Sharyl Attkisson

Untouchable Subjects. Fearless, Nonpartisan Reporting.

News

The Epoch Times targeted by smear campaign

The following is a news analysis.

I hadn't heard of The Epoch Times when it first crossed my radar in the past year or so.

I read some of their investigations and found them extremely in-depth, well researched and well sourced. Complex topics were also explained in a way far less arcane than other print publications.

I also noticed that The Epoch Times takes on topics and controversies without the typical slant. American readers are thirsty for such options. Since that time, I have contributed a few news articles to the publication.

Other readers have discovered The Epoch Times, as well. And its independence--the fact that it offers factually clean news coverage of various current events--has now made it a target.

Other news media-- utterly lacking in self-awareness-- have attacked The Epoch Times as if the publication is partisan or irresponsible. The attackers themselves exhibit an overtly partisan stance but do not seem to understand the irony. They see their own partisanship as acceptable. The norm. Or they believe it to be invisible.

The following is an article written by the publisher of The Epoch Times. It addresses continued alleged bias among media and social media for the sake of suppressing information that does not line up with certain agendas.

Meantime, you can check out The Epoch Times for yourself and make up your own mind.

Epoch Times Statement in Response to NBC Facebook Stories

We were surprised to learn from media reports that Facebook has blocked The Epoch Times’ ability to advertise for print subscriptions. This appears to be a response to NBC News’ reporting on us.

Despite a vast “dark money” political conspiracy alleged in NBC News reporting, the reality is much simpler. 

The Epoch Times has been running a very popular digital marketing campaign for our print-newspaper subscriptions. In the video advertisements, we discuss The Epoch Times’ editorial and feature content and encourage people to subscribe to our print newspaper.

Facebook has specific rules for advertising that require everyone—including publishers like The Epoch Times—to label content as political advertising if it touches on social issues or politics, something some news content naturally does. Many other media run advertising campaigns for their content and products in the same category on Facebook.

For example, click here to see Facebook advertisements by The New York Times in that category.

And click here to see Facebook advertisements by CNN in that category.

Facebook blocked our ability in July to advertise on our main Epoch Times page, and didn’t provide us with a reason despite multiple requests for clarification. We have no reason to believe this is due to the content of the ads, as they were all approved by Facebook.

Since then, The Epoch Times has published its advertising on a number of other, new Facebook pages. Without exception, these ads are overtly Epoch Times advertisements for our subscriptions. And there is no secret there, since it’s all public. 

Just as with our ads on our own Facebook page, every single advertisement went through Facebook’s review process and was approved and placed in the appropriate category before running.

NBC’s representation of our print-subscription advertisements is blatantly incorrect. None of our advertising was done to “obfuscate” the connection to The Epoch Times; all the advertising was clearly for Epoch Times print subscriptions. (Continued...)

Read the rest of the story in The Epoch Times by clicking the link below:

https://www.theepochtimes.com/epoch-times-statement-in-response-to-nbc-facebook-stories_3053492.html

Support Attkisson v. DOJ and FBI

Seven of nine Supreme Court justices greenlight Trump policy limiting asylum seekers

By David Dugan, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=60011911

Two liberal-appointed justices sided with five conservative-appointed justices tonight in allowing a Trump administration asylum policy to be implemented while challenges work through the court system.

The White House win means that for now, people seeking asylum in the U.S. must seek safe haven in the first "safe" country they arrive in.

That effectively means that immigrants traveling from Central America who pass through Mexico will have to seek asylum in Mexico rather than farther north in the United States.

The decision rolls back a lower-court ruling intended to block the policy in some southern border states.

BIG United States Supreme Court WIN for the Border on Asylum!

President Donald Trump tweet, Wed. Sept. 11, 2019

The liberal-leaning judges who went along with the conservative-leaning majority are Elana Kagan and Stephen Breyer.

The two dissenting justices who disagreed with the court's decision are liberal-leaning Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Once again, the Executive Branch has issued a rule that seeks to upend longstanding practices regarding refugees who seek shelter from persecution.

Sonia Sotomayor, U.S. Supreme Court Justice

[We are] pleased that the Supreme Court intervened in this case... This action will assist the Administration in its objectives to bring order to the crisis at the southern border, close loopholes in our immigration system, and discourage frivolous claims.

Alexei Woltornist, Department of Justice spokesman

If you're interested in a timeline regarding this topic, read more by clicking here.

Fight government overreach and double-standard justice by supporting the Attkisson Fourth Amendment Litigation Fund for Attkisson v. DOJ and FBI for the government computer intrusions. Click here.

Google under investigation in nearly every state

Forty-eight states, Washington D.C. and Puerto Rico have launched joint investigations into Google for alleged violations of antitrust law.

Attorney Generals in Texas and Washington, D.C. are leading the way in the probe honing in on Google's dominance as an internet search engine and advertiser.

We have 50 attorneys general from across the nation who are involved in this investigation that we're leading from Texas. [Google] is a company that dominates all aspects of advertising on the internet and searching on the internet as they dominate the buyers' side, the sellers' side, the auction side and even the video side with YouTube.

Ken Paxton, Texas Attorney General

California and Alabama are the only two states that have not joined in the effort. California is the home base for Google, its parent company Alphabet, Inc., and other tech giants.

In the last presidential election, Alphabet was a top contributor to both Democrat Hillary Clinton and Socialist Democrat Bernie Sanders. Alphabet's CEO at the time, Eric Schmidt, was a Clinton volunteer and adviser.

Prior to the election, Google funded a new nonprofit, First Draft, that first introduced the popular use of the phrase "fake news" and led the effort to convince the public that news should be "curated" by third parties.

Ultimately, Donald Trump co-opted the "fake news" phrase.

This past week, Full Measure with Sharyl Attkisson highlighted the high-stakes lobbying efforts by Google and other big tech companies facing scrutiny over their dominance, privacy practices and alleged bias. You can watch that report here.

To read more about the investigation, click the link below:

https://thehill.com/policy/technology/460550-states-launch-antitrust-investigation-into-google

Fight government overreach and double-standard justice by supporting the Attkisson Fourth Amendment Litigation Fund for Attkisson v. DOJ and FBI for the government computer intrusions. Click here.

MRI dye safety warnings: what you need to know but probably don't

  • After our first report, Europe and Japan banned most uses and types of the most problematic gadolinium MRI dyes.
  • The FDA decided not to issue a ban in the U.S. saying benefits outweigh risks.
  • The FDA issued a warning, instead.
  • The FDA says there's more risk with Omniscan or OptiMARK than Eovist, Magnevist, or MultiHance.
Chuck and Gena Norris, and two of their children

Since 2017, I've reported on the increasing safety issues surrounding some commonly-used MRI dye known as "gadolinium." I told the story with help from the wife of Chuck Norris who almost died from gadolinium toxicity after a series of MRIs.

After my initial report on Full Measure, the questionable dyes were banned in many countries. However, the FDA chose instead to issue a warning.

The problem is, not many people have heard of the warning and it's not easy to find on the FDA website, as I reported.

Many doctors are also unaware. One expert explained to me that the medical doctors who refer patients for MRIs count on the radiologist to know about the dye warnings and risks. However, the radiologists who do know typically don't see or consult with the patients, so the information is not transmitted.

My Full Measure story below is the only place I know of where the safety information-- by brand, according to the FDA-- is easily accessible.

You can watch the video at the end of the text below.

Three decades of scientific thought regarding the safety of dye commonly used in MRIs has been upended but odds are you haven't heard much about it. Today we begin with an important follow up to a story we first brought you last year. We told the distressing case of Chuck Norris and his wife Gena, who became critically ill after her MRIs. After our original report aired, health bodies in the U.S. and many other countries made major changes. So why don't you know more about them?

Chuck Norris and his wife Gena are now suing McKesson Corporation and other companies related to gadolinium MRI dye. Dozens of gadolinium poisoning claims have been filed nationwide.

Gena Norris: I want to try this case in the public because they would love for it to remain in the shadows and not be talked about.

Chuck Norris: Windy today, but it's beautiful.

We first told you their story last June. Their nightmare began when Gena had three MRIs in one week to evaluate her rheumatoid arthritis and ended up in the ER over and over.

Gena Norris: And by the fourth, fifth, sixth night, the burning just kept traveling and I would go in and they'd say, well what's wrong with you? And I'm like I, I don't know. I don't feel good. And I'm just, I'm burning. I, that's all I can tell you is I'm burning all over. I feel like I have acid everywhere in my tissues, I'm just, I'm on fire.

Doctors didn't consider that Gena might have been poisoned by gadolinium, the toxic heavy metal in the dye injected into her for the MRIs. After researching scientific literature and connecting to patients online, Gena told her husband she knew what was wrong.

Gena Norris: When we got to the hospital in Houston, I said I'm only going to be able to tell you one time this last time and I need you to listen to me very closely. I have been poisoned with gadolinium or by gadolinium and we don't have much time to figure out how to get this out of my body or I am going to die.

Chuck Norris: I can take her anywhere in the world. I'm blessed enough to have the money to do that, but where do I take her?

They only found help with alternative medicine doctors who discovered Gena's gadolinium levels were literally off the charts. Healing has taken several years and two million dollars of treatments not covered by insurance. We caught up with the Norris' again at their Texas ranch where Gena is still in intensive treatment.

Gena Norris: Like I've said before, we're all broken. We are broken. If I were to stop any of those things with gadolinium deposition disease, it's lurking in my body and it talks to me. If I am exposed to things or under too much stress, I can feel very, very symptomatic. But I'm still healing.

Sharyl Attkisson: If you had to explain in just a paragraph or so what this lawsuit is about, what would you say?

Todd Walburg: This lawsuit is about a big cover up by the drug companies that has resulted in a whole population of people who had been poisoned by Gadolinium. There's internal documents that go back decades that show that the companies knew about the risks of Gadolinium.

Todd Walburg is the Norris' attorney. He attended an FDA safety meeting that was scheduled shortly after our story aired; one advocates had pressed for for years. Gena's case was brought up.

Voice of FDA Advisor Alicia Toledano: The disconnect noted in Gena Norris' statement is so true all across this country every single day.

Todd Walburg: At the conclusion of that September hearing, there was a vote held and the FDA committee voted 13 to one in favor of requiring additional warnings.

The only "no" vote came from one FDA adviser who said the recommended warnings weren't strong enough.

Alicia Toledano: When a patient finally does get tested and is found to have gadolinium retention, but there is no FDA approved antidote. What does that patient do?

There's been a dramatic evolution in thought since MRI dye was introduced 30 years ago. Doctors and the FDA used to insist gadolinium was quickly urinated out of the body. But in 2006, internal FDA documents show, scientists recognized gadolinium was linked to a deadly disease that causes thickening and tightening of the skin and organs: nephrogenic systemic fibrosis or NSF. In 2007, the FDA added a serious "black box" warning, but only for patients with weak kidneys. In 2010, an expanded warning about repeat MRIs. Then, in 2015, the FDA also acknowledged, there could be risks to people with normal kidneys.

FDA video: Recent studies conducted in people and animals have confirmed that gadolinium can remain in the brain even in individuals with normal kidney function. Available information does not identify any adverse health effects.

By then, injured patients like Sharon Williams were networking online. She had five MRIs with gadolinium over several years and got sicker each time.

Support Attkisson v. DOJ and FBI

Sharon Williams: So my symptoms got dramatically worse after dose 4. We thought there had to be something wrong with my brain, so I had dose 5 for a brain MRI. And literally all hell broke loose after that. I mean, it was terrible.

Sharyl Attkisson: Meaning what?

Sharon Williams: Meaning that's when all the symptoms went crazy. I mean, I couldn't begin to tell you how severe some of the symptoms were as far as pain, spasms, problems with my blood pressure.

Sharyl Attkisson: How did you figure out it was this gadolinium?

Sharon Williams: In 2014, I had part of my thyroid gland removed and gadolinium was in it, 51 months after my last MRI.

Williams contacted the FDA regularly starting in 2012, presenting scientific research and asking for help, only to be told the matter was under study.

It's taken years for major health bodies to acknowledge major issues. In May of last year, the FDA stepped up warnings again, saying gadolinium is not only retained in the brain but in body organs, too. But it downplayed any risks. Shortly after, Europe and Japan banned most uses and types of the most problematic gadolinium dyes. The FDA decided on a different approach last December, deciding not to issue a ban in the U.S.; insisting gadolinium benefits outweigh any risks. Instead, the FDA ordered new safety studies. According to the FDA, the bigger problem occurs with the types of dyes called "linear," which stay in the body longer and in larger amounts. The FDA says there's more risk with Omniscan or OptiMARK than Eovist, Magnevist, or MultiHance. The lowest levels remain in the body after Dotarem, Gadavist and ProHance, according to the FDA.

You might think all of this would make national headlines since MRIs are so common. There are 30 million MRIs in the US each year. But we had to hunt pretty hard to find the latest safety information on the FDA website. It wasn't on the main MRI page. When we clicked over to MRI safety, it wasn't there either. And it didn't show up when we searched "MRI dye safety" or "MRI dye." We finally found it when we searched "Gadolinium safety."

Gadolinium manufacturers say they're following all FDA recommendations. Some are phasing out so-called "linear" gadolinium dyes. The makers firmly deny any cover up and say they've taken action and followed FDA rules as soon as they've learned of any safety concerns.

The Norris' say the FDA hasn't done enough.

Gena Norris: Well, they made some acknowledgement. They've moved the needle a little bit, but they haven't moved it enough.

Sharyl Attkisson: Some people think because your name is on this cause, that's what's helped it get attention and maybe that's what even helped spur the FDA action after so many years.

Chuck Norris: I really don't think so. I think it's her because she had a good way of explaining what is going on. I am just her companion. I am trying to keep her healthy and that's what I've been doing for five years.

Gena Norris: Five years. Five Years.

Chuck Norris: But the thousands of others who can't afford this, and this is what bothers me is seeing, see, I'm so grateful for my wife, but I want to see these people being taken care of too.

Gena Norris: I don't need this stress, but it's become so personal to the victims, that either died or that are suffering in silence and that don't have a voice. Thankfully we have a platform and as far as I'm concerned, I'll be their worst nightmare until they do the right thing. I'm not going away. I'm just, I'm not going away.

McKesson told us that since it distributes but doesn't manufacture gadolinium, it's never been involved in the FDA-approval process.

Watch the video by clicking the link below:

http://fullmeasure.news/news/cover-story/mri-changes-08-07-2018

Support Attkisson v. DOJ and FBI

2020 Polls-- and a trip down short-term memory lane

At this time four years ago, Donald Trump stood just about where Democrat Tulsi Gabbard is: 1-2%. So why are some in the media pretending current polls reflect what will really happen in Nov. 2020? Are they using polls to try to shape public opinion rather than measure it?

Fight government overreach and double-standard justice by supporting the Attkisson Fourth Amendment Litigation Fund for Attkisson v. DOJ and FBI for the government computer intrusions. Click here.

Foreign dating site defrauds Americans out of millions

  • New Jersey man faces charges.
  • One alleged victim took her own life.

Crooks used online dating sites to defraud dozens of love-seeking victims to the tune of millions of dollars.

That's according to the U.S. prosecutors who arrested a 35-year old New Jersey man, Rubbin Sarpong.

According to the U.S. Attorney's office, Sarpong and his partners-in- alleged-crime launched their scheme in 2016. They reportedly used stolen or fake identities to pretend to be U.S. soldiers stationed overseas and established profiles on online dating sites. They became romantically involved using the web and then asked their victims for money, say officials.

Several of the alleged conspirators live in Ghana, West Africa.

The photos below were released in the criminal complaint against Sarpong and published by NBC News.

Rubbin Sarpong
According to the criminal complaint, Rubbin Sarpong posted photos of himself on Instagram with large stacks of cash in April 2018, left, and on March 2, 2017, right.U.S. Attorney's Office

Authorities say one woman took her own life after wiring $93,000 to various banks. In all, more than 30 victims are said to have lost more than two million dollars in the scheme.

Sarpong could face up to 20 years in prison.

Read more about the case in the press release about the criminal complaint by clicking the link below.

https://www.justice.gov/usao-nj/press-release/file/1199341/download

Support the fight against government overreach in Attkisson v. DOJ and FBI for the government computer intrusions.
Thanks to the thousands who have already supported!

Most say current polls about 2020 are "pretty inaccurate"

A strong majority of respondents say current polls about the 2020 race are not to be believed.

That's according to the latest poll at SharylAttkisson.com.

Eighty-seven percent (87%) said such polls are "pretty inaccurate."

Only two percent of those asked say they think the polls are "pretty accurate."

The full results are below. Meantime vote in our new poll on the home page of SharylAttkisson.com. Look for the black box on the right sidebar or scroll way down on the mobile site!

I think current polls about 2020 race are:

2% Pretty accurate

87% Pretty inaccurate

11% I don't know/don't care

Support Attkisson v. DOJ and FBI

Campaign 2020... and a trip down short-term memory lane

The following is an excerpt from an article in The Hill

As the presidential battle among Democrats heats up, there are new polls and predictions every day as to how it will turn out. A recent Marquette University Law poll finds both former vice president Joe Biden and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) would beat President Trump in Wisconsin.

Some news reporters and pundits seem to use polls to try to shape public opinion, rather than report on a snapshot in time.

“Biden is the only Democrat who can beat Trump,” say some. “All the polls show him in first place.” Everyone else might as well hang it up.

“Biden is doomed as a candidate,” insist others. He should bow out.

Sens. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.)? Too far left. Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii)? Not left enough. Former congressman Beto O’Rourke (D-Texas)? Dead in the water.

Or, how about this recent finding from Quinnipiac University: Every top major Democrat beats Trump by at least nine points.

It’s time for a friendly intervention — in the form of a look back at some predictions and punditry about this time in Campaign 2016. We’ll call it a trip down short-term memory lane. Many polls ultimately turned out to be poor predictors — early and often.

Going back to May of 2015, a Quinnipiac poll found Donald Trump topped the “no way” list among Republicans, with 21 percent of GOP voters saying they would definitely not support him.

And on June 22, 2015, an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll put Trump at 1 percent, behind 10 Republican candidates: former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, former Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, retired surgeon Ben Carson, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, former Texas Gov. Rick Perry, Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and businesswoman Carly Fiorina. The same poll put Trump at rock bottom among 16 candidates when Republican voters were asked: “Could you see yourselves supporting this candidate?”

On June 24, 2015, Politico’s Daniel Strauss tried to tamp down fears that Trump actually could be a winner. “Whispers of a Trump surge are making the rounds,” wrote Strauss. “It might be wise to take a deep breath. … Nationally, Trump’s polling has been on the decline.” Strauss quoted a Suffolk University pollster as saying Trump’s favorable polling means people have seen him on TV but, “That doesn’t mean they’re going to vote for him. … Everybody should calm down.” 

Former New Hampshire Republican Party chairman Fergus Cullen declared there was “no visible grassroots movement for Trump” in New Hampshire. And Patrick Murray, director of the Monmouth University Polling Institute, said, “At the end of the day, it’s quite possible that Donald Trump will get 11 percent in New Hampshire, but that might be his cap.” (Trump won the Republican primary in New Hampshire with just over 35 percent of the vote.)

Read the article by clicking the link below:

https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/460458-campaign-2020-a-trip-down-short-term-memory-lane

Fight improper government surveillance. Support Attkisson v. DOJ and FBI over the government computer intrusions of Attkisson's work while she was a CBS News investigative correspondent. Visit the Attkisson Fourth Amendment Litigation Fund. Click here.