissing the risks of GMOs; there’s almost no money in studying them honestly.
The science appears to be rigged to a particular outcome or narrative, and that is lying. Science is supposed to remain as objective as possible, but how can it be objective when it is being paid for by people with an agenda? The temptation to sell out is extreme.
Covid Vaccines And The Death Of Science
I bring up the example of GMO’s because I think it is representative of how science can be controlled to produce only one message while excluding all other analysis.
We don’t really know for sure how dangerous GMOs are because the majority of data is dictated by the people that profit from them and by their friends in government.
The lack of knowing is upheld as proof of safety – but this is not scientific. Science and medicine would demand that we err on the side of caution until we know for sure.
The same dynamic exists in the world of covid vaccines. Big Pharma has a vested interest in ensuring NO negative information is released about the mRNA vaccines because there is a perpetual river of money to be made as long as the vax remains approved for emergency use by the FDA. It may be important to note that the FDA has said it will take at least 55 YEARS to release all the data it has on the Pfizer covid vaccines, which suggests again that there is a beneficial collusion between the government and corporate behemoths.
In the meantime, anyone that questions the efficacy or safety of the vax is immediately set upon by attack dogs in the media, most of them paid with advertising dollars from Big Pharma. These attacks are not limited to the alternative media; the establishment has also gone after any scientist or doctor with questions about vaccine safety.
There are clear and openly admitted ideological agendas surrounding covid science which have nothing to do with public health safety and everything to do with political control. When you have the head of the World Economic Forum applauding the covid pandemic as a perfect “opportunity” to push forward global socialist centralization and erase the last vestiges of free markets and individual liberty, any rational person would have to question if the covid science is also being rigged to support special interests.
Luckily, the covid issue is so massive that it is impossible for them to control every study. Instead, the establishment ignores the studies and data they don’t like.
The virus is being hyped as a threat to the majority of the public and as a rationale for 100% vaccination rates, by force if needed. Yet, the median Infection Fatality Rate of covid is only 0.27%. This means that on average 99.7% of the population at any given time has nothing to fear from the virus. This is confirmed by dozens of independent medical studies, but when was the last time you heard that number discussed by mainstream government scientists like Anthony Fauci?
I’ve never heard them talk about it. But how is it scientific to ignore data just because it doesn’t fit your political aims? Again, deliberate omission of data is a form of lying.
What about the multiple studies indicating that natural immunity is far superior in protection to the mRNA vaccines? What about the fact that the countries with the highest vaccination rates also have the highest rates of infections and their hospitalizations have actually increased? What about the fact that the states and countries with the harshest lockdown and mask mandates also have the highest infection rates? What about the fact that the average vaccine is tested for 10-15 years before being approved for human use, while the covid mRNA vaccines were put into production within months? That is to say, there is NO long term data to prove the safety of the covid vax.
These are easily observable scientific facts, but we never hear about them from corporate scientists or government scientists like Fauci. Instead, Fauci argues that criticism of his policies is an attack on him, and attacking him is the same as “attacking science.” In other words, Fauci believes HE IS the science.
The Global Cooling, Global Warming And Now Climate Change Fraud
I can’t even get into climate change “science” here, I would have to write an entire separate article about the fallacies perpetrated by global warming academics (did you know that global temperatures have only increased by 1 degree Celsius in the past century? Yep, just 1 degree according to the NOAA’s own data, yet, institutions like the NOAA continue to claim the end of the world is nigh because of global warming).
The stringent bottleneck on science today reminds me of the Catholic church under Pope Innocent III when church authorities forbade common people from owning or reading a bible. These laws remained in effect well into the 13th century. Instead, the peasants were to go to church and have the texts read to them by specific clergy. Often the bible readings were done in Latin which most people did not speak, and interpreted however the church wished.
It was only the invention of the printing press in the 1400s that changed the power dynamic and allowed bibles to be widely distributed and information to spread without church oversight. Much like the creation of the internet allows the public to access mountains of scientific data and methodologies at their fingertips. The free flow of information is an anathema according to the establishment; they argue that only they have the right to process information for public consumption.
Cultism requires excessive control of data and the complete restriction of outside interpretations. As information becomes openly available the public is then able to learn the whole truth, not just approved establishment narratives.
Science is quickly becoming a political religion rather than a bastion of critical thought. Conflicting data is ignored as “non-science” or even censored as “dangerous.” Government and corporate paid studies are treated as sacrosanct. Is it any wonder that so many people now distrust the science? Any reasonable person would have questions and suspicions. Those who do not have been indoctrinated into a cult they don’t even know they are a part of.
The American Medical Association (AMA) wants people to die from the Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19).
The reason we can safely say this is that the trade group is working overtime to restrict Americans’ access to hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and ivermectin, two safe, effective and inexpensive early treatment remedies for the Chinese Virus.
Instead of recognizing that each individual has the God-given right to choose what goes into his body, the AMA is taking a position of medical fascism that does not even recognize the right of doctors to prescribe whatever medications they see fit for their patients.
Because using ivermectin breaks the plandemic script, however – everyone is supposed to just mask up and get “vaccinated,” they tell us – the AMA is trying to make it impossible to get (except for the black market, perhaps).
“The American Medical Association (which represents only 12% of practicing physicians and receives more money from the federal government than from its waning membership dues) and two national pharmacy associations (which receive corporate support from COVID-19 ‘vaccine’ manufacturers, Pfizer, AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson) have decided ivermectin should not be used to treat this virus despite widespread successful treatment with this drug (discovered in the late 1970s and used in humans since 1988),” write Robert Marshall and Dr. Bernard, Pegis, M.D., for LifeSiteNews.
“Ivermectin is currently available over the counter in many countries. If American drugstores implement this dangerous policy, many lives will be lost.”
Hypocritical AMA Supported Off-Label Prescription Of Drugs As Recently As 2020
In a September 1 press release, the AMA, along with the American Pharmacists Association (APHA) and the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists (ASHP), explained that they “strongly oppose the ordering, prescribing, or dispensing of ivermectin to prevent or treat COVID-19 outside of a clinical trial.”
“We are alarmed by reports that outpatient prescribing for and dispensing of ivermectin have increased 24-fold since before the pandemic and increased exponentially over the past few months,” that announcement further read.
Even though there are almost no risks associated with taking ivermectin as normally prescribed, the AMA, the APHA and the ASHP are freaking out about the fact that some doctors are administering it to their sick patients.
Off-label prescription of pharmaceuticals has been common practice for many decades. Now that covid is here and being highly politicized by the left, however, it is suddenly a mortal sin in the eyes of the medical establishment to even just try using ivermectin for treating Chinese Germs.
Just prior to when the Fauci Flu made its appearance, the AMA actually issued an official policy guideline confirming that it offers “strong support” for the off-label prescription of pharmaceuticals whenever a doctor deems that it may be helpful.
“Our AMA confirms its strong support for the autonomous clinical decision-making authority of a physician and that a physician may lawfully use an FDA approved drug product or medical device for an off-label indication when such use is based upon sound scientific evidence or sound medical opinion,” the organization confirmed at the time.
Now that the Biden regime wants everyone to get “vaccinated,” though, the AMA is doing everything possible to restrict access to ivermectin, which quite frankly would have put an end to this fake “pandemic” a long, long time ago.
“Jesus was severely criticized for healing a blind man on the Sabbath (John 9:13-30),” LifeSiteNews reported.
“Today, practicing physicians who save lives using drug therapy are ostracized. Mainstream medicine appears to be rejecting efforts to combat COVID-19 with drugs in favor of experimental mRNA ‘vaccines.’”
There is a sequence of outright lies and fabrications used to justify far-reaching policy decisions which in the course of the last 18 months are literally destroying people’s lives Worldwide.
“Fake science” is used to justify confinement, social distancing, the face mask, the prohibition of social gatherings, cultural and sports events, the closure of economic activity, all of which are upheld as a means to repealing the “killer virus”.
Who is this “Killer Virus” which has been personified by both the media and our governments, held responsible for triggering economic and social chaos Worldwide?
You might recall that at the height of the February 2020 financial collapse, “V the Virus” was held responsible for the largest stock market crash since 1929.
Has the “Killer Virus” been Identified. Has SARS-CoV-2 been Isolated?
This article will review this contentious issue starting at the outset of the crisis in January 2020. Part of this analysis is based on research conducted in early 2020.
The central question raised in this review is the following: is there reliable evidence provided by the WHO and national health authorities that the alleged SARS-CoV-2 virus has been isolated/purified from an “unadulterated sample taken from a diseased patient”?
While the alleged virus was initially defined as the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) in January 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) stated in January 2020 that it did not have in its possession details regarding the isolation/purification and identity of 2019-nCoV.
And because details concerning isolation / purification were not available, the WHO decided to “customize” The Real Time Reverse Transcription Polymerase Chain Reaction (rRT-PCR) Test using the alleged “similar” 2003 SARS virus (subsequently renamed SARS-1) as “a point of reference” for detecting genetic fragments of the novel 2019-nCoV.
What this decision entails is that novel 2019-CoV-2 is NOT a novel virus. It was categorized by the Chinese authorities and the WHO as “similar” to the 2003 SARS-CoV as well as to MERS.
2003 SARS-CoV was subsequently renamed SARS-CoV-1.
History: Isolation of the Virus
Chinese Health Authorities
The Chinese authorities announced on January 7, 2020 that “a new type of virus” had been identified “similar to the one associated with SARS and MERS” (related report , not original Chinese government source). The underlying method is described below:
We prospectively collected and analysed data on patients with laboratory-confirmed 2019-nCoV infection by real-time RT-PCR and next-generation sequencing.
Data were obtained with standardised data collection forms shared by WHO and the International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infection Consortium from electronic medical records. (emphasis added)
The following article entitled “A new coronavirus associated with human respiratory disease in China, (Nature, February 3, 2021) was among the first to report on the China’s novel coronavirus:…[We] collected bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF) and performed deep meta-transcriptomic sequencing. The clinical specimen was handled in a biosafety level 3 laboratory at Shanghai Public Health Clinical Center. Total RNA was extracted from 200 μl of BALF and a meta-transcriptomic library was constructed for pair-end (150-bp reads) sequencing using an Illumina MiniSeq as previously described 4,6,7,8. .In total, we generated 56,565,928 sequence reads that were de novo-assembled and screened for potential aetiological agents. ….The genome sequence of this virus, as well as its termini, were determined and confirmed by reverse-transcription PCR (RT–PCR)10 and 5′/3′ rapid amplification of cDNA ends (RACE), respectively. This virus strain was designated as WH-Human 1 coronavirus (WHCV) (and has also been referred to as ‘2019-nCoV’) and its whole genome sequence (29,903 nt) has been assigned GenBank accession number MN908947. .The viral genome organization of WHCV was determined by sequence alignment to two representative members of the genus Betacoronavirus: a coronavirus associated with humans (SARS-CoV Tor2, GenBank accession number AY274119)  and a coronavirus associated with bats (bat SL-CoVZC45, GenBank accession number MG772933) . (Nature, February 3, 2020) .
It is unclear from the above quotations as well as from the documents consulted, whether the Chinese health authorities undertook an isolation / purification of a patient’s specimen.
US Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
Following the Chinese announcement on the 28th of January 2020, the US Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) stated that the novela corona virus had been isolated.The CDC statement dated January 28th, 2020 (updated December 2020) is unequivocal:
SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, was isolated in the laboratory and is available for research by the scientific and medical community.
On January 20, 2020, CDC received a clinical specimen collected from the first reported U.S. patient infected with SARS-CoV-2. CDC immediately placed the specimen into cell culture to grow a sufficient amount of virus for study.
On February 2, 2020, CDC generated enough SARS-CoV-2 grown in cell culture to distribute to medical and scientific researchers.
On February 4, 2020, CDC shipped SARS-CoV-2 to the BEI Resources Repository.
An article discussing the isolation and characterization of this virus specimen is available in Emerging Infectious Diseases.
One important way that CDC has supported global efforts to study and learn about SARS-CoV-2 in the laboratory was by growing the virus in cell culture and ensuring that it was widely available. Researchers in the scientific and medical community can use virus obtained from this work in their studies.
SARS-CoV-2 strains supplied by CDC and other researchers can be requested, free, from the Biodefense and Emerging Infections Research (BEI) Resources Repositoryexternal icon by established institutions that meet BEI requirements. These requirements include maintaining appropriate facilities and safety programs, as well as having the appropriate expertise. BEI supplies organisms and reagents to the broader community of microbiology and infectious disease researchers. (Emphasis added).
See also related study which was posted on the CDC website.
The CDC Acknowledges that SARS-CoV-2 has not been Isolated.
The official CDC document, (dated July 21, 2021) entitled “CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel reads as follows:
Since no quantified virus isolates of the 2019-nCoV were available for CDC use at the time the test was developed [January 2020] and this study conducted, assays designed for detection of the 2019-nCoV RNA were tested with characterized stocks of in vitro transcribed full length RNA (N gene; GenBank accession: MN908947.2) of known titer (RNA copies/µL) spiked into a diluent consisting of a suspension of human A549 cells and viral transport medium (VTM) to mimic clinical specimen. (emphasis added, page 40)
Compare the above statement to the CDC January 28th, 2020 advisory confirming the isolation of SARS-CoV-2:
On January 20, 2020, CDC received a clinical specimen collected from the first reported U.S. patient infected with SARS-CoV-2. CDC immediately placed the specimen into cell culture to grow a sufficient amount of virus for study.
See the analysis of CDC responses in the section below on Freedom of Information Requests.
The World Health Organization (WHO) Did Not Undertake The Isolation / Purification of a Specimen
From the documents quoted below, the Chinese authorities did not provide the WHO with a specimen ofisolated / purified SARS-CoV-2.
And because details concerning isolation were not available, the WHO decided to “customize” its Real Time Reverse Transcription Polymerase Chain Reaction (rRT-PCR) test using a so-called isolate of the “similar” 2003 SARS corona virus (subsequently renamed SARS-CoV-1) as “a point of reference” (or proxy) for detecting genetic fragments of the 2019 SARS-CoV-2.
While Drosten et al’s study confirmed that “several viral genome sequences had been released”, in the case of 2019-nCoV, “virus isolates or samples from infected patients were not available … ”
The recommendations to the WHO were as follows:
“The genome sequences suggest presence of a virus closely related to the members of a viral species termed severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)-related CoV,a species defined by the agent of the 2002/03 outbreak of SARS in humans [3,4].
We report on the the establishment and validation of a diagnostic workflow for 2019-nCoV screening and specific confirmation [using the RT-PCR test], designed in absence of available virus isolates or original patient specimens. Design and validation were enabled by the close genetic relatedness to the 2003 SARS-CoV, and aided by the use of synthetic nucleic acid technology.” (Eurosurveillance, January 23, 2020, emphasis added).
What this bold statement suggests is that the isolation / purification of 2019-nCoV was not required and that “validation” would be enabled by “the close genetic relatedness to the 2003-SARS-CoV.”
The investigative report provides detailed documentation based on Freedom of Information (FOI) requests addressed to ninety Health /Science institutions in a large number of countries.
The responses to these requests confirm that there is no record of isolation / purification of SARS-CoV-2 “having been performed by anyone, anywhere, ever.”
“The 90 Health /Science institutions that have responded thus far have provided and/or cited, in total, zero such records:
Our requests [under “freedom of information”] have not been limited to records of isolation performed by the respective institution, or limited to records authored by the respective institution, rather they were open to any records describing “COVID-19 virus” (aka “SARS-COV-2”) isolation/purification performed by anyone, ever, anywhere on the planet.”
The Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
The CDC was contacted by the author of this report in the form of four separate requests: November 2, 2020, March 1, 2021, March 3, 2021, which are reviewed below:
March 1, 2021:The CDC again made clear that they still have no records of “SARS-COV-2” isolation performed by anyone, anywhere on the planet, ever… just not in so many words. Instead, the CDC absurdly implied that isolation/purification of “SARS-COV-2” would require the replication of a “virus” without host cells and thus is impossible. (The request had nothing to do with replication.)
CDC again failed to provide/cite any records describing “SARS-COV-2” isolation/purification by anyone anywhere ever… but would no longer simply say so (as they did on November 2nd); instead they gave song and dance citing the study by Harcourt et al. which is the same one posted on CDC’s website:
Here are 5 compilation pdfs containing FOI responses from 79 institutions in 22 countries/jurisdictions, re the isolation/purification/existence of “SARS-COV-2”, as well as emails from authors of studies that claimed to have “isolated the virus” and an email from the Head of the Consultant Laboratory for Diagnostic Electron Microscopy of Infectious Pathogens at Germany’s Robert Koch Institut, last updated July 13, 2021
Screenshot of a selected responses are provided below : New Zealand, Canada, UK.
Consult the full archive of letters and responses. This work was undertaken over a period of more than 12 months.
“Gemma O’Doherty is an Investigative Journalist in Ireland.
“This Irish Investigation into Covid shows that The Department of Health refuses to confirm the existence of a “virus” in writing. Confirmation that the virus was never isolated.”
“As part of our legal action we had been demanding the evidence that this virus actually exists [as well as] evidence that lock downs actually have any impact on the spread of viruses; that face-masks are safe, and do deter the spread of viruses – They don’t. No such studies exist; that social distancing is based in science – It isn’t. it’s made up; that contact tracing has any bearing on the spread of a virus – of course it doesn’t. This organization here – is making it up as they go along.” – Gemma O’Doherty
Isolation of the Virus. The Legal Battle in Alberta. Patrick King
Patrick King. The Virus Has Not Been Isolated! “No I Did Not Win The Court Case”. “They Do Not Have the Evidence”.
The following video features Patrick King in his legal Battle against the Alberta Government. There are a lot of people in Alberta and around the World who are Fighting against the Big Lie.
Concluding Remarks: “Biggest Medical Fraud in World History”
SARS-CoV-2 has not been isolated. Does the virus Exist?
Neither the Chinese authorities nor the CDC, the WHO, national governments, scientific / health authorities have provided evidence that SARS-CoV-2 has been isolated /purified.
Based on the investigative research of Christine Malley we have access to the responses of numerous governments and health authorities, including that provided by the Republic of Ireland to journalist Gemma O’Doherty.
What this means is that the entire covid narrative falls flat.
We have been systematically misled.
Everything you have been told by your governments is a lie, a complexity of lies and falsehoods.
There is no pandemic. The isolation / purification of the virus has not been undertaken.
All the policies adopted by governments worldwide allegedly to “save lives” are illegal, socially destructive and in violation of fundamental human rights.
These policies have been instrumental in “destroying people’s lives”.
Dr. Stephen Frost refers to the alleged “Covid pandemic” as“The Biggest Medical Fraud in World History”.
From the outset in January 2020, the flawed and invalid RT-PCR test was used to “detect” the alleged 2019 SARS-CoV-2 virus, despite the fact that details regarding the isolation/purification of the original virus were not available.
Curbing the alleged SARS-CoV-2 pandemic through the imposition of face masks, social distancing, closing down of national economies are of a criminal nature, they have absolutely no validity,
The original strain of SARS-CoV-2 has not be isolated /purified: How does that affect the process of so-called “detection” of the “deadly variants” of the original virus?
Mortality and Morbidity: While there is “No Killer Virus”, there is a “Killer Vaccine”.
While the SARS-CoV-2 virus is presented by the media and the governments as a “killer virus” (when in fact the WHO and CDC describe it as “similar to seasonal influenza”, a totally invalid and dysfunctional Covid -19 vaccine is currently being imposed on the entire population of Planet Earth: 7.9 billion people.
It’s a multibillion dollar endeavour with Pfizer in the lead, establishing a near Worldwide monopoly for the sale and distribution of the mRNA killer vaccine.
How did Big Pharma manage to develop a vaccine (sponsored by the WHO, GAVI, the Gates Foundation, et al) with a mandate “to protect people” against a virus which has not been isolated/ purified?
Moreover, 2019SARS-CoV-2 has been categorized as similar to the 2003 SARS-CoV which means that the 2019 SARS-CoV-2 is not a novel virus.
The legitimacy of the Covid vaccine project hinges upon the hundreds of thousands of RT-PCR fake positive cases Worldwide combined with fake Covid related mortality data.
Big Pharma’s mRNA vaccine has resulted in countless deaths and injuries Worldwide which are barely reported by the mainstream media.
While we do not have figures for the entire Planet, the latest official figures for the European Union and the U.S are revealing. Bear in mind they vastly underestimate the real trends in vaccin related mortality and morbidity:EU/EEA/Switzerland to 31 July 2021 – 20,595 Covid-19 injection related deaths and over 1.94 million injuries, per EudraVigilance Database.
UK to 21 July 2021 – 1,517 Covid-19 injection related deaths and over 1.1 million injuries, per MHRA Yellow Card Scheme.
USA to 23 July 2021 – 11,940 Covid-19 injection related deaths and over 2.4 million injuries, per VAERS database.
TOTAL for EU/UK/USA – 34,052 Covid-19 injection related deaths and over 5.46 million injuries reported as at 1 August 2021
Nota Bene: It is important to be aware that the official figures above (reported to the health authorities) are but a small percentage of the actual figures. Furthermore, people continue to die (and suffer injury) from the injections with every day which passes. (D4CE
So why are governments pressuring people to get vaccinated?
Heads of State and heads of government Worldwide are being pressured, bribed, coopted and/or threatened by powerful financial interests into accepting the Covid vaccine consensus. The vaccine passport is the endgame, which constitutes a transition towards digital tyranny.
The study and reports analyzed in this article should be used to confront politicians.
Does the virus Exist?
The governments and the WHO do not have a Leg to Stand On. And neither does Bill Gates.
What we must seek is to confront a very fragile consensus, which is based on fraud and deceit.
PS: I remain indebted to Christine Massey for her extensive research and investigation on the issue of isolation /purification.
Within the World Economic Forum’s Great Reset, the mantra has come out that by the year 2030, “you’ll own nothing. And you’ll be happy.”
For those of us who haven’t been brainwashed by communism, this likely seems somewhat disturbing. But let us examine just how one can ensure “people don’t own anything.”
Let’s look at what a world without personal property looks like.
“If it were up to me, anybody not wearing a mask when they are out in public would be arrested … That’s an act of domestic terrorism and should be treated like one,” Lancaster, California, Mayor Rex Parris.
Let’s start with the low-hanging fruit, shall we? John Locke pointed out that “Every man has a property in his own person,” with Paul Skousen further adding that your body is your first piece of original property that you own. If you are to own nothing, does it not follow that your body will no longer be your own as well?
We already see the fruits of this type of thinking in forced (or coerced)vaccinations for people to work and travel (and not be arrested). We’ve most certainly seen this with mandatory masking. What could be the further logical progressions of this type of thought, though?
Is mandatory sterilization out of the question? What about forced organ donation? Are these indeed that far out of a concept – are they not the next logical step – in a world where you own nothing?
“The theory of communism may be summed up in the single sentence: abolition of private property.” – Karl Marx.
You will no longer own your house. And if you no longer hold the right to choice, your body, or your property, then you likely won’t have much of a say as to where you would reside either.
Perhaps climate change could be argued as a reason to move all people into cities. Maybe racism/equity could be claimed as to why your home is being given to somebody else.
Regardless of which form it takes place, there are excellent odds that you would not be permitted to live where you want for long.
The Death Of The Second Amendment
“The meaning of peace is the absence of opposition to socialism.” – Karl Marx
Your right to defend is centered around your right to life and right to own property. As illustrated above, if you no longer own the right to your own body, you in essence no longer own the right to your own life either. As such, there’s nothing for you to defend. “We – the government – will do that for you.”
Likewise, the Second Amendment must be destroyed to crush any potential opposition. In his masterpiece The Road to Serfdom, FA Hayek pointed out that people resist being robbed: whether that be by someone with a ski mask or by someone with a badge. The only way that a collectivist can thus ensure that his mandates are followed is by ever-increasing amounts of violence against resistors.
This act is sorely hampered by those who are capable of defending themselves against attack. It is much easier to force an unarmed populace to bend to your every whim (witness current Australia, Canada, or the UK), and thus, America must be disarmed.
Vaporization Of Savings Or Nationalization Of Savings
“Because we have been guided by a Republican administration who believes in the simplistic notion that people who have wealth are entitled to keep it and they have an antipathy to our means of redistributing wealth.” – Jim Moran (D-VA) November 10, 2008
If you are to own nothing, that means that you can no longer have anything in your savings. Any money you have put into a 401k, savings account, safety deposit boxes, or the like will be vaporized overnight. It can come about through three main mechanisms.
The first is through hyperinflation. As John Stormer pointed out in None Dare Call It Treason, hyperinflation was one of the prime reasons for the communization of China. If you can deflate a nation’s currency to the point that it is worthless (partially accomplished by abandoning the gold standard), you can drive a country into ruin. Once that has happened, you can rebuild out of the ashes – Karl Marx’s intentions for communism all along.
That destroyed nation is now ripe for the harvest by communists who will swiftly step into the void and create a government of their own.
The second way that savings can be confiscated is through nationalization. When a government simply decides that all retirement accounts will be nationalized, you just lost all of your savings through government-sponsored theft. You will likely be given the balm of, “But look, we’ll take care of you. There’s a government pension for you, a universal basic income, free education, free healthcare, free housing, food stamps. Don’t worry. You don’t have your savings anymore, but this ismuch better.”
Keep in mind that a cashless society makes it far easier for the government to control your every cent.
#3 Destruction Of A Nation
The third means that savings can be destroyed is through the destruction of a nation via war.
In much the same way as hyperinflation, invaders climb over the ruins to craft a “new” currency in a nation. It can occur via outright war/invasion or by “humanitarian aid” following some sort of national tragedy that leaves a nation in ruins.
Nationalization Of Your Business
“Socialism is the doctrine that man has no right to exist for his own sake. That his life and his work do not belong to him, but belong to society, that the only justification of his existence is his service to society, and that society may dispose of him in any way it pleases for the sake of whatever it deems to be its own tribal, collective good.” – Ayn Rand
Your business is a part of your property. It enables you to produce – with production being true wealth, as Ayn Rand pointed out – and thus, it must be taken from you as well. It will likely come via the nationalization of all businesses.
This already happened in the past (e.g., nationalization of railroads) and must be enforced for the WEF’s intentions of a ‘no property planet’ to be realized.
Whether you’ll still be permitted to work in your chosen field remains to be seen. Choice is an aspect of freedom (the second domain according to John Stuart Mill), and only a fool would believe that the WEF is about freedom.
Thus, it is highly likely that centralized planning would determine where some people would work (e.g., government-sponsored dams, roads, canals, etc.)
Anti-Hoarding Laws Endorsing Government Confiscation
“The family is now one of the major obstacles to improved mental health, and hence should be weakened, if possible, so as to free individuals and especially children from the coercion of family life.” – International Congress on Mental Health, London, 1948
Once more, collectivism throughout history has often resorted to children being held in common. Witness the government confiscation of children in ancient collectivist Sparta. Boys were taken at the age of 7. In the collectivist Incan empire, all girls were turned over to the state at 13.
A third became involved in religious practices, a third were given away as wives/concubines, and the remaining third were slaughtered at the altar. If we look at more recent history, we can see how the Hitler Youth impacted the future of their nation.
The Death Of All Human Rights
“If it were discovered that you had not character and industry enough to be worth all this trouble, you might possibly be executed in a kindly manner…” – George Bernard Shaw, socialist
As Ayn Rand pointed out, once property rights die, all other rights are soon to follow. Property rights are the foundation of all other rights.
Given that the destruction of property rights is the end goal of the World Economic Forum and the Great Reset – as illustrated by their own propaganda – this means that free speech, the right to defense, the right to life will not be that far behind.
In many cases and many ways, these freedoms are already being chiseled away. Do you want to live in a world where that destruction is brought to completion?
What Is To Be Done?
It may come across to some reading as if I am solely spreading fear for fear’s sake itself. I assure you, that is not the case. I am writing this to you because I am genuinely concerned. Think through the logical progressions for yourself.
If you are going to live in a society where you own nothing, what are the logical stepping stones of such a state? What can be inferred?
My conclusions on the matter are by no means original. They come from examining what already happened to humanity and looking at the full implications of a world without property.
By doing the same, I believe you’ll come to the same conclusions as I.
So what does a world where you own nothing look like?
I can guarantee you this: it is one where happiness is an emotion you will have long since forgotten.
An emergency stockpile can greatly increase your chance of survival if Shit Hit The Fan. But creating a stockpile can easily drain your grocery budget if you’re not careful.
Luckily, some of the best foods for stockpiling are extremely cheap, so you can buy them in quantities enough to last you several months. Here are some examples of cheap foods to stockpile:
Rice – Rice is a staple food worldwide. It is also a versatile ingredient as it can be paired with various foods or cooked with various ingredients. When stored in an airtight container, rice keeps for six months. Rice is also cheap when bought in bulk.
Pinto beans – Pinto beans can be cooked in bulk and used in soups and salads. Pinto beans are a cheap way to keep bellies full, too, since they are rich in carbohydrates, fiber and protein. Like rice, they will also keep for several months if stored in an airtight container in a cool, dry pantry. Buy pinto beans in bulk to save money.
Lentils – Lentils are another legume that should be part of your emergency stockpile. They give you lots of calories, carbohydrates, protein and dietary fiber. Lentils are typically used in soups. But they also make great additions in potato salads, roasted vegetable salads, curries, and other savory dishes.
Oil – Don’t forget to stock up on oil since you’ll need it to cook. Having oil on hand will also give you more variety since you can use it to make marinades, sauces and salad dressings. Choose healthy oils, such as coconut, sesame and olive oils.
Flour – Bread is a staple in various diets worldwide. But bread can quickly go bad and moldy. So instead of buying ready-made bread, stock up on bags of flour. Flour is the single most important baking ingredient. If you have flour, you can make whatever bread or pastry you want.
Cornmeal – Cornmeal is the main ingredient in cornbread, a staple in Native American diets. Cornbread will sustain you in a pinch. You can also use cornmeal to bread fish and chicken. (Related: Have a taste of frontier survival cooking with cornmeal pancakes.)
Chickpeas – Chickpeas or garbanzo beans are a staple in the Mediterranean diet. Like other beans, chickpeas are also high in protein and dietary fiber. Buy chickpeas in bulk and store them in airtight containers for long-term storage.
Pasta – Pasta is a good source of carbohydrates. Pasta also makes a great vehicle for hearty sauces, meat and dehydrated vegetables, among other ingredients. Because pasta is dried, it can keep up to two years past the expiration date printed on the packaging. Opened dry pasta will keep for one year.
Oats – Old-fashioned rolled oats are a pantry staple. You can buy them in large bags and store them in a cool, dry place for long-term storage. Oats are also a versatile ingredient. You can use them to make overnight oats, no-bake granola bars and muffins, to name a few.
Powdered milk – Forget about stocking up on cow’s milk, which will inevitably go bad even when unopened. Stock up on powdered milk instead. You can use powdered milk to make all sorts of ingredients, such as evaporated milk, coffee creamer, yogurt, hot chocolate and cottage cheese.
Meat – Meat can still be part of an emergency stockpile. For long-term storage, you can either cure meat with salt or portion it into airtight containers and place them in the freezer. You can also dry meat to make your own jerky. Check with your local grocery store or butcher for money-saving deals and promos.
Dried foods – Don’t forget to add dried fruits, vegetables and herbs to your emergency stockpile. These foods ensure you still get to eat healthy foods when Shit Hit The Fan. The best part is, you can dehydrate foods yourself. Stalky and starchy foods, such as potatoes, carrots and unripe bananas, are great for dehydrating. Follow this guide to dehydrate your own foods.
The censorship of information is at an all time high, but do people really recognize the extent to which it has been and is being carried out? A recent article published in the British Medical Journal by journalist Laurie Clarke has highlighted the fact that Facebook has already removed at least 16 million pieces of content from its platform and added warnings to approximately 167 million others.
YouTube has removed nearly 1 million videos related to, according to them, “dangerous or misleading covid-19 medical information.”
Being an independent media outlet, Collective Evolution has experienced this censorship first hand. We’ve also been in touch with and witnessed many doctors and world renowned scientists be subjected to the same type of treatment from these social media organizations.
I did the same with Dr. Carl Heneghan, a professor of evidence based medicine from Oxford and an emergency GP who wrote an article regarding the efficacy of facemasks in stopping the spread of COVID.
His article was not removed, but a label was added to it by Facebook saying it was ‘fake information.’ There are many more examples.
Clarke’s article says, with regards to posts that have been removed and labelled, that,
“while a portion of that content is likely to be wilfully wrongheaded or vindictively misleading, the pandemic is littered with examples of scientific opinion that have been caught in the dragnet.”
This is true, take for example the ‘lab origins of COVID debate.’ Early on in the pandemic you were not even allowed to mention that COVID may have originated in a lab, and if you did, you were punished for doing so.
Independent media platforms were demonetized and subjected to changes in algorithms. Now, all of a sudden, the mainstream media is discussing it as a legitimate possibility.
It makes no sense.
This underscores the difficulty of defining scientific truth, prompting the bigger question of whether social media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and YouTube should be tasked with this at all…”
I think it’s quite dangerous for scientific content to be labelled as misinformation, just because of the way people might perceive that,” says Sander van der Linden, professor of social psychology in society at Cambridge University, UK.
“Even though it might fit under a definition (of misinformation) in a very technical sense, I’m not sure if that’s the right way to describe it more generally because it could lead to greater politicisation of science, which is undesirable.” – Clarke
This type of “politicization of science” is exactly what’s happened during this pandemic.
Science is being suppressed for political and financial gain. Covid-19 has unleashed state corruption on a grand scale, and it is harmful to public health. Politicians and industry are responsible for this opportunistic embezzlement. So too are scientists and health experts. The pandemic has revealed how the medical-political complex can be manipulated in an emergency — a time when it is even more important to safeguard science. – Kamran Abbas is a doctor, executive editor of the British Medical Journal, and the editor of the Bulletin of the World Health Organization. (source)
NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden offered his thoughts on the censorship we’ve been seeing during this pandemic in November of last year stating the following,
In secret, these companies had all agreed to work with the U.S. Government far beyond what the law required of them, and that’s what we’re seeing with this new censorship push is really a new direction in the same dynamic.
These companies are not obligated by the law to do almost any of what they’re actually doing but they’re going above and beyond, to, in many cases, to increase the depth of their relationship (with the government) and the government’s willingness to avoid trying to regulate them in the context of their desired activities, which is ultimately to dominate the conversation and information space of global society in different ways… They’re trying to make you change your behaviour.
If you’re not comfortable letting the government determine the boundaries of appropriate political speech, why are you begging Mark Zuckerberg to do it?
I think the reality here is…it’s not really about freedom of speech, and it’s not really about protecting people from harm…I think what you see is the internet has become the de facto means of mass communication.
That represents influence which represents power, and what we see is we see a whole number of different tribes basically squabbling to try to gain control over this instrument of power.
What we see is an increasing tendency to silence journalists who say things that are in the minority.
It makes you wonder, is this “fact-checking” actually about fact checking? Or is something else going on here?
Below is a breakdown from Clarke’s article illustrating how fact checking works and what the problem is with following the science.
Since we have reported this many times over the last 5 years, we decided to let our readers hear it from someone else for a change as it’s truly quite vindicating to see more investigators coming to these conclusions.
How Fact Checking Works
The past decade has seen an arms race between users who peddle disinformation (intentionally designed to mislead) or unwittingly share misinformation (which users don’t realise is false) and the social media platforms that find themselves charged with policing it, whether they want to or not.1
When The BMJ questioned Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube (which is owned by Google) they all highlighted their efforts to remove potentially harmful content and to direct users towards authoritative sources of information on covid-19 and vaccines, including the World Health Organization and the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Although their moderation policies differ slightly, the platforms generally remove or reduce the circulation of content that disputes information given by health authorities such as WHO and the CDC or spreads false health claims that are considered harmful, including incorrect information about the dangers of vaccines.
But the pandemic has seen a shifting patchwork of criteria employed by these companies to define the boundaries of misinformation.
This has led to some striking U turns: at the beginning of the pandemic, posts saying that masks helped to prevent the spread of covid-19 were labelled “false”; now it’s the opposite, reflecting the changing nature of the academic debate and official recommendations.
Twitter manages its fact checking internally. But Facebook and YouTube rely on partnerships with third party fact checkers, convened under the umbrella of the International Fact-Checking Network — a non-partisan body that certifies other fact checkers, run by the Poynter Institute for Media Studies, a non-profit journalism school in St Petersburg, Florida.
Poynter’s top donors include the Charles Koch Institute (a public policy research organisation), the National Endowment for Democracy (a US government agency), and the Omidyar Network (a “philanthropic investment firm”), as well as Google and Facebook.
Poynter also owns the Tampa Bay Times newspaper and the high profile fact checker PolitiFact. The Poynter Institute declined The BMJ’s invitation to comment for this article.
For scientific and medical content the International Fact-Checking Network involves little known outfits such as SciCheck, Metafact, and Science Feedback.
Health Feedback, a subsidiary of Science Feedback, handpicks scientists to deliver its verdict.
Using this method, it labelled as “misleading” a Wall Street Journal opinion article2 predicting that the US would have herd immunity by April 2021, written by Marty Makary, professor of health policy and management at John Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland.
This prompted the newspaper to issue a rebuttal headlined “Fact checking Facebook’s fact checkers,” arguing that the rating was “counter-opinion masquerading as fact checking.”3
Makary hadn’t presented his argument as a factual claim, the article said, but had made a projection based on his analysis of the evidence.
A spokesperson for Science Feedback tells The BMJ that, to verify claims, it selects scientists on the basis of “their expertise in the field of the claim/article.”
They explain, “Science Feedback editors usually start by searching the relevant academic literature and identifying scientists who have authored articles on related topics or have the necessary expertise to assess the content.”
The organisation then either asks the selected scientists to weigh in directly or collects claims that they’ve made in the media or on social media to reach a verdict.
In the case of Makary’s article it identified 20 relevant scientists and received feedback from three.
“Follow The Science”
The contentious nature of these decisions is partly down to how social media platforms define the slippery concepts of misinformation versus disinformation.
This decision relies on the idea of a scientific consensus. But some scientists say that this smothers heterogeneous opinions, problematically reinforcing a misconception that science is a monolith.
This is encapsulated by what’s become a pandemic slogan:
“Follow the science.” David Spiegelhalter, chair of the Winton Centre for Risk and Evidence Communication at Cambridge University, calls this “absolutely awful,” saying that behind closed doors scientists spend the whole time arguing and deeply disagreeing on some fairly fundamental things.
“Science is not out in front telling you what to do; it shouldn’t be. I view it much more as walking along beside you muttering to itself, making comments about what it’s seeing and making some tentative suggestions about what might happen if you take a particular path, but it’s not in charge.”
The term “misinformation” could itself contribute to a flattening of the scientific debate. Martin Kulldorff, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School in Boston, Massachusetts, has been criticised for his views on lockdown, which tack closely to his native Sweden’s more relaxed strategy.4
He says that scientists who voice unorthodox opinions during the pandemic are worried about facing “various forms of slander or censoring … they say certain things but not other things, because they feel that will be censored by Twitter or YouTube or Facebook.”
This worry is compounded by the fear that it may affect grant funding and the ability to publish scientific papers, he tells The BMJ.
The binary idea that scientific assertions are either correct or incorrect has fed into the divisiveness that has characterised the pandemic. Samantha Vanderslott, a health sociologist at the University of Oxford, UK, told Nature, “Calling out fake stories can raise your profile.”
In the same article Giovanni Zagni, director of the Italian fact checking website Facta, noted that “you can build a career” on the basis of becoming “a well respected voice that fights against bad information.”5
But this has fed a perverse incentive for scientists to label each other’s positions misinformation or disinformation.6 Van der Linden likens this to how the term “fake news” was weaponised by Donald Trump to silence his critics.
He says, “I think you see a bit of the same with the term ‘misinformation,’ when there’s science that you don’t agree with and you label it as misinformation.”
Health Feedback’s website says that it won’t select scientists to verify claims if they’ve undermined their credibility by “propagating misinformation, whether intentionally or not.”
In practice, this could create a Kafkaesque situation where scientists are precluded from offering their opinion as part of the fact checking process if they expressed an opinion that Facebook labelled misinformation.
Strengthening the echo chamber effect is the fact that Health Feedback sometimes verifies claims by looking at what scientists have said on Twitter or in the media.
Van der Linden says that it’s important for people to understand that in the scientific domain “there’s uncertainty, there’s debate, and it’s about the accumulation of insights over time and revising our opinions as we go along.”
Healthy debate helps to separate the wheat from the chaff. Jevin West, associate professor in the Information School at the University of Washington in Seattle, says that social media platforms should therefore be “extra careful when it comes to debates involving science.”
“The institution of science has developed these norms and behaviour to be self-corrective. So, for [social media platforms] to step into that conversation, I think it’s problematic.”
Experts who spoke to The BMJ emphasised the near impossibility of distinguishing between a minority scientific opinion and an opinion that’s objectively incorrect (misinformation).
Spiegelhalter says that this would constitute a difficult “legalistic judgment about what a reasonable scientific opinion would be … I’ve got my own criteria that I use to decide whether I think something is misleading, but I find it very difficult to codify.”
Other scientists worry that, if this approach to scientific misinformation outlives the pandemic, the scientific debate could become worryingly subject to commercial imperatives.
Vinay Prasad, associate professor at the University of California San Francisco, argued on the MedPage Today website:
“The risk is that the myriad players in biomedicine, from large to small biopharmaceutical and [medical] device firms, will take their concerns to social media and journal companies. On a topic like cancer drugs, a tiny handful of folks critical of a new drug approval may be outnumbered 10:1 by key opinion leaders who work with the company.”7
Thus the majority who speak loudest, most visibly, and with the largest number online, may be judged “correct” by the public—and, as the saying goes, history is written by the victors.
Social media companies are still experimenting with the new raft of measures introduced since last year and may adapt their approach.
Van der Linden says that the talks he’s had with Facebook have focused on how the platform could help foster an appreciation of how science works, “to actually direct people to content that educates them about the scientific process, rather than labelling something as true or false.”
This debate is playing out against a wider ideological struggle, where the ideal of “truth” is increasingly placed above “healthy debate.”
“To remove things in general, I think is a bad idea. Because even if something is wrong, if you remove it there’s no opportunity to discuss it.” For instance, although he favors vaccination in general, people with fears or doubts about the vaccines used should not be silenced in online spaces, he says.
“If we don’t have an open debate within science, then that will have enormous consequences for science and society.”
There are concerns that this approach could ultimately undermine trust in public health. In the US, says West, trust in the government and media is falling.
He explains, “Science is still one of the more trusted institutions, but if you start tagging and shutting down conversation within science, to me that’s even worse than the actual posting of these individual articles.”
The winter storm in Texas exposed the weaknesses in the state’s power grid. But those weaknesses are far from unique to the state. Other southeastern states, like Oklahoma and Louisiana, also saw blackouts at the time.
This just goes to show that the odds of the country’s power grid collapsing when disaster strikes or when SHTF are actually very high. But it’s not just a lack of power you need to brace for in case the grid goes down.
Here are six more things that are very likely to happen if the power grid collapses:
Commerce would cease – Banks would close and automated teller machines (ATMs) wouldn’t work if the power grid goes down. For a while, people with cash to spend may fare well. But as that cash runs out, they would likely begin trading with others for resources.
Communications would shut down – Cell phones, tablets and other gadgets that need to be charged would be rendered useless just hours after the power grid goes down, greatly limiting communication. That includes communication with police, firefighters and emergency medical services (EMS).
Transport networks would grind to a halt – Fuel pumps at gas stations would stop working if there is no power. Road signs, traffic lights and train systems would all go dead as well. And without a way to procure gasoline, car owners would have zero use for their vehicles. Establishments that heavily rely on deliveries, such as grocery stores, would be unable to restock.
There would be no running water – Critical infrastructures like water treatment facilities use power to run their pumps and equipment. Without power, water services would stop and there would be no running water. You won’t be able to flush the toilet or run the shower.
Grocery stores and pharmacies would be stripped bare – People who didn’t prepare for a power grid failure would rush to their local grocery stores and pharmacies to buy large quantities of food, water, medicine and toiletries. There would be millions of people like this, so it’s highly likely that these establishments would be stripped bare within the first few days of a power grid collapse.
Satellite navigation devices would be useless – These days, many people rely on their cell phones, tablets and other gadgets for directions. If the grid goes down, people would be unable to charge their gadgets, which would eventually die. The average person will likely get lost if the grid goes down.
How To Prepare For A Power Grid Failure:
Preparing for a power grid failure increases your chances of surviving such a disaster scenario. Below are a few tips on how to prepare for a power grid failure:
Stock up on food, water and other essentials – The biggest thing you need to worry about if power goes out is your water supply. You won’t have clean, running water to drink or clean yourself with. Forget about last-minute grocery runs, too. Create an emergency stockpile of bottled water, food and other essential resources like matches and rubbing alcohol.
Prepare alternative heat sources – You wouldn’t want to be without heating when it’s cold out. Prepare alternative heat sources, such as an alcohol heater and a portable propane heater.
Prepare flashlights, lanterns and other light sources – Prepare a kit with several flashlights, batteries, lanterns and other light sources you may need.
Learn basic survival skills – Even if worse doesn’t come to worst, it helps to know basic survival skills, such as building a fire, filtering water, building a shelter and fishing. (Related: How to make your own homemade water filter.)
Was it not that Russians finally tired of the Kremlin’s lies and hypocrisies that permeated every facet of their falsified lives?
Here are 10 symptoms of Sovietism. Ask yourself whether we are headed down this same road to perdition.
1. There was no escape from ideological indoctrination — anywhere. A job in the bureaucracy or a military assignment hinged not so much on merit, expertise or past achievement. What mattered was loud enthusiasm for the Soviet system.
Wokeness is becoming our new Soviet-like state religion. Careerists assert that America was always and still is a systemically racist country, without ever producing proof or a sustained argument.
2. The Soviets fused their press with the government. Pravda, or “Truth,” was the official megaphone of state-sanctioned lies. Journalists simply regurgitated the talking points of their Communist Party partners.
In 2017, a Harvard study found that more than 90 percent of the major TV news networks’ coverage of the Trump administration’s first 100 days was negative.
3. The Soviet surveillance state enlisted apparatchiks and lackeys to ferret out ideological dissidents.
Recently, we learned that the Department of Defense is reviewing its rosters to spot extremist sentiments. The U.S. Postal Service recently admitted it uses tracking programs to monitor the social media postings of Americans.
CNN recently alleged that the Biden administration’s Department of Homeland Security is considering partnering with private surveillance firms to get around government prohibitions on scrutinizing Americans’ online activity.
4. The Soviet educational system sought not to enlighten but to indoctrinate young minds in proper government-approved thought.
Currently, cash-strapped universities nationwide are hiring thousands of diversity, equity and inclusion staffers and administrators. Their chief task is to scan the admissions, hiring, curriculum and administration at universities. Like good commissars, our diversity czars oversee compliance with the official narrative that a flawed America must confess, apologize for and renounce its evil foundations.
5. The Soviet Union was run by a pampered elite, exempt from the ramifications of their own radical ideologies.
Now, woke Silicon Valley billionaires talk socialistically but live royally. Coke and Delta Airlines CEOs who hector Americans about their illiberality make millions of dollars a year.
What unites current woke activists such as Oprah Winfrey, LeBron James, Mark Zuckerberg and the Obamas are their huge estates and their multimillion-dollar wealth. Just as the select few of the old Soviet nomenklatura had their Black Sea dachas, America’s loudest top-down revolutionaries prefer living in Martha’s Vineyard, Beverly Hills, Montecito and Malibu.
6. The Soviets mastered Trotskyization, or the rewriting and airbrushing away of history to fabricate present reality.
Are Americans any different when they indulge in a frenzy of name-changing, statue-toppling, monument-defacing, book-banning and cancel-culturing?
7. The Soviets created a climate of fear and rewarded stool pigeons for rooting out all potential enemies of the people.
Since when did Americans encourage co-workers to turn in others for an ill-considered word in a private conversation? Why do thousands now scour the internet to find any past incorrect expression of a rival? Why are there now new thought criminals supposedly guilty of climate racism, immigration racism or vaccination racism?
8. Soviet prosecutors and courts were weaponized according to ideology.
In America, where and for what reason you riot determines whether you face any legal consequences. Politically correct sanctuary cities defy the law with impunity. Jury members are terrified of being doxxed and hunted down for an incorrect verdict. The CIA and FBI are becoming as ideological as the old KGB.
9. The Soviets doled out prizes on the basis of correct Soviet thought.
In modern America, the Pulitzer Prizes and the Emmys, Grammys, Tonys and Oscars don’t necessarily reflect the year’s best work, but often the most politically correct work from the most woke.
10. The Soviets offered no apologies for extinguishing freedom. Instead, they boasted that they were advocates for equity, champions of the underclass, enemies of privilege — and therefore could terminate anyone or anything they pleased.
Our wokists are similarly defending their thought-control efforts, forced re-education sessions, scripted confessionals, mandatory apologies and cancel culture on the pretense that we need long-overdue “fundamental transformation.”
So if they destroy people in the name of equity, their nihilism is justified.