Control authority fact checkers - where does the power come from?

14.04.2022 | www.kla.tv/22254

To what extent are fact checkers, social media and the pharmaceutical industry connected? Are the fact checkers as independent as they have claimed repeatedly? Far-reaching scandalous entanglements are revealed in the following broadcast, which leave no doubt about the dependence of the fact checkers. Watch now Actuarium's video, true to the motto: If Reuters says yes to Pfizer, the fact checkers won’t object either. Actuarium: The fact checkers and Big Pharma - January 06, 2022 Hello everyone! In this video, we look at the personal connections between fact checkers and social media on the one hand and the pharmaceutical industry on the other. It's an exciting story. I have researched it in detail for you. I ask for your attention. Here we go, and we start with one of the biggest news agencies in the world, the famous Reuters, today Thomsen Reuters. Thomsen Reuters has a fact-checking department, just like dpa, for example. There they do daily fact checks on various topics. Lately, of course, a lot on the subject of Corona. What do they do? They do big articles about "Ex-Pfizer scientist who became an antivax hero," of course, about former Pfizer employees, scientists who are against vaccination, and the banks of these scientists. Or they do fact checks that the Covid 19 pandemic was just not caused by pharmaceutical industry or by investment groups or philanthropists like Bill Gates and so on. Or such fact checks about Pfizer, that any statements about Pfizer are just from satire articles, and fact checks that Pfizer didn't put this and that in its vaccine, and fact check: "Ex-Pfizer scientist tells things that are not true", and another fact check that a Danish study claimed Pfizer was not effective against Omicron, but that's not true at all etc. So we have a lot of fact checks around Corona, very specifically around Pfizer and BioNTech/Pfizer's vaccine. But Reuters not only publishes these fact checks on their own site, but they have a much broader reach and a much more powerful position. Facebook says, "Fact Checking Partnership with Reuters," that's from February 2020. You know this when you're on social media, on Facebook or Twitter. Sometimes there's suddenly an overlay or a banner at the bottom that says: "Attention! Independent fact checkers have checked what is written in this post and have determined that it is not true. Either you see this overlay or the entire post is deleted because the fact checkers commissioned by Facebook, e.g. Reuters, as we can see from this partnership, have determined that the content of the post is incorrect - and in the worst case, the associated account is blocked, i.e. Reuters helps decide which statements are permitted in social media, in Facebook, and which are not. Not only in Facebook, but since August 2021, the same applies to Twitter, here: "Twitter Partners with AP, Reuters to battle misinformation on its site". So the same applies to Twitter. There, too, Reuters decides, among others, which statements are allowed, which are not, which are blocked, which accounts are blocked for "misinformation". Okay, so much for the role of the Reuters fact-checkers. This man here, and this is who we're going to be talking about today, this is Jim Smith. Here he is at an event explaining to Thomsen Reuters employees the latest deal with major U.S. investment firm Blackstone Group, it says here as a caption, "This is the longtime CEO of Thomsen Reuters. He was the CEO of Thomsen Reuters from 2012 until spring 2020, when the deal with Facebook was done. He started at Thomsen Reuters as a journalist, worked his way up, various high posts from 2012, then has been CEO for eight years, and he is also still loyal to the company. Thomsen Reuters has its own foundation. This foundation, it's supposed to be about freedom of the press, etc., like some big corporations have. And here at "OUR PEOPLE" at "Board of Trustees", so kind of a controlling body, board of trustees of the foundation, the chairman of this board is the said Jim Smith, Chairman, former CEO on the board of Thomsen Reuters. O.k., so much for the story. We have fact checker Reuters, we have Jim Smith, former CEO and still loyal to the company, and of course, over the decades, excellent contacts in Reuters, not only because he was chief, but he had various posts until today. And these fact checkers are responsible in social media for checking: Which statements explicitly about vaccines, about Pfizer, are allowed, which are forbidden? Which ones get any banners: "Attention, this is misleading here"? Which ones get deleted altogether, which accounts get deleted? They have considerable influence on that. But wait a minute: Now it comes: This Jim Smith is not only sitting in Reuters, is not only the head of Reuters, as the fact-checking department, which was built up by them, but he is also sitting here. This is the homepage of Pfizer, and there he is a board member, James C. Smith, the same person! Board member, what does that mean at Pfizer? He's been a member of the supervisory board since 2014. In 2012 he became the chairman of Reuters, two years later he was appointed a board member of Pfizer and he's still there until today. The head of Reuters, the head of the Reuters group, under whom the fact-checking department was also made, under whom the deal was made with Facebook, that Reuters should be responsible, among other things, for making the checks as to whether a claim in Facebook is permitted, is factual, or whether it is "misleading" and must be deleted. The same person has been a member of the supervisory board for many years, until today, at this very corporation Pfizer. This is a fascinating combination in one person, and one would think a very significant conflict of interest. Because, how can the fact check department constantly do one fact check after another about Pfizer, when at the same time the head of the whole fact check group, the head of Reuters himself, sits on the supervisory board of Pfizer, sits there until today. This personal entanglement is... - let's say, raises questions, let's make the least of it, raises questions about how objective the fact check can be regarding Pfizer and Pfizer's vaccine. If you want to know a little bit more: this James C. Smith is not only at Reuters and at the same time at Pfizer, no, you get the whole package, at the same time at the World Economic Forum, so with Klaus Schwab. Here is his page again: He is the "Director of Pfizer. He also serves on the board of the World Economic Forum`s Partnering Against Corruption Initiative." So he is also still on the WEF initiative against corruption, which is quite interesting. He is also a member of the International Business Council of the WEF and then also the International Advisory Board of British American Business and also the Atlantic Council. So he's involved in some big councils from WEF as well. WEF - Pfizer - Reuters - Fact check from Reuters about WEF about Pfizer - a very close personal entanglement. Now if you Google it - this has been known for a few months now, has been showcased in the media, but if you Google it, just go into Google and type in "Jim Smith Pfizer" here, the first thing you'll find is the Pfizer page itself, where he's listed as a member of the board of directors. Then you find his English Wikipedia page, and then third comes a fact check - but not from Reuters, but from dpa, dpa-faktenchecking.com: "Former Reuters boss does not sit on Pfizer board". Hmm, interesting! All wrong what I told you? Dpa already fact-checked this? Check out this dpa fact check - fascinating fact check! The fact check refers to a Facebook page, to a Facebook post by this person here: Markus Retagne, who has made, let's say, a little bit unprofessional and not very credible - a picture collage here that says the same thing that I just proved to you, but seems a little bit unbelievable. And also, he says that Jim Smith would be on the executive board, not on the supervisory board of Pfizer, and that the bank is now telling dpa, "No, he's not on the executive board at all." But now they're also saying it, "He's not on the executive board, he's on the supervisory board." The assessment: it's just from a satire site, yes, these dubious picture collages that he (M. Retagne) made, he was never on the executive board. “He's not been on the board of Thomsen Reuters since 2020 either.” Yes true, but he is still the board chairman of Thomsen Reuters foundation, he is still a board member of Pfizer and no doubt has best connections to his former big corporations, whose board chairman he was for eight years, after all. This whole fact check by dpa, if you read it superficially, you think, "Oh, okay, that's some kind of conspiracy theory, that's not true at all." But if you look at it more closely, it confirms everything. Dpa is not lying here, but dpa is not saying, "We have the CEO of Reuters here." In his time, the cooperation between Reuters and Facebook was made. Fact checks are constantly being done about Pfizer, about vaccines, making sure that posts are deleted on Facebook and now on Twitter. And the same person sits on the supervisory board of the very Pfizer about which fact checks are made. Dpa could have made that clear, but they didn't. Instead, this is such a, yes, such a protection for Reuters and for Pfizer. That's sad, but unsurprising. Dpa has been in very close cooperation with Reuters for a long time, and at the same time dpa is also a fact checker for Facebook. Right. You can see that now if you go here to this post in Facebook and look at the very bottom. I don't know if you can see that. At the very bottom it says: "Former Reuters chief does not sit on board," fact check from dpa check, you can click on that. And if you click on it, you'll end up back here. That is, one fact-checker news agency comes to the aid of the other fact-checker from Facebook - both are from Facebook, both are financed by Facebook - and gives him a fact-check that none of this is true - although it is indeed true. They just get hung up on the fact that he's not an executive-board member, he's a supervisory-board member. That's the fascinating story. You can check all the stuff, it's all public. You'll see a lot of attempts in Google to say, "No, that's not true, here's just a conspiracy theory." But yet, this combination in one person, this massive conflict of interest between social media, fact-checking and Pfizer has been there for many years. The story doesn't end here. Let's take a look at how this all looks in practice. In practice, it looks like this: This is Doctor Robert Malone. Robert Malone, PhD, is one of the pioneers in mRNA research from the 1980s. He is one of those who opened up this pathway to mRNA research, which has now culminated in these vaccines many years later. Robert Malone, PhD, is very critical of vaccines on social media. He is not an anti-vaccine person, he himself has had two injections with an mRNA vaccine from Moderna. He had corona twice, he had a very severe corona course. He also had severe side effects from vaccination at the same time, and he is very critical of vaccination, especially mass vaccination of healthy people. This doctor Robert Malone is nevertheless considered an absolute expert on the subject of mRNA. He made a post on the platform, on the career platform LinkedIn, about exactly what I just described to you, about this Jim C. Smith, who sits on the board of Pfizer and at the same time was chairman of the board of Thomsen Reuters. And there he simply asked, isn't that a conflict of interest? As a result, his account in LinkedIn, in this career network was blocked, blocked by LinkedIn. LinkedIn is owned by Microsoft. Microsoft: One of the biggest shareholders of Microsoft is Bill Gates, is Blackstone, this investment group - Blackstone at the same time one of the biggest investments in Pfizer and at the same time also in Reuters. So it's not a conspiracy theory: the connection, the financial connection between these corporations, the fact checkers, is very, very close. He (Dr. Malone) was banned there. After a lot of protests, he was allowed back. There was an apology, and now, a few days ago, Doctor Robert Malone was blocked in Twitter. He has not been told why. Also in Twitter he has published several things critical of vaccination, saying that he has always published like that, self-censored. Didn't do him any good. On Twitter, he was banned. And then invited directly to Joe Rogan, the most famous and most widely followed podcast in the world, talked to him there for three hours - I listened - really fascinating, very calm, very no-nonsense man. But very interesting what he talks about, how he also talks about Pfizer, about the history of Pfizer, what insights he has and details he has about mRNA research. He's not an opponent of mRNA at all, not at all. It's really fascinating. And these three hours of Joe Rogan, they were then uploaded by accounts on YouTube. Here you can see just a little bit of this example (20 min). And YouTube is deleting these videos one by one. Doctor Malone is not allowed to appear, not even with the most famous podcaster in the world. Here, it has only nine views. The reason is that the videos keep getting uploaded, 20 minutes here, 20 (minutes) there - maybe three hours if you're lucky. And after a few hours, YouTube automatically deletes them again. I just downloaded the complete version and could listen to it at my leisure. I.e. this Robert Malone, an expert on mRNA, has pointed out, about this conflict of interest from the Jim Smith I told you about, Pfizer - Reuters - Facebook, for pointing that out, he was banned. For speaking critically about mRNA vaccination and mass vaccination, he is blocked by fact-checkers who are not experts at all. They are not medical experts, they are not mRNA researchers. They are normal journalists, absolute laymen, who are allowed to block him for that. And even when he talks about it on the biggest podcast in the world, YouTube blocks him en masse. This is a very interesting conflation of social media, of fact-checkers, news outlets, and the pharmaceutical lobby.

from sev

Sources/Links: Die Faktenchecker und Big Pharma https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wn5-eA3t4Rk
Ehemaliger Reuters-Chef sitzt nicht im Vorstand von Pfizer https://dpa-factchecking.com/germany/210720-99-445616/
Jim Smith - President and CEO, Thomson Reuters Die Faktenchecker und Big Pharma https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wn5-eA3t4Rk
Ehemaliger Reuters-Chef sitzt nicht im Vorstand von Pfizer https://dpa-factchecking.com/germany/210720-99-445616/
Jim Smith - President and CEO, Thomson Reuters https://www.weforum.org/agenda/authors/jim-smith
Thomson Reuters Foundation - Our People https://www.trust.org/about-us/
James C. Smith https://www.pfizer.com/people/leadership/board_of_directors/james_smith