The following is a news analysis
This is a dangerous time, indeed, when self-proclaimed fact checkers and curators are permitted to control information in the name of what they claim is the public good.
This trend was relatively unheard of prior to 2016. Until that time, the shaping and censoring was largely done in an invisible way. Nobody admitted to it because the public wouldn't have stood for it.
But a successful propaganda campaign I've described in my books The Smear and Slanted aimed to convince many in the public to accept third parties telling us what we can cannot know or see.
Obviously, corporate and political interests are behind the efforts, using them to keep the public from seeing or hearing information that is contrary to their paid interests.
This helps explain a lot about Facebook's indefensible censorship of a factual investigation published in the prestigious British Medical Journal.
The article by Paul Thacker exposed alleged poor practices and quality control issues during Pfizer's Covid-19 vaccine studies based on whistleblower documentation.
According to the article:
A regional director who was employed at the research organisation Ventavia Research Group has told The BMJ that the company falsified data, unblinded patients, employed inadequately trained vaccinators, and was slow to follow up on adverse events reported in Pfizer’s pivotal phase III trial. Staff who conducted quality control checks were overwhelmed by the volume of problems they were finding. After repeatedly notifying Ventavia of these problems, the regional director, Brook Jackson, emailed a complaint to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Ventavia fired her later the same day. Jackson has provided The BMJ with dozens of internal company documents, photos, audio recordings, and emails.Paul Thacker, British Medical Journal
Of course this bombshell information is not what vaccine industry interests and their supporters in government and media wanted to be seen. (Pfizer has always denied any wrongdoing. Pfizer, the FDA and CDC all say all vaccines in use in the U.S. are safe and effective.)
Pretty soon, Facebook began labeling the story as potentially misleading, and limiting the ability of people to share it.
Now, the British Medical Journal is calling out the fake fact checkers at Facebook, called "Lead Stories," stating the following:
∙ [Lead Stories' Facebook fact check] fails to provide any assertions of fact that The BMJ article got wrong
∙ It has a nonsensical title: “Fact Check: The British Medical Journal Did NOT Reveal Disqualifying And Ignored Reports Of Flaws In Pfizer COVID-19 Vaccine Trials”
∙ The first paragraph inaccurately labels The BMJ a “news blog”
∙ It contains a screenshot of our article with a stamp over it stating “Flaws Reviewed,” despite the Lead Stories article not identifying anything false or untrue in The BMJ article
∙ It published the story on its website under a URL that contains the phrase “hoax-alert”
Note The BMJ editors contacted Lead Stories but they stand resolute that they are not incorrect. Now Facebook flags The BMJ article.
Facebook's fake science fact checkers have likewise, repeatedly, flagged factual reporting by this reporter as if it lacks context or is somehow misleading when it is not. It usually involves factual information that would be seen by the vaccine industry as harmful to its interests.
It's pretty easy to guess who is behind this fact checking propaganda.
How to fight back?
When Facebook or other self-appointed censors, curators and fact checkers deem information untouchable or say you should not be able to view and consider it, it should motivate you to seek out that information and learn more. It should key you in on the idea that powerful interests are behind the censorship. It should prompt you to ask, "Who doesn't want me to see this, and why?"
Sometimes the bigger truths can be found in those answers.
Stephen Triesch says
I seem to recall that about three months ago, Facebook or YouTube would not allow any anti-vaccine content, preemptively dismissing any anti-vaccine article or video as "misinformation." In other words, even if the information were demonstrably true, they would not allow it. What does that say about their intelligence and their integrity?
Your recommendation is exactly how I became a Rush Limbaugh listener and regular reader of course you, John Solomon, and Dr. Mercola
John C Hall says
Two comments :
Follow the money (and there's a lot of it);
FDA is "Stonewall"ing on releasing information on these vaccines. (Read Sharyl's book "Stonewalled".)
lol...follow the money...how true that ends up being...