Though the fact checking madness began long before COVID-19, over the last two years, fact checking has seemingly been weaponized to defend the establishment's narrative only. Challenge the status quo and you will be censored into oblivion by the system's praetorian guard — never mind the fact that they have been wrong countless times.
One of the most egregious "fact checks" happened recently after Pfizer's CEO Albert Bourla made a statement during an interview with Yahoo Finance on January 10. Speaking in reference to the Omicron variant of COVID-19, Bourla said, "We know that the two doses of a vaccine offer very limited protection, if any."
Naturally, this statement from the CEO of a vaccine company who manufactures the jab which many Americans were forced to take against their will in order to keep their jobs or go out in public, drew much deserved attention. Many folks called out the CEO for his comments in April in which he stated that the "Phase 3 study with BioNTech also showed that our COVID-19 vaccine was 100% effective in preventing #COVID19 cases in South Africa. 100%!"
As people began to compare these two statements — one claiming 100% efficacy, with another claiming two doses may not work at all — the praetorian guard, aka the fact checking army, came to the rescue to conduct damage control.
Because Bourla did in fact state that the vaccine was 100% effective in April only to claim 9 months later that it may not be effective at all, the fact checkers couldn't claim this was false. Instead, Reuters claimed that anyone who pointed out Bourla's most recent statement was "missing context" when quoting the CEO because his comments about offering "very limited protection, if any," were made specifically in regard to the Omicron variant.
Missing context. During an interview on Jan. 10, Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla said two doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech shot offered “very limited protection” against COVID-19 infection with the Omicron variant. He was not talking about protection against infection by other variants of the coronavirus.
This statement is true and the carefully chosen wording makes it impossible to dispute. Win for Bourla, loss for anyone who quoted him.
Let's forget about the fact that federal government did not detail the efficacy of the jab against specific variants when it mandated vaccines through OSHA. Let's also forget that New York, San Francisco, and the myriad of other municipalities who have mandated the jab for access to public places also make no mention of efficacy against all the different variants while compelling the medical procedure. This is apparently not important to them.
What is important, however, is protecting the image of Pfizer and making sure no one becomes "vaccine hesitant" based on misconstrued statements or misinformation. Right?
Moving forward, we will have to specify the exact variant of the covid-19 virus to which the big pharma shills are referring in regard to the vaccine if we are to challenge or quote anything they say — lest we get the ban hammer. Just ask former Congressman Ron Paul what happens when you quote the Pfizer CEO and leave out Omicron.
Recommended for You
Paul was banned from Facebook for 90 days for sharing the video of Bourla, and titling it "Pfizer CEO: From "100% Effective in Preventing Covid" To "Very Limited Protection, If Any." All of this is factual, but leaving out Omicron left the former Congressman open for attack, and attacked, he was.
"My speech crime? I shared an interview with the CEO of Pfizer," Dr. Paul wrote in an email.
"The so-called “missing context” that Facebook’s “fact-checkers” claim justifies banning me from interacting with over a million followers is that the drug company CEO was “only” referring to the Omicron variant that makes up 95% of new COVID cases in the United States," he said, adding that "this was my second sanctioning by Facebook in just over a year."
The idea that a former Congressman of three decades can be wiped off of social media for simply sharing a video of the Pfizer CEO should be shocking. Unfortunately, however, it is the norm, and it is to be expected, especially considering the cozy relationship between the fact checkers and the industry.
In fact, their relationship is far more than just cozy. In 2014, James C. Smith — who was then the President and Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of Thomson Reuters and served on its Board of Directors — was appointed to the Board of Directors to the Corporate Governance and Science and Technology Committees at Pfizer.
That's right, after his appointment to the Board of Directors for Pfizer, Smith remained the CEO for Reuters for the next six years. Though he retired from the news agency in 2020, Smith remains on the Pfizer board. He is also still the current Chairman of the Thomson Reuters Foundation.
But that's not all. Smith is also on the international business council of the World Economic Forum and the international advisory boards of the British American Business Council and, last but not least, none other than the infamous Atlantic Council.
Certainly there has to be a conflict of interests somewhere in all these entanglements, right? If Reuters is conducting fact checks in Pfizer's benefit, it might be beneficial if people knew the tightly woven connection between these two multi-billion dollar corporations, right?
It certainly creates a motive for Smith to remove his LinkedIn profile which detailed all these connections. Whether or not this was the reason it was removed is unclear, but it was there one day and gone the next.
For now, there is no recourse and Reuters has the final word... Actual discourse be damned.