My experience with PolitiFact (election data, not medical): "journalist" (actually a Berkeley journalism student) asked for an interview. I provided a data file and said I would walk her through the evidence over the phone while answering her questions. She refused to look at the file and kept badgering me for a response. I refused to respond unless we could talk over my evidence file. Next I know, she writes a hit piece saying she has seen "no evidence" of my claims.
Since no follow up was done to this limited study, it is all we have. He has a lot of things to say in that article, particularly about how concentration in tissue is far more important than the % of the dose at any given place; however, he does note that "6% of the Dose was in the Blood at Two Hours Post-Injection." That directly conflicts with the bogus fact check.
Thanks for the post Joomi. I wish people were more discerning readers, and don't just look at the title and assume everything else in the article. For many of these articles it's not hard to see that there really is nothing of substance. It's either "no evidence", "experts say", or something that really just doesn't rebut any claims with actual science.
I do find the paradox of a "safe vaccine spike" and a "cytotoxic virus spike" rather hilarious. Ok, so the vaccine is safe, but the virus isn't, and yet the vaccine's spike has to be modeled after the virus' in order to to produce a similar immune response. I need someone to explain this cognitive dissonance so many people have!
I would like to find a way to reach out to people, but it's frustrating when I talk to people who say "well, I don't trust anything the media says, but Fox says blah, blah blah, and CNN is good!" Again, the cognitive dissonance!
They are a good "Streisand Effect" way to see what needs to be examined more closely. If they are trying to steer you away...probably worth a good, hard look.
Thank you, Joomi! You do such great work and I am happy to be a paid subscriber. Keep it up! People need to think critically, analytically, ask questions...but alas, most don't. Regardless of "education" level.
What's maddening about all this 'fact checking' is that we have video tapes on this. Dial up one of those dreadful press conferences from the spring of 2020, and the so-called 'health authorities' were assuring us that the lockdown will only take fifteen days and that we could expect immunity for the "vaccines" to last several years, if not a lifetime. Wasn't THAT misinformation?
As for Merck, they issued a press release that ivermectin wasn't "safe and effective", only to land a multi-billion contract from the federal government a few weeks later. Isn't THAT the least bit suspicious? Isn't that worth investigating?
Ivermectin DID win its discoverer the Nobel Prize, and Merck DID sell billions of doses while Merck held the patent on it... and while they did, the safety profile was well-documented and exemplary. So, in what sense was the drug deemed 'unsafe'? And WHY didn't anyone even question that incongruity?
Last but not least, the 'vaccine' rollout began in January - yet by December, the Israeli government was cautioning their citizens that vaccines and boosters wouldn't protect them from the recently discovered Omicron variant.
All this, for an experimental drug developed using experimental technology that worked for less than a year? I expect there would be more embarrassment and humility about that.
Had alternative early treatments been tried from the very beginning, they could hardly have fared any worse. Already authorized drugs have known toxicity profiles.
If the government dislikes 'misinformation' and 'disinformation', why do they insist on spreading so much of it about? Start THERE, you would-be 'fact-checkers... governmental ineptitude is a target-rich environment.
I think that some serious funding of research exploring the correlation between mRNA prophylaxis and increased cleverness of verbiage is in order.
Never before have we seen glib and facile dismissiveness deployed with such skill.
Article after cleverly-worded article is being published in support of a grand narrative, few containing any verifiable facts. Long on sneering condescension and bland contrarianism, the articles are amplified by comments section posts in wild profusion.
Observing this leads me to posit that mRNA may be providing a benefit to those crafting yellow journalism (and those who love them.)
So, a vaccine against a disease might have a form of the pathogen that invokes some (but not all) of the same effects of the disease itself? Wow, who knew that Covid vaccines would behave the same way as all vaccines ever?
CONFLICT: Reuters Chairman is Pfizer Investor and Board Member. https://thenationalpulse.com/2021/12/01/conflict-reuters-chairman-is-pfizer-investor-and-board-member/
My experience with PolitiFact (election data, not medical): "journalist" (actually a Berkeley journalism student) asked for an interview. I provided a data file and said I would walk her through the evidence over the phone while answering her questions. She refused to look at the file and kept badgering me for a response. I refused to respond unless we could talk over my evidence file. Next I know, she writes a hit piece saying she has seen "no evidence" of my claims.
Clearly there is "no evidence" that "fact checkers" are "anything but" paid disinformation specialists.
The best discussion of the biodistribution of the mRNA injections is found here:
https://viralimmunologist.substack.com/p/a-moratorium-on-mrna-vaccines-is
Since no follow up was done to this limited study, it is all we have. He has a lot of things to say in that article, particularly about how concentration in tissue is far more important than the % of the dose at any given place; however, he does note that "6% of the Dose was in the Blood at Two Hours Post-Injection." That directly conflicts with the bogus fact check.
Thanks for the link!
Thanks for the post Joomi. I wish people were more discerning readers, and don't just look at the title and assume everything else in the article. For many of these articles it's not hard to see that there really is nothing of substance. It's either "no evidence", "experts say", or something that really just doesn't rebut any claims with actual science.
I do find the paradox of a "safe vaccine spike" and a "cytotoxic virus spike" rather hilarious. Ok, so the vaccine is safe, but the virus isn't, and yet the vaccine's spike has to be modeled after the virus' in order to to produce a similar immune response. I need someone to explain this cognitive dissonance so many people have!
I would like to find a way to reach out to people, but it's frustrating when I talk to people who say "well, I don't trust anything the media says, but Fox says blah, blah blah, and CNN is good!" Again, the cognitive dissonance!
I generally don’t read them anymore as I know they are just propaganda and tend to take things out of context or just generally lie.
I don't blame you. It was painfully boring to read through all these fact check articles I have to say
They are a good "Streisand Effect" way to see what needs to be examined more closely. If they are trying to steer you away...probably worth a good, hard look.
Very nice article on propaganda machine! txs!
The Mad Libs template is a nice touch
Thank you, Joomi! You do such great work and I am happy to be a paid subscriber. Keep it up! People need to think critically, analytically, ask questions...but alas, most don't. Regardless of "education" level.
Thank you!!
Fantastic article! Thank you for cutting through the fog of mainstream dogma.
Excellent analysis of our “independent” press. Thank you.
well done Joomi
What's maddening about all this 'fact checking' is that we have video tapes on this. Dial up one of those dreadful press conferences from the spring of 2020, and the so-called 'health authorities' were assuring us that the lockdown will only take fifteen days and that we could expect immunity for the "vaccines" to last several years, if not a lifetime. Wasn't THAT misinformation?
As for Merck, they issued a press release that ivermectin wasn't "safe and effective", only to land a multi-billion contract from the federal government a few weeks later. Isn't THAT the least bit suspicious? Isn't that worth investigating?
Ivermectin DID win its discoverer the Nobel Prize, and Merck DID sell billions of doses while Merck held the patent on it... and while they did, the safety profile was well-documented and exemplary. So, in what sense was the drug deemed 'unsafe'? And WHY didn't anyone even question that incongruity?
Last but not least, the 'vaccine' rollout began in January - yet by December, the Israeli government was cautioning their citizens that vaccines and boosters wouldn't protect them from the recently discovered Omicron variant.
All this, for an experimental drug developed using experimental technology that worked for less than a year? I expect there would be more embarrassment and humility about that.
Had alternative early treatments been tried from the very beginning, they could hardly have fared any worse. Already authorized drugs have known toxicity profiles.
If the government dislikes 'misinformation' and 'disinformation', why do they insist on spreading so much of it about? Start THERE, you would-be 'fact-checkers... governmental ineptitude is a target-rich environment.
I have created a little Ruby program that uses your template (many thanks for that!) to generate fact-check articles:
https://markalexander.substack.com/p/fact-check-generator
I think that some serious funding of research exploring the correlation between mRNA prophylaxis and increased cleverness of verbiage is in order.
Never before have we seen glib and facile dismissiveness deployed with such skill.
Article after cleverly-worded article is being published in support of a grand narrative, few containing any verifiable facts. Long on sneering condescension and bland contrarianism, the articles are amplified by comments section posts in wild profusion.
Observing this leads me to posit that mRNA may be providing a benefit to those crafting yellow journalism (and those who love them.)
More seriously, thanks very much for the article.
So, a vaccine against a disease might have a form of the pathogen that invokes some (but not all) of the same effects of the disease itself? Wow, who knew that Covid vaccines would behave the same way as all vaccines ever?