Author Topic: Facebook’s Fact Checker on ναccιnєs is Funded by an Organization that has etc...  (Read 60 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline RomanCatholic1953

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9839
  • Reputation: +3119/-179
  • Gender: Male
  • I will not respond to any posts from Poche.
Facebook’s Fact Checker on ναccιnєs is Funded by an Organization that has $1.8-Billion Invested in ναccιnє Stocks
May 3, 2021 in News by RBN Staff


source:  needtoknownews
May 3, 2021 The Blaze and the Free Thought Project 0
Mark Zuckerberg, Youtube
Anyone who even questions the safety of CÖVÌD-19 ναccιnєs on Facebook’s platform is immediately slapped with a fact-check warning by Factcheck.org. Articles about alternative treatments and studies showing that vitamin D and zinc can prevent illness have been blocked. One of Facebook’s most prominent “fact checking” groups that claims to be independent is funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation that holds about 15% of its assets, over $1.8-billion of stock, in ναccιnє manufacturer Johnson and Johnson. The CEO of the foundation is Richard Besser, the former acting director of the CDC under σbαmα and ABC News’ former chief health and medical editor. In other words, the ναccιnє companies control the flow of information about ναccιnєs. Former President Tɾυmρ signed the $2.3-trillion omnibus bill in December 2020 that contained $1-billion of taxpayer funding to help market the ναccιnє. -GEG
Accurate information about the ναccιnєs and other vital CÖVÌD-related topics hinges upon the ability to disseminate the facts on major social media platforms like Facebook. In turn, Facebook relies on FactCheck.org, among other shady organizations, to rule on what information is admissible. FactCheck.org is funded by a grant from an organization run by σbαmα’s former CDC director, whose assets contain Johnson & Johnson stock. In other words, the ναccιnє companies control the flow of information about ναccιnєs. Welcome to the world of “independent fact checkers.”
Over the past year, Facebook has censored nearly every one of my articles and commentaries questioning the science behind lσcкdσωns or mask mandates. More recently, it has placed a blockade on any information raising questions about the ναccιnєs. Facebook has also blocked people from sharing my articles promoting cheap, lifesaving drugs, such as ivermectin, or even studies showing how sufficient doses of vitamin D and zinc can prevent critical illness from SARS-CoV-2.
In each instance of censorship, Facebook has posted a notice misleading anyone who wishes to share the article into thinking that the particular points raised in the article were independently fact-checked and found to be false. First, it’s critical to note that almost no article Facebook employees censor is fact-checked by anyone; they merely rely on an initial fact-check of one person’s article critical of masks — just to give an example — and then trot out that same fact-check as an excuse for zapping any article questioning the wisdom of mask-wearing, even if the points raised in said article are completely different from the issues addressed in the first fact-check.
However, there is something much more insidious going on with the fact-checking industry. The inmates are running the asylum and the foxes are guarding the henhouse. When the ναccιnєs began to be dispensed to the public in December, FactCheck.org started “SciCheck’s CÖVÌD-19/Vaccination Project” to specifically focus on the flow of information pertaining to the ναccιnєs. The site has a disclaimer on the top of the website stating: “SciCheck’s CÖVÌD-19/Vaccination Project is made possible by a grant from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.”
Comically, the next sentence reads, “The views expressed here do not necessarily reflect the views of the foundation.”
In fact, the views expressed almost assuredly do reflect the views of the foundation. FactCheck.org claims, “The goal is to increase exposure to accurate information about CÖVÌD-19 and ναccιnєs, while decreasing the impact of misinformation.” Yet have you ever seen the organization offer balanced coverage or flag a single post on the other side of this debate as false, no matter how outlandish the claim might be, including articles advocating experimental emergency use authorization ναccιnєs for little children?
Read full article here…


 

Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16