The head of Facebook’s fake science fact check group, Science Feedback, is ‘hiding in Paris, terrified of appearing in court’

The following is an excerpt from The DisInformation Chronicle by Paul D. Thacker.

Emmanuel Vincent, President of Science Feedback

Emmanuel Vincent is a hunted man.

On June 24, an officer of the French Ministry of the Interior, acting under the terms of the Hague Convention, summoned him to a police station and served him papers to appear in court for posting false and misleading statements in his role as president of Science Feedback, a Facebook fact checking service.

On top of this, the beleaguered nonprofit has weathered multiple critiques for posting politicized, biased opinions that call themselves “fact checks”—including a Wall Street Journal editorial that called out Science Feedback for attacking Johns Hopkins physician-researcher Marty Makary, after he wrote an essay predicting the arrival of Covid-19 herd immunity.

“This is counter-opinion masquerading as fact checking,” the Wall Street Journal wrote, noting that Dr. Makary never made a factual claim; he had made a prediction based on his analysis of available evidence.

If you’re interested in falling down a science rabbit hole, feel free to read what Dr. Makary wrote and how Science Feedback responded. But here’s the thing, you don’t need a PhD in epidemiology to understand that when experts analyze studies and make predictions they might be wrong.

Man on the run

Back in August of 2020, Vincent was first served a legal complaint at the address for Science Feedback, at 40 Rue Alexandre Dumas, 75011, Paris, France. He was then served at a second address in Paris, 16, rue Cecile Furtado Heine.

By September 2020, a French legal agent learned that Vincent had registered Science Feedback at a different address in Paris.

He then called Mr. Vincent on his cell phone and delivered him the documents at a completely new address. (I think we’re now at four addresses) Vincent confirmed to the legal agent that he had already received the documents at one of the addresses, and then refused to sign a receipt.

The court documents were then translated into French, and sent to various addresses for Vincent and Science Feedback. Vincent was then sent certified translations of other legal proceedings against him, and by July of last year, the French Ministry of Justice attested that Vincent was served the documents under the Hague Convention.

According to a certified translation of the French Ministry documents, Ms. Marie Fonquerne, a judicial police officer, requested that Mr. Vincent appear at a police prefecture where he confirmed that he is president of Science Feedback. Vincent then agreed to accept correspondence at an email for Science Feedback, but then gave this weird explanation for why he could not accept the documents:

[I]t is the company SCIIVERIFY that works in partnership with FACEBOOK and not the association SCIENCE FEEDBACK. SCIVERIFY is a subsidiary of SCIENCE FEEDBACK and is located at 40 Rue Alexandre Dumas 75011 PARIS and it is who must be assigned, — I refuse to accept the act which is not addressed to the right entity.

Emmanuel Vincent

Vincent’s absurdist game of hide and seek has thus far cost over $17,000—as it required the hiring of French legal agents to personally hand-deliver him documents which he refused to sign, and the pursuit of service under the Hague Convention, in which he was summoned to a police station and once again refused to sign for documents.

Emmanuel Vincent did not respond to multiple requests for comment. What is this man afraid of?

Colluding with the government

If the federal government censored people for disagreeing with the National institutes of Health (NIH) or the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), that would obviously violate the First Amendment. Instead, the government outsources this censorship to Facebook.

Facebook provides censorship through a network of contract “fact checkers” like Science Feedback which receive some funding and training through Facebook and follow guidelines set up by Facebook for how to identify “false” information.

If you’re wondering what Facebook consider the baseline of scientific truth against which the measure other information as false, just check the websites of federal agencies such as the NIH or the CDC. Deviations from the government is likely to get a Science Feedback “fact check.”

Science Feedback has never once called out a media report or Twitter account for using the “conspiracy theory” label to attack the credibility of people questioning if the pandemic started from a lab accident in Wuhan, China.

Read Thacker’s entire substack article here.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

17 thoughts on “The head of Facebook’s fake science fact check group, Science Feedback, is ‘hiding in Paris, terrified of appearing in court’”

  1. Thanks Sharyl. I hope this nitwit purveyor of fake science gets his just reward. If he ever shows up. What a slimy coward he is.

  2. Just start the trial without him, and tell him if he want’s his side of the story to be on the record, he has to appear in person. Otherwise, we will assume his answers would be the worst possible to support his case.

  3. This is what We the people need to know! The conspiracies are real. The perpetrators hide in the shadows. The money is laundered. People suffer due to false information regarding health. And Sharyl Attkisson carries the torch for legit journalists. Thank you!

  4. Thank you so much, Sheryl! You are a true gem in a world of low-life scallywags (journalists). I will check out your store to see how to support your efforts. God bless you, my dear.
    PS: where do I meet a girl like you?

  5. This article contains this: “you don’t need a PhD in epidemiology to understand that when experts analyze studies and make predictions they might be wrong”. What this says to me is that, often, the experts are merely using the available data to predict what the proper future course of action might be. Their opinion might change because they have either misinterpreted the data or new data is gathered. Sounds more than reasonable to me.
    This argument is being used to defend Makary who, according to this article, “never made a factual claim; he had made a prediction based on his analysis of available evidence”. But where was this defense when many in the health community made predictions about the course of COVID when it was first emerging and there were all kinds of uncertainty about it? This newsletter even contained an article that compiled the list of things that public figures (Trump excluded) had gotten wrong about COVID. How many times have we heard about Fauci’s mistake in saying that mask wearing wasn’t necessary? And consider the number of articles in this newsletter which have pointed out that the original predictions for the effectiveness of the vaccine were overstated. Those predictions were based on the available data. I don’t recall any “they were just using the available data” explanations in those articles.
    The only conclusion that I can draw from these newsletter articles is that it’s OK to be wrong as long as you’re not agreeing with the general scientific consensus. If you are in agreement, then you are fair game to have everything you say be criticized and ridiculed.
    Note that the original article was published in February, 2021. If herd immunity was really achieved in April as that article predicted, how come so many people have died since then (variants, perhaps?)? If Fauci had made that prediction, my ears would still be ringing from the outrage (the fact that Trump DID make that prediction and none on that side have even bothered to mention it let alone criticize it tells you all you need to know about their bias – and the medical establishment has publicly corrected their claims when new evidence has come to light – Trump never has). And as far as I know, no one has called for Markay to be “locked up” or accused him of being in league with dark forces trying to enslave us all.
    Incidentally, I agree with Markay (assuming his data is correct). All he is doing is using the total number of confirmed cases (assuming that there are few repeat infections) and dividing by what he claims is the percentage of cases caught by testing and adding the percentage of the vaccinated population. Based on Markay’s data, that does indeed get you close to two-thirds. I don’t understand the rebuttal.
    The bottom line is the claim that the Facebook “fact checkers” are biased left. I think that there is enough evidence to support that (although it’s not really censorship). But is that any worse than not bothering to fact check the unsubstantiated claims of voter fraud so prevalent in this newsletter? Or, as noted above, fact checking the medical establishment and ignoring mistakes that Trump made? It all seems bad to me.
    Here’s another: “If the federal government censored people for disagreeing with the National institutes of Health (NIH) or the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), that would obviously violate the First Amendment. Instead, the government outsources this censorship to Facebook”. Can someone please inform Thacker (and SA since this is in her newsletter and the WSJ), that Facebook is a private company and, hence, the use of the term “censorship” is inappropriate and needlessly inflammatory (I can remember another article in which SA bemoaned authors going beyond “just the facts” and putting their opinions into their articles – clearly the intent of this statement is to claim that the government is knowingly forcing Facebook to take the actions that they have taken; Thacker is free to have that opinion but there are no facts in this article to back that up).

    1. this goes far deeper than ‘fact checking” specifics. Family Doctors were prohibited from doing early treatment if someone was diagnosed as having contracted Covid (and realize that the “test” for it generated huge false positives, and was never designed to be a diagnostic tool). This happened in the USA and in Canada–doctors were threatened with loss of their license to practise if they engaged in early treatment) The egregious part is that THERE EXISTED EARLY TREATMENT THAT WORKED EXTREMELY WELL. Trump is Exhibit A. Guiliani is Ex. B. and then Dan Bongino, and Joe Rogan, and many others not as famous.. Outliers whose doctors knew what they were doing and didnt give a rodents ass regarding the Regulators. And Ivermectin and Hydroxycloroquin were prohibited from being prescribed. And on and on. THIS WAS A COORDINATED HOAX BY THE GLOBALISTS AND THEIR SIDEKICKS AT THE W.H.O. They belong in prison or worse.

  6. Follow the money!

    “ fact checkers “ are groups of people PAID FOR PROPAGANDA!
    Zuck Bucks have polluted truth by forcing politicians movements into “ truth “ to brainwashing the masses into trusting “ big tech “ as Big Brother!

    It really boils down to who is to gain……….. Big Climate, Big Pharma,,, Big Government, orBig Defense Contractors!!!!

  7. Sheryl this article ? proves something lawmakers and the DOJ should be looking into the past recorded platforms and hardrive behaviour of all Big tech companies = Rogue employees violating user antitrust software settings and platforms. They need to send FBI seal teams in reviewing live past Goings on in all Big tech companies checking for antitrust violations ? example: I been catching my Andoid Google Chrome browser sethings disappearing virtual reality and arguments reality settings for users to shut off = disappearing then on occasions if you reset Chrome they may or not come back ? Malicious live activity coding putting systems at high risk ! in the past I have found Microsoft Windows in past messing with Users Privacy settings moving around Registry files and other secret Registery file changes .Rogue Employees I suspect violating antitrust. Good luck ???

Scroll to Top