Thanks for the detailed response to yet another dodgy ‘fact check’. It seems that a major purpose of ‘fact checking’ is to cast official doubt on any concerns that manage to run the gauntlet of restrictions (even censorship) in accessible media.
If fact checkers exercised the same level of diligence in addressing the continuing barrage of information from official sources or drug marketers to get vaccinated, boosted or masked, it is possible that they may become worth watching or reading, as at least they might then look impartial.
At present, however, it is unlikely that they will be interpreted as impartial, and more likely that they will be recognised merely as a form of advertising. While this might be seen as a new phenomenon of some kind worthy of study, and some of us might be puzzled - even amused - that so many seem reassured by the fact checkers, the long-term risks to public understanding of science or trust in public institutions would seem to me to be immense.
The Covid nightmare has destroyed much more than our health.
Feb 10, 2023Liked by Mr Law, Health and Technology
Thank you for taking the time to unpick this ‘fact check’ and expose it for the dodgy and unconvincing ‘analysis’ that it is. Sadly, I believe that many people are too easily taken in by seeing an article labelled “Fact checked - false” and then look no further to check its veracity. However, fact-checking the fact-checkers, as you do, arms us all with the ability to show others of the need to drill down a bit deeper to establish the truth.
Its even worse than that when you discover that a key figure in the "official, UK Government sanctioned" mass disinformation charade of "Fact Checking" is a UK MP, and, since the initial foray into the lies perpetrated, has been promoted to the status of PuS around the same time...and all paid for by the taxpayer.
Thanks for the detailed response to yet another dodgy ‘fact check’. It seems that a major purpose of ‘fact checking’ is to cast official doubt on any concerns that manage to run the gauntlet of restrictions (even censorship) in accessible media.
If fact checkers exercised the same level of diligence in addressing the continuing barrage of information from official sources or drug marketers to get vaccinated, boosted or masked, it is possible that they may become worth watching or reading, as at least they might then look impartial.
At present, however, it is unlikely that they will be interpreted as impartial, and more likely that they will be recognised merely as a form of advertising. While this might be seen as a new phenomenon of some kind worthy of study, and some of us might be puzzled - even amused - that so many seem reassured by the fact checkers, the long-term risks to public understanding of science or trust in public institutions would seem to me to be immense.
The Covid nightmare has destroyed much more than our health.
Thank you for taking the time to unpick this ‘fact check’ and expose it for the dodgy and unconvincing ‘analysis’ that it is. Sadly, I believe that many people are too easily taken in by seeing an article labelled “Fact checked - false” and then look no further to check its veracity. However, fact-checking the fact-checkers, as you do, arms us all with the ability to show others of the need to drill down a bit deeper to establish the truth.
Factcheckers are gaslighting arsonists that deliberately obfuscate facts with fictionalized misleading information.
Its even worse than that when you discover that a key figure in the "official, UK Government sanctioned" mass disinformation charade of "Fact Checking" is a UK MP, and, since the initial foray into the lies perpetrated, has been promoted to the status of PuS around the same time...and all paid for by the taxpayer.