What "Fact-Checked Wrong" Means

Just that it doesn't agree with the Narrative or Dogma. Nothing more, nothing less.

In late December 2020 I got an E-Mail from a scientist/colleague of mine regarding Ivermectin for CoVid. Somehow my brother DavE got in on the loop and E-M’d back that he’d seen articles and read on FaceBook that the efficacy of Ivermectin had been “Fact-Checked-Wrong” and that there were no scientific studies.

I wrote this back:

… Using Startpage.com I did a search using "Ivermectin, Co-Vid, Preprint" [thinking there were no published papers] and there are a whole slew of papers out there, some even randomized with placebo controls.

It would be quite a bit of work to go through them all (or even a large number of them) and for me to make a judgement: this would be an undertaking, so I'm not going there¹…

So much for “no scientific studies”. It only took me a few minutes to figure out that the “Fact-Checkers” did NOT have their facts rights.

“Fact-Checked-Wrong” only means that the article does not agree with the Narrative or Dogma. Nothing more, nothing less.

If something questions the Narrative or Dogma of, e.g., CoVid-1984 or the Climate Crisis:

• First of all, it won’t be published, certainly not in the MSM;

• If it does get published, it will be censored by the MSM, Google, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, etc.;

• If is somehow gets past the Censors and gains any traction, it will be “Fact-Checked-Wrong” by people usually with no scientific training or background.

I began to see this many years ago when studying Anthropogenic Global Warming, and have written about this censorship a number of times, e.g. most recently: More on Propaganda and Censorship in Science. And here I am coming back to it again, after I saw this recent article: The Anatomy of a Scientific Witch Burning. (I like the picture!).

“In January of last year, three economists – Jonas Herby, Lars Jonung and Steve H. Hanke – published a working paper looking at the effects of lockdowns – specifically at whether they reduced COVID-19 mortality. They concluded “that lockdowns in the spring of 2020 had little to no effect on COVID-19 mortality” – heresy, in other words, and it wasn’t long before the gate-keepers of scientific orthodoxy and their outriders in the mainstream media (aka ‘fact checkers’) set about destroying their paper. In the final version of their working paper, published this month in the Johns Hopkins University series Studies in Applied Economics, they’ve included an Appendix in which they describe this process. It’s quite the eye-opener. Below, we’ve republished it in full.”

In my previous posting, I asked, Are you in the Bubble? That sure was a Naïve Rhetorical Question! All people getting their information from the MSM, Google, Facebook, YouTube, the WHO, CDC, FDA or Fauci or the President, ARE in this Bubble. By definition.

Who needs Biden’s new Orwellian Ministry of Truth? It’s already functioning quite well, thank you!

1. The folks at https://ivmmeta.com/ have done this. A meta-analysis of almost 100 studies which shows an 83% improvement when Ivermectin is used as a prophylactic (as I have done: Follow-up on “Real Science Being Done”).