Fact Checkers Exposed As Propagators Of Fake News

[Scott777]

Here's a quote from your beloved professor.

First, our situation is wholly different from the one in which we found ourselves in this time last year, when we were plunged into an emergency lockdown. [highlight]Not only do we have the vaccines and the huge protection they offer[/highlight]

Context?  Is he referring to elderly people?

[Nick]

Oh, ok Nick, so the word of all the professional members isn't good enough for you.  I think until you can show it's fake, I'm putting my trust in them, slightly more than you.  Prof. Carl Heneghan has slightly better credentials.

Ermm, maybe by email or post?  How do you think you receive an FOI request?

Here's a quote from your beloved professor. 

First, our situation is wholly different from the one in which we found ourselves in this time last year, when we were plunged into an emergency lockdown. [highlight]Not only do we have the vaccines and the huge protection they offer[/highlight]

[Scott777]

That's fine but don't keep wheeling out a document that you can't show is legit.

Oh, ok Nick, so the word of all the professional members isn't good enough for you.  I think until you can show it's fake, I'm putting my trust in them, slightly more than you.  Prof. Carl Heneghan has slightly better credentials.

If the FDA didn't publish it how has the PHMPT website got a copy?

Ermm, maybe by email or post?  How do you think you receive an FOI request?

[Nick]

How do you know the FDA would publish the document?  What you're basically saying is you have a theory that the PHMPT members have conspired to falsify hundreds of documents.  Pull the other one.

If the FDA didn't publish it how has the PHMPT website got a copy? 

[Nick]

How do you know the FDA would publish the document?  What you're basically saying is you have a theory that the PHMPT members have conspired to falsify hundreds of documents.  Pull the other one.

So you can't show a legitimate route of the document being on Pfizer servers to being on the PHMPT website. 
That's fine but don't keep wheeling out a document that you can't show is legit. 

[Scott777]

Although it does rather raise the question of how is it that anyone can then be sure that they have the truth and that the rest of the world are just gullible fools?

I suppose no one can be sure.  But when 99% of the media say one thing, then those 99% all say they were wrong, and join the 1%, then we are at least closer to the truth.  I don't know anyone still claiming Covid was the natural product of a virus jumping from animals to people.  That was frequently the original claim, and the lab leak was entirely disregarded.

[Scott777]

Can you show the evidence of this anywhere away from your PHMPT website? Can you provide a link to the FDA website showing the document? Any transcript from Pfizer proving that they gave it out under the FOI act? Cause up til now you just keep referencing the PHMPT sebsite.

How do you know the FDA would publish the document?  What you're basically saying is you have a theory that the PHMPT members have conspired to falsify hundreds of documents.  Pull the other one.

[johnofgwent]

I don't know about "Covid jumping from animals" (isn't that still considered likely?)

It depends what is really meant.

There was, you may recall, a scare about COVID passing from human to dog, after a vet found the organism in the nasal cavity of a victim's pet.

The scare was redefined as a false alarm when no sign of infection was found. In essence the bug failed to penetrate the dogs nasal cells as it does humans.

[Borchester]

But when all these 'important, truthful, established' media tell the same lie, then people do fall for it.

Although it does rather raise the question of how is it that anyone can then be sure that they have the truth and that the rest of the world are just gullible fools?

[Nick]

Yes, Nick, it was given out under FOI submitted to the FDA. 

Can you show the evidence of this anywhere away from your PHMPT website? Can you provide a link to the FDA website showing the document? Any transcript from Pfizer proving that they gave it out under the FOI act? Cause up til now you just keep referencing the PHMPT sebsite.

[Scott777]

If it wasn't officially released, it wasn't given out under the FOI act.
Documents, especially medical documents have version control pages and this document was changed after the official last version. And if it was changed by anyone other than Pfizer it's fake, pure and simple: unless you can show a version released by Pfizer.

Yes, Nick, it was given out under FOI submitted to the FDA.  The court documents are here:

So is it still fake, pure and simple, if the FDA redacted bits?

https://phmpt.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/091621-Complaint.pdf

[Scott777]

The highlighted comment I won't argue against. I don't know about "Covid jumping from animals" (isn't that still considered likely?), but copying happens — whether because of laziness, pressing deadlines, looming empty space, etc, I don't know. Johnson, when a journalist, was guilty of false reporting and untrue comment. Was it claimed he was paid to do so? If so, would the UK news media have held back?

And I doubt WHO or Bill Gates have paid the news media for favourable editorial coverage or to get their pet hobby-horses covered...

It's accepted by 99% of experts that Covid was engineered, because the genetic make-up could not have occurred naturally, and therefore would not have jumped from animals naturally.

Bill Gates does not need to pay the media (although he may have done that too).  The cycle of money goes like this: Bill funds the WHO, which promotes vaccines and testing, which makes huge profit for big pharma, and big media usually have their fingers in all the pies, such as shares in big pharma.  The money is available, they can easily seize the opportunity.  But if big media do not support Bill Gates and his vaccine narrative, then that opportunity would not arise.  Since the primary objective is to maximise profit, which option do you think big media would take?  Support Bill and create profitable opportunities, or do the opposite and say vaccines are dangerous, but Ivermectin works at a fraction of the price?  Take a guess?

[Scott777]

Quite a lot actually.

Any examples?  Preferably in the last 20 years.

[Scott777]

I doubt many (if any) mainstream responsible UK news organisation has ignored specific government request not to publish items from the following five categories:

• Military operations, plans & capabilities
• Nuclear & non-nuclear weapon systems & equipment
• Military counter-terrorist forces, special forces and intelligence agewncy operations, activities and communications methods and techniques
• Personnel who work in sensitive positions and their families

But as the Defence and Security Media Advisory (DSMA) Committee says: The system is voluntary, it has no legal authority and the final responsibility for deciding whether or not to publish rests solely with the editor or publisher concerned...
https://www.dsma.uk/standing-notices/

I'm aware that DSMA notice is not enforceable.  That's why I also asked: then why do they always obey them?  I already provided the reason.  You ignored that, and didn't answer to explain your own reason.  As I explained, the DMSA is a warning.

[Nick]

Come on Nick, less of the gaslighting.  I said many times, it wasn't officially released by Pfizer, and must have been altered by Pfizer in order to redact it, prior to submitting it under FOI.  So what does that prove?  And why is this "scam website" any more reliable that any other fact-checker or the professionals who published it at PHMPT?

If it wasn't officially released, it wasn't given out under the FOI act.
Documents, especially medical documents have version control pages and this document was changed after the official last version. And if it was changed by anyone other than Pfizer it's fake, pure and simple: unless you can show a version released by Pfizer.