Caution: “Fact-Checkers” Ahead

 Q: Why should caution be used when using fact-checker websites?

 A: Because many fact-checkers have their own agenda, fact-checking not being part of the agenda.

Sites such as snopes.com have all the credibility of a monkey presenting a doctoral dissertation and are not worthy of inclusion in a discussion on fact-checkers. Other sites appear much more credible, being posted or reviewed by Doctors and research fellows, yet their “verdict” often appears to misrepresent or distort facts in order to present a pre-determined outcome.

(Doctors and research fellows have long been involved in ghostwritten studies, too. For a better understanding of the reason behind this, read Dr Russell Blaylock’s article “Covid Update – What Is The Truth?”)

Take the fact-checker website Health Feedback, for example. They chose to comment on an Epoch Times article posted about a Lund University study (Ref 1) which investigated the effect of BNT162b2 (Pfizer jab) on the human liver cell line in vitro. They say the claim is that “COVID-19 vaccine mRNA is converted to DNA and enters the cell’s nucleus, so the vaccines can potentially change our DNA”. Their verdict is INACCURATE.

Health Feedback state that the study is “artificial” in that it was using cancer cells and the results “cannot be extrapolated to people.”

This may well be correct. And the Epoch Times may have made that claim. However, the study did not claim that. Having established the change to human cells in vitro, it is a viable hypothesis to suggest there is potential to change our DNA and the hypothesis should be further tested. Without proof to the contrary, there is no valid basis to declare the “potential” claim inaccurate.

Caution: Biased Views Ahead

Techarp is another site that decided to have a go at the publishers of an article on the same study, this time The Exposé. Choosing to de-bunk The Exposé, Techarp led with “fact #1” being “The Exposé is a fake news website”, stating “everything posted by The Exposé must be considered fake news until proven otherwise.” Hmmm. That sounds more like opinion than fact checking.

Designed To Make Money

Techarp is a site run by Dr Adrian Wong, on which he purports to “devote countless hours every day…in the pursuit of facts in a post-truth world.” If this were true, Dr Wong would be well advised to stick to analyzing what the studies claim and being open about it. But he doesn’t.

Techarp is a website designed to make money. Nothing wrong with making money. In this age of censorship on the internet, social media owners de-platform users for posts against the official narrative around Covid-19. The largest search engine in use amends its algorithm to change the SERPs (Search Engine Results Page) for sites that follow the official narrative – promoted – and those that speak against it – demoted. It is understandable, then, that someone who wants to make money from their website would want to rank well and so follow the official narrative. But that’s not fact checking.

Rankings and money may be why Dr Wong doesn’t analyze this study. Health Feedback did a better job overall, saying, “The claim that the study showed that COVID-19 mRNA vaccines change our DNA or enter the nucleus is inaccurate and fails to understand the study’s findings.” That’s fair enough. The fault lies with the Epoch Times, rather than the study. If Epoch are reporting incorrectly – regardless which side of the argument they support – they should be pulled up on it.

But when we have a public who generally skim read and listen in sound bytes, INACCURATE is all they see. They are not given the complete picture and most probably wouldn’t read it even if they were.

The study’s authors themselves say that the results have been misinterpreted in many cases. (Ref 2) They point out that:

• the cell lines used differ from cells in living organisms
• the study does not investigate whether the Pfizer jab alters the genome
• the findings were observed in petri dishes under experimental conditions
• they don’t know if the converted DNA is integrated into the cells DNA in the genome

What The Lund Study Showed

But the study did show that:

• There was DNA converted from the jab’s mRNA
• the jab enters liver cells as soon as 6 hours after the jab has been administered

Liver cells were used in the study as it is known that the jab accumulates in liver cells just 30 minutes after injection in mice, something that Pfizer reported in an EMA assessment report.

So, while the study did not show that reverse-transcribed DNA enters the nucleus, absence of proof is not proof of absence. Something else that neither Health Feedback nor Techarp chose to mention is that the Lund study itself referred to a “recent study that showed that SARS-CoV-2 RNA can be reverse-transcribed and integrated into the genome of human cells.”

The abstract of that article is available on the PubMed website (Ref 3) and the full transcript is available on the bioR_Xiv website.

Reverse transcribed DNA from the mRNA is something that was strenuously denied by Anthony Fauci et al. It is now broadly accepted as fact.

Why Aren’t “Official” Sources Fact-Checked?

Why is it that only opinions or facts that differ from the official narrative get checked? Why don’t some of the official sources have a spotlight shone on the egregious claims and assertions that appear their websites and social media outlets, or that the mainstream media broadcast for them?

Here are some official assertions that had – and still have – no data to support them and/or have contra-indication data:

• Get “vaccinated” to help stop the spread – THEY DON’T STOP TRANSMISSION OF COVID-19. THEY DON’T EVEN STOP INFECTION
• Vaccines have no long-term adverse effects, and neither do Covid-19 “vaccines” – STATEMENT ISSUED ONLY A COUPLE OF MONTHS AFTER ROLLOUT, WITH NO LONG-TERM STUDIES HAVING BEEN DONE
• Covid-19 “vaccination” helps improve protection against SARS CoV-2 over time – COVID JABS NEGATIVELY AFFECT YOUR BODY’S IMMUNE SYSTEM, INCREASING YOUR SUSCEPTIBILITY TO ALL DISEASES, INCLUDING COVID-19
• Covid-19 “vaccines” reduce hospitalisations and deaths – THEY DON’T. OFFICIAL FIGURES SHOW THIS TO BE FALSE.
• Covid-19 “vaccines” are safe and effective – THERE HAVE BEEN MORE ADVERSE REACTIONS TO COVID-19 JABS REPORTED THAN FOR ALL OTHER VACCINES COMBINED OVER THE LAST 30 YEARS. THE JABS ARE INEFFECTIVE IN STOPPING INFECTION OR TRANSMISSION OF THE SARS CoV-2 VIRUS

These are just a handful of the false or unsupported assertions that are part of the official narrative that do not get fact-checked. Why might that be?

Fact Checking Is Important. But…

The use of false statements, distortions, diversions and distractions in order to expose false claims are completely unnecessary if such claims are indeed false. I agree in principle with fact-checking. It is useful and often necessary. Unfortunately, so many “fact-checking” websites are merely potholes in the road we travel to find the true facts.