Thursday, August 20, 2020

Fact-checking Fantasies, or how Google, Facebook and other big data companies outsource lying

If you were trying to watch the documentary Plandemic 2: Indoctornation after someone sent you a link on Facebook, you probably found it impossible. According to Forbes,
Users who attempted to share the link were met with a warning message stating the URL to the video goes against Facebook’s community guidelines because it contained “COVID-19 claims that our fact-checking partners have repeatedly rated false.”
Yesterday I received a phone call from demanding I answer a myriad of questions about the facts and opinions I expressed in the documentary Plandemic 2: Indoctornation, which had been released hours earlier.  I referred the caller to my blog posts for documentation supporting what I had said.  I then looked up's funding, most of which came from Facebook and Google during the past year ($423,745) and past quarter ($187,265). 

It seems that those who "check" the "facts" did not actually check any facts, because they were all working off the identical script, which they dutifully regurgitated, to smear me and the film.  Who gave them all the same talking points, which were outdated and fail to acknowledge the current controversy among scientists, intel professionals and others regarding the provenance of the SARS-2 virus? 

Politics406AFPcheckyourfacthealthfeedbackTechTimes, Factcheck and Politifact all reference the exact same March article in Nature Medicine (that I and others debunked at the time), which claimed to prove SARS-CoV-2 came from a bat. The NatureMed authors used a straw man argument that essentially said, if we were going to design a lethal coronavirus, we would have done it this way.  But it wasn't done that way, so it came from a bat and not a lab. Please ignore the fact we have been unable to find a similar virus in bats, and we certainly cannot explain why this virus is so much better adapted to humans than bats. Trust us anyway. 

This is the best argument that can be made for a natural origin?  Yet it has been used to ban my appearance, the film Plandemic 2, and discussion of the film from many platforms. 

The link Checkyourfact uses to claim scientific consensus, in fact discusses the scientific disagreement on the origin of the virus.  And while the Office of the Director of National Intelligence said  at one time it believed the virus came from nature, it backtracked shortly afterward, raising the possibility it came from a lab. Sir Richard Dearlove (former head of Britain's MI6) raised the lab hypothesis in the same story Checkyourfact linked to, to support its claim of consensus regarding the natural origin theory. Fact checkers don't have enough time to check their own facts apparently.

Who gave all these so-called fact-checking sites the identical set of talking points? And could this level of coordination be evidence of a conspiracy to suppress the film and smear those appearing in it?  How is it that such shoddy fact-checking by "partners" is sufficient to ban and shadowban the film in most major outlets, including Facebook and Reddit?

UPDATE:  A tweet from Professor Richard Ebright from February was used as evidence against a lab origin in one of the fact-check articles.  Professor Ebright has since clarified his opinion that the virus could have come from a lab with the following:

"Professor Richard Ebright of the Waksman Institute of Microbiology at Rutgers University in New Jersey was dismissive of the Dalgleish-Sorensen paper but he took issue with Professor Andersen's piece in Nature too, describing it as opinion.

"The op-ed's conclusion that SARS-CoV-2 genome shows no signatures of purposeful human manipulation is correct," he said in an email exchange.
[Professor Ebright is referring to the article I challenged in March and April, which was mentioned by every one of the fact-check pieces to claim I was wrong.--Nass]

"The absence of signatures rules out the possibility the virus was engineered using methods that leave signatures. However, the absence of signatures of manipulation does not rule out the possibility the virus was engineered using widely employed - including at WIV - methods that do not leave signatures. The op-ed does not even address the possibility that an unpublished WIV bat coronavirus… could be the progenitor of SARS-CoV-2."

UPDATE:  Just in case you still do not think there is a conspiracy to suppress the documentary, here is what Politifact wrote:

Soon after the live feed started, Facebook blocked its users from sharing the link in posts and private messages. TikTok appeared to block searches for the term "Plandemic." Twitter added a warning message saying the link is "potentially spammy or unsafe." Still, according to CrowdTangle, a social media insights tool, Facebook and Instagram posts with the term "Plandemic" have received tens of thousands of combined interactions since Aug. 17...
Tens of millions of people saw the shorter [Plandemic] video before social media platforms removed it for violating their policies against harmful COVID-19 misinformation. This version hasn’t received as many views, because the tech platforms were expecting it.

Politifact is owned by the Poynter Foundation.  While Poynter claims to share its tax returnsthe section of the return where contributors must be listed is blank.  Poynter does acknowledge Facebook having contributed over 5% of revenue elsewhere on its website.

Update:  On August 23 USAToday factcheck uses the identical argument as the 6 fact-check sites to insist on a natural origin of coronavirus, citing the Nature Medicine commentary and the Lancet letter, both of which I debunked in March and April. Like the 6 sites, USAT criticizes me for not explaining in the film the reasons I think the virus came from a lab.  Never mind that I have provided those reasons at length in my blog here here here  here here here here and here (using USAT as the source for the last post), and gave that information to the single fact-checker who called me. My reasoning, which all 7 of these organizations criticized me for not providing, is certainly not hiding, and has been detailed by me for the past 5 months. 

1 comment:

John said...

Imagine airliner flying low into pentagon mere feet above ground largely vanishing where if improbability flying mere feet somehow flew when expert pilots say too hard to flying mere ~6 feet above surface if somehow did where is the plane when aluminum impacts cement stone pentagon wall crashing slowing fast aluminum wings if not falling off nowhere to see how flew through wall of pentagon disappearing without facts in science explanations when science facts indicate airplane parts massively all over the place?

If nay a or any airplane few parts, luggage, bodies, seats in sight all taken tapped over as if in another dimensional social distancing requirements somehow risky at 5.5 feet rather then 6 feet under risks for live savers death risks with 2nd class masks for moms no n95 are not for your moms or loved ones, no no!

Required in Tahoe casinos 2nd class masks except if Martini ordered from drink hostesses currently for ladies & gentlemen where you may remove masks while in Tahoe casinos drinking margaritas in margaritaville or what have you that you like to drink or drinking George Burns double vodka martinis with olives recall preference Smirnoff Red in home bar 1990s vodka waiting for his lovely bride Gracie to say Good Night!!

Autism booming questions without concern to see who cares? Moms of children grandmas if in 19 amendment GOP could repeal outcomes we goofed? Severe autism doesn’t go unnoticed as some would claim doctors didn’t see notice it before 1980s or diagnosis as something else, what would severe autism come under before 1980s? While not sure what other diagnoses terminology certainly could not of gone unnoticed in severe cases everyone notices severity even if blind and deaf could notice easily! Went dining out and everyone in restaurant with person teenager dining suffering with severe case of autism uncontrollable symptoms loud and clear, never forget certainly!! Some experts reporting genetically linked autism vulnerabilities risks facilitated with vaccines ingredients begging further investigation when so serious especially uncontrollable severe symptoms impossible seeing unnoticed in persons in fact unheard of rarely any cases prior to 1980s booming in many countries while in some countries autism repotting not booming stable stats, STAT?

Ja Na Sais Quoi

Je Taime Jane Birkin e Serge Gainsbourg