Gates Foundation Funded “Fact-Checker” (POLITIFACT) Censors GreenMedInfo on Facebook for Reposting Accurate Vaccine Meme
302 likes
In Brief
- The Facts:This article was written by Sayer Ji, founder of Greenmedinfo.com where it originally
appeared, posted here with permission. - Reflect On:Why is Greenmedinfo, and other media outlets being censored, demonetized, shut down and punished for sharing factual information? Why can't people decide what's real and what's not? Why do they have to let the government do it for them?
Because Politifact is in partnership with Facebook as
a so-called “non-partisan,” 3rd party, fact-checker, they flagged our
(Greenmedinfo) page as promoting “false news” and informed us, on April
22nd, that “Your Page has reduced distribution and other restrictions because of repeated sharing of false news.” Since
then, our page no longer comes up when you search for pages with the
keyword “GreenMedInfo,” and we have noticed a steep decline in our reach
which on an average week would exceed 1 million.
Due to our long held commitment to publishing truthful, evidence-based information on
the underreported, unintended adverse effects of conventional medical
interventions like vaccination, we have been subject to a wide range of
attempts to discredit, defame, and censor us, over the years. For
instance, all the way back in 2013, UNICEF published a report titled “Tracking anti-vaccination sentiment in Eastern European social media networks,”
where GreenMedInfo.com, along with other prominent natural health
websites, was cited as spreading vaccine “misinformation,” despite the
fact that we simply aggregate, disseminate and provide open access to peer-reviewed research on vaccine adverse effects and safety concerns extracted directly from the US National Library of Medicine.
Lately, the censorship has been scaling up to disturbing levels. In December of last year, Pinterest deleted our account for posting information questioning vaccine safety and promoting research on evidence-based natural medicine. Ironically, they claimed we were endangering the health of their users by posting alternative information, even though Pinterest regularly allows minors to access pornographic and violent content, both of which have well-established significant deleterious psycho-emotional and physical effects in adults, much less children.
So, how does Facebook determine who is of suitable integrity and impartiality to become a 3rd party fact-checker?
They use certification provided by the “non-partisan
International Fact-Checking Network to help identify and review false
news.” Guess who created the organization that calls itself the
International Fact-Checking Network? Poynter. Check it out yourself
here: https://www.poynter.org/ifcn/
advertisement - learn more
Yes, you read that correctly. Poynter, the owner of Politifact — the presumably impartial brand and judge of what is “false” or “true” news — certified itself as trustworthy and impartial.
It does not reflect well on Facebook that it allowed Poynter to certify itself
as worthy to police the world’s news feeds in order to mete out
algorithmic punishment to those whose views it does not agree with. Thanks to a Veritas exposé, we know how Facebook’s censorship strategy of”boiling works behind the scenes:
How this machiavellian scheme has gone virtually unnoticed until now is hard to understand. But
we hope that our example will help others understand the shadowy
agendas at play between Poynter, Politifact, Facebook, and which are
hidden in broad daylight for everyone to see.
But the red flags, and organizations involved, don’t stop there. Poytner’s fact-checking operation was funded by a $380,000 grant from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
— an organization notoriously dismissive of the downside of mass
vaccination programs, which includes injuries and deaths the government
has paid over $4 billion dollars in compensation towards through the
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Fund inaugurated by an act of
Congress in 1986.
But are they correct about the meme we posted? Is it really “fake news”?
And does a mere
posting of a meme, whose authorship is unknown but certainly was not
produced by GreenMedInfo or its contributors, justify reducing the reach
of our entire page, which over 525,000 people around the world have voluntarily and organically opted into receiving information from over the past decade?
Embarrassing as it is for the Politifact editorial team, whose entire premise is that they can be trusted to be fact-based, they didn’t report on our name correctly, calling us Greeninfo.com:
“Now, another anti-vaccine claim has surfaced on Facebook on a page called Greeninfo.com, which describes itself as an “alternative and holistic health service.”
They condemned the post as follows:
The post reads:
“Think combined doses of vaccines have been tested? They haven’t. Not once. EVER. Our children deserve better.”The post, which provides no details or evidence, has been shared over 600 times since April 15 and was flagged as part of Facebook’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.)Let’s cut to the chase:The claim is false – all vaccines are tested for years before and after being made available to the public, including “combined doses.”
How did they prove this statement?
They reached out to a single
individual, Daniel Salmon, who is the director of the Institute for
Vaccine Safety at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, who
presumably can verify by his word alone the veracity of the claim. He
simply countered in email: “This is not a true statement,” and pointed to a December 2008 documentfrom
the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The document
nowhere references the existence of a true placebo-controlled vaccine
safety study, where saline instead of another adjuvanted vaccine was
used; nor does the document discuss the fact that the present-day
vaccination schedule involves giving dozens of vaccine antigens to children by age 6,
where none of the vaccines have been studied together for safety; much
less in juxtaposition to a control group who received a true placebo
(saline).
This glaring problem is discussed among mainstream medical sites and authorities as well. For instance, MEDPAGE TODAY’s KevinMD.com has an article written by Chad Hayes, MD, titled “The vaccine study you’ll never see,” wherein he admits:
“No, we don’t have a double-blinded, randomized controlled trial comparing our vaccine schedule to placebo.”
Wouldn’t MEDPAGE and
KevinMD also be labeled as false news according to the standard applied
to our page, for again, simply reposting a meme?
When it comes to the CDC, presumably a trustworthy source because it is believed to be “evidence-based,” their page on Vaccine Safety Concerns for Multiple Vaccines
provides little assurance because their statements have no scientific
citations. This is a classical example of the CDC’s cult of authority,
where they use “science by proclamation” or “eminence-based medicine” to
promote their agenda, instead of referencing actual research like we do at GreenMedInfo.com:
“Getting multiple vaccines at the same time has been shown to be safe.
Scientific data show that getting several vaccines at the same time does not cause any chronic health problems. A number of studies have been done to look at the effects of giving various combinations of vaccines, and when every new vaccine is licensed, it has been tested along with the vaccines already recommended for a particular aged child. The recommended vaccines have been shown to be as effective in combination as they are individually. Sometimes, certain combinations of vaccines given together can cause fever, and occasionally febrile seizures; these are temporary and do not cause any lasting damage. Based on this information, both the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices and the American Academy of Pediatrics recommend getting all routine childhood vaccines on time.
Disturbingly, the CDC acknowledges on the same page as the excerpt above:
“A child who receives all the recommended vaccines in the 2018 childhood immunization schedule may be exposed to up to 320 antigens through vaccination by the age of 2.”
This reminds us of the absurdly irresponsible statement of Dr. Paul Offit, who while admitting that vaccination is a violent act,
considers it safe for an infant to receive 10,000 vaccines at once
(revised from a previous statement where he said an infant could receive
100,000 vaccines at one time). Offit’s faith in the safety of vaccines
represents a deep conflict of interest, considering he is the patent
holder for a highly profitable rotavirus vaccine which has profound
safety issues, in that it has potentially infected millions of children with serreptitious, disease-producing retroviruses.
The reality is that no
study has ever been performed on the interaction and potential
synergistic toxicity of the admnistration of 320 antigens through
vaccination by the age of 2. This was conclusively affirmed by a presentation given by Del Bigtree, where at minute 58:40 he
references a 2013 Institute of Medicine (IOM) report on the safety of
the entire immunization schedule, citing the following passage:
“No studies have compared the differences in health outcomes … between entirely unimmunized populations of children and fully immunized children … [Furthermore,] studies designed to examine the long-term effects of the cumulative number of vaccines or other aspects of the immunization schedule have not been conducted.”
Many other key safety concerns with vaccines emerged from that report, with a series of them summarized by NVIC here:
- “Few studies have comprehensively assessed the association between the entire immunization schedule or variations in the overall schedule and categories of health outcomes, and no study has directly examined health outcomes and stakeholder concerns in precisely the way that the committee was charged to address its statement of task;” (S-4)
- “No studies have compared the differences in health outcomes that some stakeholders questioned between entirely unimmunized populations and fully immunized children. Experts who addressed the committee pointed not to a body of evidence that had been overlooked but rather to the fact that existing research has not been designed to test the entire immunization schedule;” (S4-5)
- “The committee believes that although the available evidence is reassuring, studies designed to examine the long term effects of the cumulative number of vaccines or other aspects of the immunization schedule have not been conducted; (S-5)
- “Most vaccine-related research focuses on the outcomes of single immunizations or combinations of vaccines administered at a single visit. Although each new vaccine is evaluated in the context of the overall immunization schedule that existed at the time of review of that vaccine, elements of the schedule are not evaluated once it is adjusted to accommodate a new vaccine. Thus, key elements of the entire schedule – the number, frequency, timing, order and age at administration of vaccines – have not been systematically examined in research studies;” (S8-9)
- “The committee encountered….uncertainty over whether the scientific literature has addressed all health outcomes and safety concerns. The committee could not tell whether its list was complete or whether a more comprehensive system of surveillance might have been able to identify other outcomes of potential significance to vaccine safety. In addition, the conditions of concern to some stakeholders, such as immunologic, neurologic, and developmental problems, are illnesses and conditions for which etiologies, in general, are not well understood.” (S-9)
- “The committee found that evidence assessing outcomes in subpopulations of children who may be potentially susceptible to adverse reactions to vaccines (such as children with a family history of autoimmune disease or allergies or children born prematurely) was limited and is characterized by uncertainly about the definition of populations of interest and definitions of exposures or outcomes.” (S-9)
- “To consider whether and how to study the safety and health outcomes of the entire childhood immunization schedule, the field needs valid and accepted metrics of the entire schedule (the “exposure”) and clearer definitions of health outcomes linked to stakeholder concerns (the “outcomes”) in rigorous research that will ensure validity and generalizability;” (S-9)
- “Public testimony to the committee described the speculation that children with a family history of autoimmune disease or allergies and premature infants might be additional 2 subpopulations at increased risk for adverse effects from immunizations. The 2012 IOM report Adverse Effects of Vaccines: Evidence and Causality supports the fact that individuals with certain characteristics (such as acquired or genetic immunodeficiency) are more likely to suffer adverse effects from particular immunizations, such as MMR and the varicella vaccine;” (4-6)
- “Children with certain predispositions are more likely to suffer adverse events from vaccines than those without that risk factor, such as children with immunodeficiencies that are at increased risk for developing invasive disease from a live virus vaccine. The committee recognizes that while the CDC has identified persons with symptoms or conditions that should not be vaccinated, some stakeholders question if that list is complete. Potentially susceptible populations may have an inherited or genetic susceptibility to adverse reactions and further research in this area is ongoing.” (4-9)
- “Relatively few studies have directly assessed the immunization schedule. Although health professionals have a great deal of information about individual vaccines, they have must less information about the effects of immunization with multiple vaccines at a single visit or the timing of the immunizations. Providers are encouraged to explain to parents how each new vaccine is extensively tested when it is approved for inclusion in the recommended immunization schedule. However, when providers are asked if the entire immunization schedule has been tested to determine if it is the best possible schedule, meaning that it offers the most benefits and the fewest risks, they have very few data on which to base their response;” (4-10)
- “Although the committee identified several studies that reviewed the outcomes of studies of cumulative immunizations, adjuvants and preservatives, the committee generally found a paucity of information, scientific or otherwise, that addressed the risk of adverse events in association with the complete recommended immunization schedule, even though an extensive literature base on individual vaccines and combination immunizations exists;” (4- 10)
- “Research examining the association between the cumulative number of vaccines received and the timing of vaccination and asthma, atopy and allergy has been limited; but the findings from the research that has been conducted are reassuring.” (5-7) – 14 studies were identified and reviewed by the IOM committee.
- “The literature that the committee found to examine the relationship between the overall immunization schedule and autoimmunity was limited.” (5-9) – 4 studies were identified and reviewed by the IOM committee;
- “The evidence of an association between autism and the overall immunization schedule is limited both in quantity and in quality and does not suggest a causal association. “ (5-11) – 4 studies were identified and reviewed by the IOM committee;
- “The evidence regarding an association between the overall immunization schedule and other neurodevelopmental disorders [learning disorders, communication disorders, developmental disorders, intellectual disability, attention deficit disorder, disruptive behavior disorders, tics and Tourette’s syndrome] is limited in quantity and of limited usefulness because of its focus on a preservative no longer used in the United States.” (S-13) – 5 studies were identified and reviewed by the IOM committee; 3
- “The literature associating the overall immunization schedule with seizures, febrile seizures, and epilepsy is limited and inconclusive.” (5-15) – 4 studies were identified and reviewed by the IOM committee;
- “The committee reviewed six papers on the immunization of premature infants published since 2002…..Because small numbers of infants were monitored for short periods of time, it is challenging to draw conclusions from this review.” (5-15)
- “The committee’s review confirmed that research on immunization safety has mostly developed around studies examining potential associations between individual vaccines and single outcomes. Few studies have attempted more global assessment of entire sequence of immunizations or variations in the overall immunization schedule and categories of health outcomes, and none has squarely examined the issue of health outcomes and stakeholder concerns in quite the way that the committee was asked to do its statement of task. None has compared entirely unimmunized populations with those fully immunized for the health outcomes of concern to stakeholders.” (S-15)
- “Queries of experts who addressed the committee in open session did not point toward a body of evidence that had been overlooked but, rather, pointed toward the fact that the research conducted to date has generally not been conceived with the overall immunization schedule in mind. The available evidence is reassuring but it is also fragmented and inconclusive on many issues.” (S-16)
- “A challenge to the committee in its review of the scientific literature was uncertainty whether studies published in the scientific literature have addressed all health outcomes and safety concerns. The field needs valid and accepted metrics of the entire schedule (the “exposure”) and clearer definitions of the health outcomes linked to stakeholder concerns (the “outcomes”) in research that is sufficiently funded to ensure the collection of a large quantity of high-quality data;” (S-16)
- “The committee concluded that parents and health care professionals would benefit from more comprehensive and detailed information with which to address parental concerns about the safety of the immunization schedule; (7-2)
- “The concept of the immunization “schedule” is not well developed in the scientific literature. Most vaccine research focuses on the health outcomes associated with single immunizations or combinations of vaccines administered at a single visit. Even though each new vaccine is evaluated in the context of the overall immunization schedule that existed at the time of the review, individual elements of the schedule are not evaluated once it is adjusted to accommodate a new vaccine. Key elements of the immunization schedule – for example, the number, frequency, timing, order, and age at the time of administration of vaccines – have not been systematically examined in research studies;” (7-3)
- “The committee encountered during the review of the scientific literature…uncertainty over whether the scientific literature has addressed all health outcomes and safety concerns. The committee could not determine whether its list of health outcomes was complete or whether a more comprehensive system of surveillance might identify other outcomes of potential safety significance. In addition, the conditions of concern to some stakeholders, such as immunological, neurological and developmental problems, are illnesses and conditions for 4 which the etiology, in general, is not well understood. Further research on these conditions may clarify their etiologies;” (7-3)
- “The committee found that evidence from assessments of health outcomes in potentially susceptible populations of children who may have an increased risk of adverse reactions to vaccines (such as children with a family history of autoimmune disease or allergies or children born prematurely) was limited and is characterized by uncertainty about the definition of populations of interest and definitions of exposures and outcomes. Most children who experience an adverse reaction to immunization have a preexisting susceptibility. Some predispositions may be detectable prior to vaccination; others, at least with current technology and practice, are not;” (7-3)
Given the IOM report’s findings that there has not been a single study conducted to prove the safety of the entire schedule, the meme we posted stands as factually true,
and those who have used it as a justification for censorsing and
defaming us are clearly acting from political motivations reflective of
the interests of their primary funders, such as the Gates Foundation.
CALL TO ACTION
It’s time to let us know you are listening, and reading
this article. Our social media footprint has undergone massive
censorship, and as we hope you have seen, this expose’ explains what’s
behind it. Please share/like/comment on this article to help us
compensate for what may be our soon-to-be exit from social media in
general. Deplatforming is happening to the best of us. But there is a
solution. Make sure you are signed up to our newsletter: http://bit.ly/2kjN4HH.
Support Independent Media – Join or Donate to GreenMedInfo
Join thousands of supporting newsletter fans who have become actively supporting members and
take advantage of powerful features and upgraded content, including
e-courses, e-books, and a research library of thousands of documents.Learn More + Become A Member
or
Make A One Time Donation.
Sayer Ji is founder of Greenmedinfo.com, a reviewer at the International Journal of Human Nutrition and Functional Medicine, Co-founder and CEO of Systome Biomed, Vice Chairman of the Board of the National Health Federation, Steering Committee Member of the Global Non-GMO Foundation.
Help Support Collective Evolution
In order to stay truly independent, we need your help. We are not going to put up paywalls on this website, as we want to get our info out far and wide. For as little as $3 a month, you can help keep CE alive!
SUPPORT CE HERE!
No comments:
Post a Comment