Do fact check outlets serve as bodyguards for biomedical companies and those in power?
Hi Paul, I also want to add one additional detail about Susan Oliver. I know I am not providing much concrete evidence, but think of it as a tip which may turn out to be wrong.
There was an anonymous account on Twitter digging up all kinds of interesting stuff about many of these so called "skeptics". That account was (of course) suspended in due course, but the person mentioned Susan's patents on Lipid Nanoparticle technology and also found some links proving it.
I cannot find those links now, but I just want to point out that there are too many people who appear to be "neutral" but end up having some kind of financial incentive to keep the mRNA vaccine rollout going. I am leaving this comment here hoping that one of your readers will find some additional information on this.
As you probably know, there is also PLENTY of new research on mRNA vaccines for other diseases and by hiding the vax injuries, they are not doing the due diligence necessary for such new technologies. I remember seeing a slide from one of the vaccine manufacturers suggesting that the mRNA vaccine market will be worth $100 billion in a few years. There are some enormous profits at stake clearly, and the gaslighting seems to be proportional to it :-)
I am all for innovation in medicine and science, but they should do it without lying about the safety of their products.
I look forward to the day where all the slime balls in white coats and fancy outfits are brought up for crimes against humanity. And that includes the phony fact checking shills. And wouldn’t it be great if before testifying they’d be given a truth serum so for just once we wouldn’t have to listen to their endless lies.
Another comment, Doshi is a true scientist imo. Integrity and ethics.
Thanks Paul - on the money as usual. I am sure you will recall I wrote about Ms Turnnidge and Full Fact here
The very existence of such “honest broker” services is profoundly suspect, and “a priori” they always have a side. As for Gorski I cannot claim to have escaped his endless wrath. The typical technique is to pour out about five paragraphs of venom and loathing and then raise some technical point - obviously he has groupies who love this. I mentioned him in this column about the vaccine industry lobbyist Dorit Rubinstein Reiss a few years ago.
"What do these companies and their online advocates fear about data transparency?"
I think that is fairly obvious at this point. They have known all along that these products are unusually dangerous. How could they not? And after all of the lies, how can they do an about face now?
The most telling discourse is around VAERs, Yellow Card, and similar databases. The fact checks of claims regarding those databases are preposterous. They claim, credibly, that these are passive databases and thus cannot "prove" causation. But there is no question that inordinate amounts of serious side effects have been reported to these databases. Under these circumstances, the burden of proof is on the vaccinators, not the public, to disprove causation. Unless and until the vaccinators can prove that the inordinate number of severe effects reported in these databases is caused by some phenomenon other than inordinately dangerous vaccines, it is only reasonable to presume inordinately dangerous vaccines. Studies like this one, along with the Thai myocarditis study and others, suggest the vaccinators will never be able to meet this burden. As such, forcing these products on the public while lying about the dangers is nothing short of a crime against humanity.
It’s my moral duty to become a paying reader. For my kids. 🇨🇦🙏🏻
An interesting question is who funds these professional "skeptics" like Science Based Medicine. Clearly there are big corporations that benefit from the "debunking" of any criticism or even questioning of vaccines ( and other medications). Statins? Antidepressants? Alzheimers drugs? These are all massive markets that need to be protected.
There is a lot of death now? Just wait until we start seeing the effects after this new booster really rolls out. Dear God people don't take this crap.
To call these so called "fact checkers" - 'shills for hire' would be too kind. They are literally paid to engage in work which consists of disparaging scientific opinion and research found unacceptable by those entities who pay them. Perhaps "mercenaries" would be an appropriate label for their employment. Amoral propaganda mercenaries at that. They have blood on their hands.