Who Watches the Watchers? Down the Rabbit Hole Volume Two
It's high time we fact checked the fact checkers....
The following is Part Two of our Down the Rabbit Hole research series, which you can find more information on here:
These deep dives are not meant to be comprehensive. Rather, they are meant to present you with enough information to get you started thinking about and researching a topic that was of interest to us in order to encourage learning, curiosity, and autodidacticism. Please feel free to share and utilize these posts and the information herein as a springboard to find out more and come to your own conclusions.
As always, your subscriptions are valued and crucial to the work we’re doing so that we can keep providing this as a learning and collaboration tool for you and we welcome your thoughts and feedback!
This morning, this was brought to my attention. I’m going to keep the source anonymous: With only a smidge of Google-fu, you’ll be able to find this on your own anyway….
So, I start digging. And I find some REALLY ODD “points” being made by the “fact checkers.” These were so insane that I figured they were worth mentioning. Because holy hell.
MSN states, “Now, as far as the 5G theory is concerned, both WHO and the Government of India have clarified that there is no link between the 5G technology and the spread of Covid-19. As given in the 'Mythbusters' section of WHO, viruses cannot travel on radio waves or mobile networks. Covid-19 is spreading in many countries that do not have 5G mobile networks.”
Well, who the hell EVER said that 5G *SPREADS* Covid?
How stupid are these people writing these fact check articles?
How many people have you ever spoken with in your entire life who actually think that viruses travel on radio waves or mobile networks?!
Literally NO ONE thinks this. Find me ONE PERSON who does - we’ll submit them for a Darwin award honorary mention.
So, clearly, this is false positioning to make the opposition appear FUCKING INSANE.
With plenty of other bizarre claims running rampant regarding 5G, not even discussing the ones that actually have merit, this is the hill you choose to die on, MSN?
Please… do us all a favor, MSN, and give Hunter Biden back his crack pipe. You’re embarrassing yourselves.
Which brings us to this next mention from MSN, trying to tell us that we should not believe the following: “Covid-19 vaccines install an operating system in our bodies. This system would gradually manipulate our body through 5G technology to control us.”
Not only is this abuse of the English language atrocious, but at this point, my mind wanders….
I’m wondering why MSN is considered a reliable source on this AT ALL since stakeholders should not be allowed to use news as propaganda to sway opinions on their investments, especially the unethical investments that are covertly accomplished by repositioning investments as acts of altruism through the establishment of nonprofit entities/tax shelters.
This isn’t “philanthropy” - it’s big business in masquerade garb and most people are too oblivious and/or undereducated in finance and ethics to see it, unfortunately, or there would be a righteous uproar.
ABC News reports that Bill and Melinda Gates are the second largest WHO donor per year, and the CDC takes $12-13 million from the Gates Foundation each year. According to MSN, the Gates Foundation was one of the lead investors in Vir Biotechnology, the Gates Foundation committed to investing $52 million in CureVac, and they invested $55 million in BioNTech in September 2019 to develop vaccines and immunotherapies.
The Gates Foundation also owns shares of Pfizer, and announced a $20-million grant to Moderna to advance the development of an affordable mRNA-based cocktail of antibody therapeutics to help prevent human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection.
Wall Street Journal, May 17, 2002: “Now, as an investor in Merck & Co., Pfizer Inc., Johnson & Johnson and others, the Gates Foundation has a financial interest in common with makers of AIDS drugs, diagnostic tools, vaccines and other drugs. The stock purchases are a new type of investment for the foundation: In the past it held primarily bonds and other nonequity investments.”
No matter what position they take on this, the extreme billion-dollar bias does not foster trust. Why is MSN not recusing itself from comment? That would, of course, be the ethical thing to do. And why is the SEC not pouncing on this?
Back to our image above. MSN states that there is a “falsified claim” that WHO, John Hopkins University, WEF, and Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation have jointly prepared a list of Covid-19 variants to be released before the media on scheduled dates.
What they say after this is BIZARRE….
They claim that “there is no evidence that any of these organisations have created any such list.” They say, “Replying to our email, Amanda Russo, Head of Media Content, World Economic Forum told us, ‘We have not seen this list before and we are not involved in its creation.’”
They never address whether the variants exist (looking at Nextstrain, some do and some don’t - perhaps “yet” - we don’t know) or whether they are going to be released on those dates. They only disavow knowledge of or creation of the actual list itself.
This tells us NOTHING about the information on the list.
It just tells us that they claim not to have created it.
Known for their commitment to rigorous journalism, MSN takes this half-assed answer for rote and never questions the response despite the fact that it tells us FUCK ALL about the most pertinent question we have.
Wait… it gets better. They list another “false claim,” which is this: “While the Delta variant was 'released' in June 2021, Epsilon, Zeta, Eta, Iota, Kappa, Lambda, and Theta variants would be 'released' between July 2021 to January 2022.”
Their response? Ready to laugh?
“The actual dates when these variants were brought to public notice are completely different from the dates mentioned in the viral list.”
Again, they focus their answers on minutiae to deflect instead of offering anything that might be considered an even remotely reasonable facsimile of an actual fucking answer.
What’s even more interesting to me is that people ACCEPT these answers and wave around these links as though the fact checkers are some great almighty oracle that has emerged from the depths with all of the answers. You can sit tight. Everything is A-OK. The fact checkers said so, by golly. So it must be true.
Well, for shits and giggles… let’s dig into that a little further.
It was recently discovered that the Facebook Covid “fact checkers” covering the shot are funded by the companies that produce the shot.
This isn’t just a massive conflict of interest - it’s collusion which poses a clear threat to the public health when the populace cannot readily access information with which to make appropriate decisions regarding their health choices. (We just witnessed this same behavior in Saskatchewan when Dr. Francis Christian lost his position for merely disclosing side effects to his patients so they could make educated health decisions - in other words, for literally doing his job.)
FactCheck.org is supposed to tackle “disinformation about the shot;” however, the company is indirectly funded by shot manufacturer Johnson & Johnson. The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, one of FactCheck.org’s benefactors, owns $2 billion in Johnson & Johnson stock and is run by Richard Besser, a former director of the CDC. FactCheck.org claims that the views expressed on their website do not necessarily reflect the views of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.
With this kind of disinformation push occurring in order to protect investments at the expense of public health, it’s no wonder that people who distrust these entities - with good reason - are looking to obtain their information elsewhere from reputable alternative sources that are not profiting off of the use of Hegelian dialectic to instill fear in the populace in order to sell a product by any means necessary that clearly has worse effects than the disease itself.
What bizarre fact checking arguments have you seen? Let us know in the comments.