Fact Checkers: Bought and Paid for Shills

This won’t be news to most of you, but the so-called “fact-checkers” can’t be trusted.

However, recently Congressman Thomas Massie (R-Kentucky) exposed the profit motive of one of the projects of factcheck.org, that being the COVID-19 Vaccination Project which purports to be some independent “fact-checkers” exposing false claims on the experimental vaccines.

Who funds that “independent” project? Well, it’s the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation which holds $1.9 billion in Johnson & Johnson stock. Oh, and it’s CEO is Richard Besser, the former director of the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) under President Barack Obama.

On an aside, the revolving door between regulators and corporations is an ongoing bipartisan problem. Scott Gottlieb, who was President Donald Trump’s Food and Drug Administration Commissioner, is now a director for Pfizer.

In an April 24 tweet by Massie, he starts with: “NOTHING TO SEE HERE.”

“Former director of CDC is now CEO of the foundation that funds FACTCHECK. org’s vaccine fact-checking program. Roughly 15% of said foundation’s assets are J&J stock…. Bless your heart if you think fact-check .org is an unbiased source of vaccine information,” Massie’s tweet continued.

For that tweet, the COVID-19 Vaccination Project produced a hit piece on Massie but admits, as Massie noted in another tweet, that everything he stated was true. But what the project would like you to believe is that “the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation has no control over our editorial content.”

These deceptive “fact-checkers” are a leading cause of censorship which creates an unthinking populace which relies on “experts” to form their opinions.

Daniel Horowitz noted the censorship of his articles in an April 27 article for The Blaze. He notes that any article he’s written questioning mask mandates to promoting vitamins that will boost one’s natural, God-given immunity has been censored by Facebook.

“First, it’s critical to note that almost no article Facebook employees censor is fact-checked by anyone; they merely rely on an initial fact-check of one person’s article critical of masks — just to give an example — and then trot out that same fact-check as an excuse for zapping any article questioning the wisdom of mask-wearing, even if the points raised in said article are completely different from the issues addressed in the first fact-check,” Horowitz writes.

Horowitz added: “However, there is something much more insidious going on with the fact-checking industry. The inmates are running the asylum and the foxes are guarding the henhouse.”