The Façade of 'Fact' Checking

What Truth-Telling Experts Face Behind the Scenes

Since the declaration of the COVID-19 pandemic I have endeavoured to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth about the science of SARS-CoV-2. I have remained open to adjusting my messaging in response to the evolving scientific data. This is how I have conducted my business throughout my career as an academic viral immunologist.

Prior to three years ago, this was universally well-received. However, I have now been ‘fact’-checked too many times to count. And the conclusion from each one that has been published was that I had disseminated so-called ‘misinformation’ or, at a minimum, ‘misleading’ information. I have often been asked why I apparently didn’t bother to respond to these. So, I thought it might be of interest to share my behind-the-scenes experiences, which are shared by almost all experts of integrity that have had differences of opinion with the prevailing COVID-19 narrative.

Since these ‘fact’ checks often seem compelling, they can cause people to question even the most honest of experts. So, it has dawned on me that it might be helpful for the public to get a behind-the-scenes look at a personal experience.

First, I have thoroughly addressed any scientific accusations made against me over the course of a myriad of public interviews; always backed by published peer-reviewed scientific articles. But, these do not reach nearly as many people as the ‘fact’ checks do. And these ‘fact’ check are never corrected or taken down, even when the scientific evidence becomes overwhelmingly in favour of the perspective that was deemed to have been incorrect.

Also, not one person who has ever accused me of disseminating misinformation has ever had a conversation with me prior to doing so. Lack of access to mainstream media outlets and active censorship have become the norm for many people who were historically recognized as reliable experts. That alone should be of major concern to the public.

As for the ‘fact’ checks, here are the real facts as revealed through a couple of representative personal examples…

Lack of Respect for Professional Obligations

Here is a request from a ‘fact’ checker. First, I have to give kudos to this person for disclosing their identity. Many ‘fact’ checks are done anonymously (e.g., see my second example).

One strategy of disrespect that is sometimes used by ‘fact’ checkers is failure to use professional titles. In this case, Ms. Livingstone would have known that I am an Associate Professor and, therefore, have the title of “Assoc. Prof.” or “Dr.” by virtue of holding the most advanced degree that can be awarded, which is a PhD/Doctorate. After all, this had been highlighted at the beginning of the interview that she was referring to.

As an aside and for interest sake, here is the sequence of degrees in order of prestige from least to most: bachelor’s degree, professional undergraduate degree (includes MD), master’s degree, doctorate (also known as a PhD). Yes, an MD ranks well below a PhD and even a MSc and is considered an undergraduate degree. Personally, I prefer that people who know me, call me by my first name. I hate the concept of wielding titles; everyone has their area of expertise and all people are deserving of equal respect. But, in a professional setting, especially when engaging with an expert from a biased perspective, not using the proper formal title is a classic sign of disrespect. Note that the first sentence indicates that this ‘journalist’ conducts checks “so they are labelled as misleading”. Shouldn’t a ‘journalist’ be conducting checks in a way that would potentially allow posts to be labeled as factual? There was a clear bias here.

A key and common strategy used by people that ‘fact’-checked me was providing unreasonably short times to respond. In most cases, I was asked to respond the same day. In this example, I was given less than twelve hours.

My email inbox has been chronically overloaded since a well-coordinated and very large smear campaign was launched against me in May of 2021 following the interview that this check focused on. As such, with one exception, I never found these messages until after the deadline had passed. But, even if I did see these messages the same day, it is unrealistic and unfair to expect a professional to drop everything to respond within hours.

At my academic institution, we are asked to check our emails once every regular work day. Many of us do these checks at the end of the day once our key work responsibilities have been met. This negates the ability to address most ‘fact’ checks. And if the ‘fact’ checkers do not receive their responses by their unrealistic deadlines, they automatically weigh the evidence in favour of their narrative-promoting 'expert(s)’ and designate your message as ‘misinformation’. Hence the appearance that most experts of integrity ‘failed’ to respond to these checks.

By the way, published peer-reviewed scientific evidence now overwhelming demonstrates that the three ‘highly controversial’ things I said in the interview targeted by this ‘fact’ check were 100% correct. Can you even believe that one of the things that caused people to turn my life into a living hell was because I stated there might be a link between mRNA COVID-19 ‘vaccines’ and myocarditis?!? The other two inconvenient truths were: 1. The lipid nanoparticles that carry the mRNA of the mRNA-based COVID-19 ‘vaccines’ don’t stay at the injection site; 2. The spike protein has multiple mechanisms by which it could potentially cause toxic effects in the body (due to time limitations I could only address one of these many concerns). Having too much expertise and thus being able to uncover legitimate concerns from limited scientific data has proven to be a nightmare for many people over the past three years.

Well-Supported Rebuttals Are Time-Sinks With No Public Benefit

On one occasion, a request from a ‘fact’ checker popped up on my screen while I was sitting in front of my computer. So, I took advantage of this to demonstrate that I always have solid scientific evidence to support my messaging. I trusted the journalistic process. This was the sequence of events…

1. I received this request (note that it was anonymous, which is typical; it also suggested that an entire ‘team’ was involved)…

2. This was my response (I blind copied several legal teams and media outlets to help hold Reuters accountable)…

And I included these responses embedded among their original text…

Remarkably, the supposed ‘fact’ checkers had misattributed quotes to me. They couldn’t even get my facts straight. So, I learned that I had to fact check the claims they were asserting that I had made.

3. This was the last that I heard from Reuters on this particular check…

I never received a copy of the ‘fact’ check and, to the best of my knowledge, it was never published. If true, why wouldn’t they publish my science-supported rationale that showed that I know exactly what I am talking about and can back it up if allowed to have a conversation about it?

I’ll let you answer that question.

Also, if anyone is aware of a place where this ‘fact’ check was posted, please provide the link in the comments section.

Summary

In short, these are key reasons why most experts of integrity will never bother to give any ‘fact’ checkers the time of day after their experience or two. We get treated disrespectfully and successful rebuttals don’t seem to get reported. So, one quickly has to learn, as difficult as it is, to ignore these ploys and accept the reputation-bashing that will result. Otherwise, it would suck excessive time and energy out of our lives with no benefit arising from the effort.

So, I will never engage with a so-called ‘fact’ checker again because it is like farting in the wind. The effort goes completely unnoticed.

My conclusion: ‘fact’ checks stink.

---