FactCheck ORG Bias in funding by group with 1.9B in Johnson & Johnson Stock
Factcheck.org responsible for preforming independent fact checks and censoring scientific dissent; which describes themselves as a “nonpartisan, nonprofit ‘consumer advocate’ for voters that aims to reduce the level of deception and confusion in U.S. politics.” is not as “independent” or unbias as it alleges…US Rep. Thomas Massie revealed through documents obtained legally, that the Facebook partnered COVID-19 fact checker Factcheck.org is funded by a group that holds $1.9 Billion in Johnson and Johnson Stock, and is headed by the former director of the Centers for Disease Control; demonstrates a FactCheck Org bias that should concern public health officials.
Johnson & Johnson as we know is a manufacturer of a COVID-19 vaccines. And factcheck.org is one of the main fact check organizations, chiefly responsible on facebook for fact checking and posts on COVID-19 vaccines or treatments, which it considers “misinformation”. But who exactly determines what is “misinformation”? Considering factcheck.org has fact checked experts like Dr. Robert Malone regarding mRNA vaccines, and Dr. Pierre Kory regarding Ivermectin. In fact it has even gone as far as to fact check vaccine injuries posted on Facebook as misinformation.
So what we have is an organization fact checking expert doctors including virologists and epidemiologists, way above it’s own pay grade, and it has a conflict of interest influencing it’s fact checking operations. So who fact checks publications influenced by a factcheck org bias? Well in this case it’s US government officials.
In many countries conflicts of interest in government or public health regulatory agencies is a criminal offence, as it is in America and Canada; the difficulty comes in finding and proving those conflicts of interest, and then taking offenders to court. Especially when big pharma’s wallet far outweighs yours; it’s the lets fight in court until one wallet drains the other scenario…We know that courts are a place for justice, but as we’ve come to learn over time, the degree of justice often has a price tag associated with it, and winning a court case against a multi-billion dollar big pharma company, requires well…a multi-million dollar budget.
“COVID-19/Vaccination Project is made possible by a grant from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation,”factcheck.org website
“Bless your heart if you think factcheck.org is an unbiased source of vaccine information”Thomas Massie
SciCheck is the division of the FactCheck website responsible for fact checking what it considers “false and misleading scientific claims made by partisans to influence public policy.” However in the COVID-19 pandemic SciCheck has become a chief resource for stomping scientific dissent through “debunking” criticism of: covid-19 vaccines, masks, mandates or lockdowns, and even effective alternative treatments for COVID-19 like Ivermectin. Due to SciCheck’s Fact Checking, we at woke guru have witnessed valid studies from medical journals, and verified vaccine injuries fact checked, censored and deleted across the web.
However FactCheck.org is not limited to fact checking Facebook, they will discredit any doctor or study that graces the web, and not one criticism of the mainstream narrative escapes their fact checking militia, or that of their counterparts. I sometimes wonder how members of organizations like factcheck.org and those who author the fact checks to silence scientific dissent, can sleep at night knowing their censoring of scientific dissent is responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of people…Just because you aren’t the one designing or injecting experimental vaccines into people, doesn’t mean you’re any less responsible.
For example the factchecking campaign against Ivermectin smearing it as a dangerous horse paste, when dozens upon dozens of studies and clinical trials of hundreds of thousands of people, has shown it to be effective against COVID-19 as a preventative tool and in early treatment.
Imagine how many tens of thousands of lives could have been saved, had factcheck.org “followed the science” and endorsed posts by doctors showing effectiveness of this life saving drug, rather then trying to censor them with “fact check – false” warnings?
Factcheck ORG Bias | SciCheck Division headed by Richard E Besser
The CEO and president of the group that funds the SciCheck arm of the FactCheck.org site, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF), is Richard E. Besser, who has led RWJF since April 2017. His bio on the RWJF website explains that “Besser is the former acting director for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.”
“Richard Besser, MD, is president and CEO of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF), a position he assumed in April 2017. Rich is the former acting director for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and ABC News’ former chief health and medical editor.”
“Before joining ABC News in 2009, Rich worked as director of the Coordinating Office for Terrorism Preparedness and Emergency Response at the CDC. In that role he was responsible for all the CDC’s public health emergency preparedness and emergency response activities. He also served as acting director of the CDC from January to June 2009, during which time he led the CDC’s response to the H1N1 influenza pandemic.”RWJF.org
Although the CDC has refuted allegations of bias by Rep. Massie, it hasn’t addressed the potential conflict of interest resulting from it’s head Richard E Besser, having been former director of the CDC.
Corruption in the CDC
The CDC has a sordid history and has been criticized for numerous conflicts of interest and unethical practices. The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) published an editorial in 2020 on “Bias and Disturbing Conflicts of Interest” at the CDC, and stated:
“In 2016 a group of more than a dozen senior scientists at the CDC lodged an ethics complaint alleging that that the CDC was being influenced ‘by corporate and political interests in ways that shortchange taxpayers.’ They noted ‘the pervasive nature of unethical practices throughout all levels at the CDC,’”
“The CDC accepts millions of dollars in “conditional funding” from entities, including pharmaceutical corporations. Conditional donations are donations that are specifically earmarked for specific projects”CDC BIAS and Disturbing Conflicts of Interest –Association of American Physicians and Surgeons AAPS
“The CDC has a long history of bias and troubling conflicts of interest. This history calls into question the scientific validity of recommendations made by the CDC.”Editor-in-chief of the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, Lawrence R. Huntoon, M.D., Ph.D
A good part of the growing corruption within the CDC can be attributed to some legal changes which allowed it to accept donations, which opened the gates to corporate influence and financial conflicts of interest.
“As donations to the CDC Foundation started pouring in, the door to conflicts of interest and corruption was opened wide. The CDC accepts millions of dollars in ‘conditional funding’ from entities, including pharmaceutical corporations. This funding is ‘earmarked for specific projects,’”Editor-in-chief of the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, Lawrence R. Huntoon, M.D., Ph.D
CDC and pharmaceutical diagnostics company Roche for the Take 3 flu campaign | FactCheck ORG Bias
In the CDC BIAS and Disturbing Conflicts of Interest article it lists one of the conflicts of interest in the CDC’s past, when the CDC “accepted conditional funding” from the pharmaceutical and diagnostics company Roche “for the Take 3 flu campaign.” The CDC thereafter cited a study sponsored by Roche in support of its recommendation of influenza antiviral drugs (e.g. oseltamivir), claiming the study was independent. However as the article states that was not the case:
“All four authors had financial ties to Roche, Genentech, or Gilead (the first two sell oseltamivir and Gilead holds the patent),”CDC BIAS and Disturbing Conflicts of Interest –Association of American Physicians and Surgeons AAPS
Robert Kennedy Jr. calls out the CDC for corruption
“The CDC is actually a vaccine company,”Robert Kennedy Jr in RT Interview 2020
But Robert Kennedy Jr doesn’t stop there, noting that of the CDCs approx $11M budget over $5M of that is used to buy vaccines from it’s sweetheart companies.
“The CDC has a total budget of about $11 billion a year, and $5 billion of that buying vaccines from those four companies making sweetheart deals. And then they distribute those vaccines to the American public,”
“The CDC also owns patents on many of the vaccines. In fact across the HHS, which is the mother agency (of) FDA, CDC and NIH, which all regulate vaccines, different parts of the vaccine industry are all parts of HHS, and those agencies are allowed to hold patents on the vaccines that their scientists work on, and then collect royalties.”
“And in fact, officials in those agencies, who worked on the vaccines, can also own part of the patent and collect royalties of up to $150,000 a year. So every bottle of Gardasil that is sold, HHS is making money on it. They make tens of millions of dollars a year.”
“And these are zero liability products. No matter how toxic the ingredient, no matter how grievous your injury no matter how negligent the company, you can’t sue them. They can do anything they want with a vaccine and you can’t do anything about it,”Robert Kennedy Jr in RT Interview 2020
Even factcheck.org on their own website admits they rely on the corrupt CDC for much of their fact checks
“In researching claims, we rely on primary sources of information, such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Food and Drug Administration and National Academy of Sciences…For SciCheck articles, for example, that might mean reviewing the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Reports and its data on COVID-19 cases, deaths and vaccinations, as well as the FDA’s briefing document for each vaccine.”factcheck.org
Of course factcheck.org tried to dismiss Rep. Massie’s accusations, stating that the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, from which is receives a large portion of funding, doesn’t influence it’s fact checking editorials…They must think people are stupid…on what planet does the primary financial supporter of a company have no influence in the direction or narrative of it’s campaign or publications? To believe that would mean participating in a level of naivety that I simply will have nothing to do with.
“Contrary to Massie’s suggestion, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation — as is the case with all of our funders — has no control over our editorial content. Period. Full stop.”factcheck.org rebuttal
We all know a company would never publicize anything that would criticize or put at jeopardy a lucrative investor, and if that investor is a vaccine manufacturer, do you honestly think it’s going to do anything but support vaccines and vilify critics? However you could say logic isn’t enough and the burden of proof is on critics to prove bias in factcheck.org content. Considering FactCheck.org is responsible for fact checking tens of thousands of doctors articles, posts on studies, and other content that has criticized these experimental COVID-19 gene-based vaccines, or pointed out the effectiveness of alternative treatments like Ivermectin, I would argue the burden of proof is to try and argue how factcheck.org bias isn’t astoundingly obvious.
“We monitor the factual accuracy of what is said by major U.S. political players,”factcheck.org
In light of the above mentioned financial conflicts of interest, that’s a pretty bold faced lie even for factcheck.org. Here is a quick video summarizing covid-19 and vaccine related articles that we found via a quick search of factcheck.org
It is also worthwhile to mention that FactCheck.org partnered with Facebook “shortly after the 2016” allegedly in order to “debunk hoaxes and malicious falsehoods posted on the social media site,” according to the University of Pennsylvania Almanac.
If you still believe that factcheck.org is anything but a big pharma shill and view it as a reliable source for unbias information…in the words of Massie:
“Bless your heart if you think factcheck.org is an unbiased source of vaccine information”Thomas Massie
I don’t think I could have put it better myself. But if you still want to be mislead, perhaps you deserve to be.