Undue and unaccountable influence of 'fact-checkers' on medical science and freedom of speech

Table of Contents

1. Summary

2. The case against the fact-checkers

3. The case against PolitiFact writer Gabrielle Settles

4. Analyses of articles by Gabrielle Settles

A. Settles on the Black community and the events of January 6, 2021

B. Settles's case against Nurse Nicole Sirotek and Remdesivir

C. Settles's case against Steve Kirsch, VAERS, and MedAlerts

D. Settles's case against Dr. Janci Chunn Lindsay and vaccine-driven variants

6. PolitiFact's Truth-O-Meter scam

7. Conclusion

8. Email communication between Settles and Dr. Lindsay

1. Summary

In America's Frontline Doctors (AFLDS)’s stand for medical freedom, calling out assaults on that freedom, wherever they are found, is essential. This analysis demonstrates how fact-checking organizations and fact-checkers destroy medical freedom and freedom of speech by censoring individuals and the facts, ideas, opinions, and products they promote if they are contrary to the mainstream narrative. We show how they mislead and misinform the public and that this is a modus operandi, rather than a lack of judgment or mistake. America’s Frontline Nurse Nicole Sirotek, COVID-19 Early Treatment Fund founder Steve Kirsch, and AFLDS member Dr. Janci Chunn Lindsay are three of many individuals who have been accused of spreading false information by "fact-checkers," including by PolitiFact and their staff writer Gabrielle Settles. By reviewing Settles's work we see a clear pattern of deception and explain how a critical reader can often discern this, even without specialized knowledge. Not only do we provide evidence that Sirotek, Kirsch, and Dr. Lindsay are correct in their assessments, but that Settles purposely presents misleading or biased evidence with which to defame and libel them. We also show that PolitiFact and Facebook, with which they partner, promote themselves to the public as objective, even when they are not, by their own admission.

We are at a critical juncture in history - if we don't stand up for our freedoms now, they will be quickly lost. This even includes the freedom to be wrong.

Key definitions:

Defamation - law: the act of communicating false statements about a person that injure the reputation of that person^[1]

Libel - a written or oral defamatory statement or representation that conveys an unjustly unfavorable impression
b(1): a statement or representation published without just cause and tending to expose another to public contempt
(2): defamation of a person by written or representational means^[2]

2. The case against the fact-checkers

Fact-checkers claim to be arbiters of fact and misinformation, even though they are not necessarily experienced in the topics about which they write (those experts are usually hard at work in their professions). When journalists claiming to check facts write in support of an agenda, this hurts us all; fact-checking, as it is practiced today, censures ideas, individuals, and information, effectively destroying our free speech, healthy debate, and the learning and increase of knowledge that occur when people can speak and engage with one another freely. It destroys the reputations and livelihoods of innocent people. And, it hurts those who are misled into believing erroneous information, to their detriment.

Fact-checkers have been found to distort, deny, and ignore the truth, make false claims about the people and topics in their cross-hairs, and even ruin reputations and livelihoods. Libel and defamation used to be crimes and, for the religious among us, sins; today they have been raised to a profession, the Fact-Checking profession.

It is essential to understand how these sites and practitioners of this “profession” work to know what to watch out for so as not to be manipulated or deceived.

3. The case against PolitiFact writer Gabrielle Settles

PolitiFact is a well-known fact-checking organization. It won a Pulitzer Prize in 2009 for work it did in 2008 but, as PolitiFact Bias writer Bryan White explained, the prize had nothing to do with accuracy; the jurors are not allowed to fact check the work they evaluate.^[3] Its reputation leads people to believe that they are reliable, however, the PolitiFact posts we reviewed were purposely misleading and deceptive.

A review of PolitiFact writer Gabrielle Settles work reveals that many of her posts are not honest; very frequently she manipulates language, introduces irrelevant “problems” to distract her readers, uses experts who are not truly qualified to speak to the topic, and intentionally ignores exculpatory evidence, even to the point of neglecting the proof information given to her, in the communication she initiated, by those she set out to censure, defame, and libel.

Settles has written about misinformation regarding the current war between Russia and the Ukraine,^[4] on climate change, ^[5] and various medical issues, among other topics. That's a lot of specialized knowledge for one person!^[6]

Her bio in PolitiFact shows that she graduated from Wayne State University in 2017 with a dual major in broadcast journalism and African American studies.^[7]

A search for her name on the Weekly Challenger website, one of her previous employers listed in her PolitiFact bio, showed seven articles relating to the African American community,^[8] published between January 2018 and February 2021. The website Muck Rack^[9] lists other media outlets where Settles’ work can be found. None of them provide her with credibility on medical issues, the primary area of concern in this article.

4. Analyses of articles by Gabrielle Settles

The following analyses of four of her false and misleading posts reveal the magnitude of the deception perpetrated that is a modus operandi for Settles, not merely mistakes or an error in judgment. The first post reviewed, regarding politics and the Black community, she wrote for the Weekly Challenger and the three others, related to COVID-19 medicine and vaccines - remdesivir, VAERS, and the variants created by the vaccines, were written for PolitiFact. The evidence that she is a biased writer and that she and PolitiFact mislead the public and destroy reputations without warrant and without compunction, appears to be very clear and compelling.

A. Settles on the Black community and the events of January 6, 2021

Peaceful local BLM protesters weigh in on Capitol mob^[10]

It's pretty suggestive from the title that her political piece, published in the Weekly Challenger, is biased in support of the politically correct, mainstream narrative regarding the facts surrounding the incident in Washington, D.C., on January 6, 2021.

Regarding the “peaceful” protesters, Settles stated: “The only words they use are the ones on the signs that they hold up: “It’s Beyond Time: Justice for All,” “Wipe Out White Supremacy,” “All Lives Can’t Matter Until Black Lives Matter,” and other straightforward phrases.”

Settles uses rather strange wording to advise her readers that the ‘peacefully’ masked and socially distanced (read ‘good citizens’) predominantly white BLM protestors were not shouting their messages at the passing cars and other pedestrians, but quietly stood by the side of the road holding placards. But why include the words “other straightforward phrases?” The definition of ‘straightforward’ is ‘easy to understand’; using it the way she did, though, seems to be an attempt to deflect her readers’ attention and critical thinking from the message's intent on those signs. She appears to be telling her audience – nothing to see here folks, let’s move on. However, while some of the phrases on those signs may be innocuous, others can be construed as advocating racism and a possible predilection for violence among some peaceful protestors. Isn’t that the implication of “wipe out white supremacy” and “all lives can’t matter until Black Lives Matter?”

In the section entitled ‘BLM protest vs. Capitol mob’ Settles painted a distorted picture. For instance, my fact-checking showed that while much media did claim that it was “Trump supporters” who stormed the Capitol Building on January 6^th, there is credible evidence to the contrary^[11],[12] and Settles should have acknowledged that what she was stating was not conclusive fact.

She also referred to the Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project (ACLED) statistics which showed that 93% of the BLM protests in 2020 were peaceful. What about the other 7%? Here omission allowed her to claim unfair treatment of the peaceful Black protestors by the justice system instead of the supposed kid-glove treatment of the ‘violent Trump Supporters’, as is implied by the word ''mob''.

In an opinion piece in Newsweek, “BLM's ''Mostly Peaceful'' 93 Percent Study Sparks Renewed Propaganda,”^[13] Jason Rantz reminded readers that

“[o]ver the summer, radical BLM activists, mixed in with Antifa, anarchists and other agitators, took over a six-block radius in Seattle known as the Capitol Hill Occupied Zone (CHOP). It was police-free. As a consequence, there were two murders, an attempted rape, daily assaults and a whole lot of vandalism ..."

Tim Craig, in his article in the Washington Post, “’The United States is in crisis’: Report tracks thousands of summer protests, most nonviolent,”^[14] reported that there were about 220 locations where BLM protests became “violent” with demonstrators clashing with police or counter-protesters or causing property damage.

Peaceful local protestors’, Capitol Hill mob’ - journalism or propaganda?

B. Settles's case against Nurse Nicole Sirotek and Remdesivir

No, hospitalized COVID-19 patients weren’t killed by remdesivir^[15]

In this article for PolitiFact, Settles set out to protect the reputation of the drug remdesivir, given to hospitalized COVID-19 patients. It was deemed the ‘standard of care’ by Dr. Fauci^[16] and the only drug, aside from monoclonal antibodies, authorized or approved for COVID-19 patients. To accomplish this, she had to defame and libel Nicole Sirotek, one of America's Frontline Nurses,^[17] whose seasoned voice contradicts the narrative. Sirotek has been attending to hospitalized COVID-19 patients and gave first-person testimony before Senator Ron Johnson’s panel regarding her negative experience with the drug.^[18] Settles did this by ignoring a mountain of evidence that support Sirotek.

Settles was ostensibly fact-checking this tweet by

“Nicole Sirotek [who] stated on January 25, 2022 in a speech:

Says remdesivir is responsible for killing patients hospitalized with COVID-19.”

Settles wrote that

“Published data and medical experts whom we spoke to contradicted Sirotek’s claim.”

Settles's evidence

One expert she spoke with is Dr. Cameron Wolfe, a principal investigator in the clinical study run by the NIH (a government agency that received money from Gilead Sciences, the drug's manufacturer) and the clinical trials run by Gilead Sciences. Readers need to understand that this makes Dr. Wolfe a highly biased source of information. The other expert she mentioned, Dr. Paul Offit, is a pediatrician; children were hardly affected by COVID-19. Neither of Settles's experts is independent (Dr. Offit is also a vaccinologist and spokesperson for the vaccine industry) nor do they have the equivalent or similar practical experience as Sirotek.

Regarding the published data she referred to, the clinical trial which was sponsored by Dr. Fauci's NIAID, part of the NIH, was not an independent study. The NIH and NIAID have financial entanglements with Gilead Sciences, through funding of the trials and receiving money from Gilead Sciences (as is shown below). Gilead Sciences supported the study published in the New England Journal of Medicine. The WHO's Solidarity Trial did not show an increase in death, but that does not negate Sirotek's experience.

A plethora of published data and many medical experts support Sirotek’s claim.

About remdesivir

Remdesivir, one of four drugs trialed as a cure for Ebola in 2018, had to be pulled because it was found to have a high (53%) death rate.^[19] Gilead Sciences acknowledges that it can cause kidney and liver damage^[20] as does the (NIH).^[21]

A Chinese study of remdesivir for use against COVID-19 showed non-statistically significant improvement in the treatment arm, yet they had to terminate the study early due to increased adverse events in that arm (12%) over the control arm (5%).^[22]

Professionals question remdesivir

Here are but a few:

• “I think it’s really inappropriate to give this a full approval because the data don’t support it,” said Eric Topol, a professor of molecular medicine at the Scripps Research Translational Institute. “What [the FDA] should have done instead of issuing the approval was put on the brakes.”^[23]
• Science Magazine said that many questioned the FDA and EU decisions to approve Remdesivir. “… both decisions baffled scientists who have closely watched the clinical trials of remdesivir unfold over the past 6 months—and who have many questions about remdesivir's worth.”^[24]
• “Clinical dose of remdesivir for covid-19 is equivalent to double the toxic dose in rats and monkeys which showed renal damage,” [physician and director of the non-profit Japan Institute of Pharmacovigilance in Osaka, Rokuro] Hama says.”^[25]
• An analysis of the WHO Safety Database showed a statistically significant safety signal for acute renal failure and Remdesivir.^[26]
• A Veterans Administration study showed that Remdesivir did not improve survival rates and made hospitalized vets worse. They reported that 12.2% of patients in the remdesivir group died within 30 days compared to 10.6% of those in the control group. At the same time, the study showed remdesivir led to more days in the hospital.^[27]
• Dr. Bryan Ardis, speaking in front of an international group of lawyers investigating human rights violations related to the COVID-19 pandemic, said that “multi-organ failure, septic shock, acute kidney injury and hypotension” are among the adverse events associated with Remdesivir and that many baffling symptoms that doctors began attributing to SARS-Co-V2, the virus that causes COVID-19, early in the pandemic, were side-effects of the remdesivir used to treat it.

Helen Smith, an ICU nurse of 20 years, who worked at Cleveland Clinic Indian River Hospital exclusively during COVID, said, like Sirotek, that remdesivir was killing patients. She stated:

“They were dying because doctors were immediately intubating patients and providing them with Remdesivir, an expensive drug that does nothing to treat COVID or respiratory illness, but shuts down the organs…”^[28]

Albert Spence, a respiratory nurse of 35 years, recounted how a patient developed flash pulmonary edema and had to be moved to the ICU within an hour of administering remdesivir to him as instructed; at that point he hadn’t understood the adverse effects remdesivir causes.^[29] Kidney failure leads to pulmonary edema.^[30]

Dr. Paul Marik, a pulmonary and critical care specialist, one of the world’s leading critical care and emergency medicine physicians, and co-founder of the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance,^[31] also testified before Senator Ron Johnson's panel, stating that independent studies show remdesivir increases the risk of death by 3% and increases chances of renal failure by 20%, yet, the federal government will give hospitals a 20% bonus on the entire hospital bill for Medicare patients who were prescribed remdesivir.^[32] Watch Dr. Marik as he testifies before Senator Johnson's panel (at min. 3:11).

‍

Conflicts of interest behind remdesivir's approval

In case you’re thinking that since it was approved and the hospitals are using it there must have been other evidence in remdesivir’s favor, you might be shocked to learn that remdesivir was approved because of serious conflicts of interest. The Prescription Drug User Fee Act, enacted into law in 1992, requires drug manufacturers, that the FDA is supposed to be regulating, to pay the agency for its reviews of their trials and approval of their drugs; this makes the FDA a captured agency.^[33] In addition, remdesivir’s manufacturer, Gilead Sciences, contributed funding to the NIH Panel on COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines and 9 panel members had financial ties to Gilead Sciences.^[34] Most significantly, however, are the NIAID’s and CDC’s ties to Gilead Sciences.

As Robert Kennedy Jr. recounts in his book “The Real Anthony Fauci,” the CDC and NIAID gave $79 million to fund the development of remdesivir. US Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (USAMRID), where the drug was studied in monkeys, also contributed millions of dollars to remdesivir’s development. In 2017 Dr. Fauci paid $6 million to accelerate remdesivir as a coronavirus remedy. When it came to remdesivir as a treatment for COVID-19, the NIAID had complete control over the trial including trial design and implementation; protocol development was discussed between the NIAID and Gilead Sciences employees. Therefore, it is not surprising that Dr. Fauci pushed through remdesivir’s approval as the ‘standard of care’ for COVID-19 patients, despite its being neither effective nor safe.^[35]

Hospital patients not killed by remdesivir – honest and accurate fact-checking or defamation and libel?

C. Settles's case against Steve Kirsch, VAERS, and MedAlerts

‍How an alternative gateway to VAERS data helps fuel vaccine misinformation^[36]

In this PolitiFact article, Settles had to protect the reputation of the COVID-19 vaccines which have been promoted to the public as safe and effective, despite mounting evidence that they are not. She, therefore, had to destroy the credibility of Steve Kirsch, who brought data regarding COVID-19 vaccine-related deaths before the FDA Advisory Committee Meeting. Settles also impugned the credibility of VAERS, the CDC's vaccine adverse event reporting system, which had the data he presented and the NVIC's (National Vaccine Information Center) MedAlerts, its VAERS interface tool, which he used to obtain the data.

About Steve Kirsch

Steve Kirsch is a retired serial high-tech entrepreneur. He is doubly vaccinated with Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine. He founded the the COVID-19 Early Treatment Fund because he realized that repurposing drugs was the fastest, cheapest way to end the pandemic and the government wasn't interested in funding the top drugs/researchers. Kirsch became interested in COVID-19 vaccine injuries after hearing about deaths of friends’ family members or their own severe injuries after vaccination and understood that statistically it wasn’t just coincidence.^[37],[38]

She claims Kirsch has no relevant background. While that might have been true at one point, he has invested many hours researching the topic and is in contact with some of the leading scientists in the field. Kirsch, who has a BS in Electrical Engineering, a MS in Computer Science from MIT, and retired wealthy at age 64, obviously has a good deal of business acumen and, one would surmise, a good deal of analytical skill. He’s certainly not inexperienced and intends to put his money where his mouth is; he has offered $1 million to whoever would debate him or any of his team of experts.

As we’ve seen above, Settles graduated college in 2017 with a double major, neither of which have anything to do with medicine or science. Her vast experience of about five years cannot compare to Kirsch’s. Therefore, her denigrating Kirsch because he “is not a medical professional, scientist or vaccine expert” is ludicrous.

Settles repeatedly points to other ‘fact-checks’ that defamed Kirsch and NVIC to imply that her claims must, therefore, be accurate. Using social media and other fact-checks to bolster her claims is not really proof of anything.  One might consider PolitiFact's “Pants on Fire” rating to be juvenile (How old were you the last time you yelled at someone “liar, liar, pants on fire?”); it’s certainly not a sign of seriousness or professionalism and, as is highlighted in section 6 below, is nothing more than subjective opinion.

About Settles's criticisms

Settles criticized Kirsch for his remarks at the FDA advisory meeting where she stated that he

“…  took the virtual floor with a slide presentation and a troubling claim: that the Pfizer vaccine was killing five times as many people as it saved.”

She stated that the FDA “roundly rejected” his claims and linked to another PolitiFact post for proof. Readers who click on the link can read of an email exchange that Samantha Putterman, the post's author, had with FDA spokesperson Abby Capobianco, who stated that "… the statements made by Kirsch were "not based in science" and "go against FDA’s public health mission." Putterman also wrote that Capobianco claimed they don't believe Kirsch properly interpreted the data. It was never explained, however, on what basis his interpretation of VAERS data is not based in science, what the FDA's public health mission is if not to protect the public from dangerous products, or what the correct interpretation of the data is. Why not?

In Putterman's post readers will also find a reference to the YouTube video of the FDA meeting where Kirsch spoke. (Settles hadn't provided it.) The video opens at the minute mark where Dr. Jessica Rose presents her analysis of the VAERS data, showing excessive COVID vaccine injuries and deaths, and backing up Kirsch.^[39] Dr. Rose's graph depicting the increased injuries and deaths from the vaccine is shown below.

Another one of Settles's criticisms is that the MedAlert interface has a disclaimer that does not have to be read by the user to access the data. The CDC's interface tool does.

She wrote

“Users who go to MedAlerts can search through VAERS reports without ever reading a government disclaimer. There are inconspicuous links to those disclaimers, but unlike the CDC’s Wonder database, users on MedAlerts who don’t notice or click on the links won’t see the warnings about what they read.”

While it may be true that MedAlerts doesn’t require users to confirm that they read and understand the disclaimer before accessing the database as the CDC’s Wonder tool does, anyone who goes to the MedAlerts site will see that the link to the disclaimer is not inconspicuous.^[40]

And, to be sure, one doesn’t have to have read and understand the CDC disclaimer (see the image below) before hitting the button stating that you have so you can continue to the database.^[41]

Realistically, the issue here has nothing to do with her speculation about the ability of users to correctly interpret the VAERS data, the NVIC as an organization, the fact that MedAlerts does not have the same quality of disclaimer as VAERS does, nor the fact that the CDC claims that you can’t determine causality from the database. The difference in the disclaimer does not mean the tool is ineffective or people are being misled by using it.^[42] Since she cannot prove that the VAERS data is inconsequential, invalidating the tangential factors misleads people into believing the VAERS data is “guilty by association." Readers must understand that the only thing that matters here is the credibility of VAERS data and the inferences that can be made from them, as Steve Kirsch did.

Why VAERS is important

The CDC states that, despite its limitations, VAERS is an essential early warning system, .

"VAERS is the nation’s early warning system that monitors the safety of vaccines after they are authorized or licensed for use by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). VAERS is part of the larger vaccine safety system in the United States that helps make sure vaccines are safe. The system is co-managed by CDC and FDA.

“… As an early warning system, VAERS cannot prove that a vaccine caused a problem… But VAERS can give CDC and FDA important information. If it looks as though a vaccine might be causing a problem, FDA and CDC will investigate further and take action if needed."^[43]

It is also evident that the VAERS database is regarded as an essential tool in detecting vaccine adverse events since a grant was provided by the Department of Health and Human Services to Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, Inc. to study the database. By analyzing data from December 1, 2007 through September 30, 2010, they were able to determine that fewer than 1% of all adverse events are ever reported to VAERS.^[44]

Two papers in the journal Vaccine discussed the utility of VAERS. One found it “a model of transparency” for monitoring COVID-19 vaccine safety:

“Despite the well-known limitations, VAERS has shown to be a model of transparency in the COVID-19 age, and is essential for ongoing monitoring of vaccine safety, especially the rapid detection of rare and severe or life-threatening events, and alerting the public and healthcare providers of concerns and guidance. The quick detection of early reports and rapid assessment of safety signals demonstrate the robustness of this system. With large numbers of individuals being rapidly vaccinated, it is incumbent on healthcare professionals on the frontlines to recognize potential vaccine adverse events including rare, serious adverse events like CVST, to VAERS.”^[45]

The other one found that VAERS captured clinically significant adverse events related to the rotavirus and oral polio vaccines, despite underreporting.

“… Underreporting is a limitation common to passive surveillance systems, including the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) that monitors the safety of U.S.-licensed vaccines. Nonetheless, previous reports demonstrate substantial case capture for clinically severe adverse events (AEs), including 47% of intussusception cases after rotavirus vaccine, and 68% of vaccine associated paralytic polio after oral polio vaccine.”^[46]

Dr. Jessica Rose also analyzed VAERS data to glean critical information about the COVID-19 vaccines.^[47]

Rose's graph (see image at right) confirms Kirsch’s claim that the VAERS data show COVID-19 vaccines are responsible for many deaths.^[48]

Can there be pharmacovigilance without VAERS?

"Estimating the number of COVID vaccine deaths in America,"^[49] a paper Dr. Rose prepared together with Steve Kirsch and Matthew Crawford (a statistician) includes references to four peer-reviewed papers published in the scientific literature supporting their research.^[50] It also includes a link to an editorial published in the journal Science, Public Health Policy, and the Law entitled “If Vaccine Adverse Events Tracking Systems Do Not Support Causal Inference, then “Pharmacovigilance” Does Not Exist.”^[51] The editorial's author and editor-in-chief of the journal, Dr. James Lyons-Weiler, explains that we are being given two conflicting messages by those involved with public health:

1) That “… long-term randomized double blinded placebo-controlled clinical trials are not necessary for the long-term study of vaccine safety because we have “pharmacovigilance”; i.e. long term post-market safety surveillance that is supported by widely accessible, passive vaccine adverse events tracking systems.”

2) "… that any use of those very same vaccine adverse events tracking systems that leads to the inference or conclusion that vaccines might cause serious adverse events or death is unsupported by such systems." ^[52]

While acknowledging that a better system is needed, he explains that a passive system, such as VAERS does not destroy the causal link or propose that the vaccine had nothing to do with the adverse events reported. It simply means that a positive association must be investigated, not ignored.

"Vaccinologists [such as Paul Offit, who Settles referenced] act as if the process of collecting the data using a passive system destroys the causal link between vaccine exposure and poor health outcomes and death. In reality, the causal link exists, or it does not. If it does, the act of collating the data using a passive system that then only satisfies temporal association and statistical association or correlation does not destroy the causal link; it merely makes it difficult to ascertain causality. The lack of association thereby does not indemnify the vaccine exposure. A positive association, however, should be heeded …" ^[53]

Readers should take note that neither Settles nor her sources provided any other statistics regarding COVID-19 vaccine deaths to prove VAERS data misleading or the data Kirsch presented to the FDA factually incorrect. They also did not explain why there are so many more deaths reported after the COVID-19 vaccine rollout than for all other vaccines. We see this in Dr. Rose's graphs above and in OpenVaers.com, another VAERS interface, which incorporates all 32 years of VAERS data. Utilizing the Wayback Machine, we found 24,402 COVID-19 vaccine reported deaths vs. 9,338 non-COVID reported vaccine deaths (total reported vaccine deaths was 33,740) as of February 28, 2022, the date Settles's post was published.^[54]

Even if reporting to VAERS was greater following COVID-19 vaccines than other vaccines, the figures we've seen above need to be explained. They can't be brushed aside, which is what Settles and the people she referenced seem to be doing. Registered nurse and whistleblower, Jodie O'Malley, explained that many adverse events following COVID vaccinations weren't being reported because it takes half an hour to fill out one report.^[55]

Settles ignores Steve Kirsch's proofs

What’s most astounding about this article, however, is what it doesn’t include - the information that Kirsch gave Settles during a conversation she initiated; Kirsch told Settles he is not only relying on VAERS; he has 12 other independent ways that he was able to back up the VAERS data as proof that the vaccine deaths reported for COVID-19 through VAERS are accurate. She never asked him what they were. All this is made clear in the recorded phone conversation he had with Settles. Settles asked Kirsch for permission to record their conversation and, having given it, he recorded the conversation as well. After watching his clip of their conversation and reading the article Settles subsequently wrote, it is easy to understand why Settle’s editor called Kirsch and asked him to take the video down.

You can watch the video here and judge for yourself whether or not Settles was interested in the truth.

“Alternative gateway fuels misinformation” - honest and accurate reporting or defamation and libel?

D. Settles case against Dr. Janci Chunn Lindsay and vaccine-driven variants

Evidence shows that COVID-19 variants are largely spread among unvaccinated people^[56]

In this PolitiFact post Settles took on one of America's Front Line Doctors' distinguished members, Dr. Janci Chunn Lindsay, a veteran toxicologist of 30 years, since she has spoken out against the COVID-19 vaccines for their propensity to drive variants. Dr. Lindsay’s voice is considered dangerous because she is reputable and highly credentialed and the public's faith in COVID-19 vaccines must be preserved at all costs. Settles, therefore, set to work to destroy Dr. Lindsay's reputation.

Some important information about vaccine science

It must be understood that vaccinology is, in actuality, a highly complex science, despite the oversimplification of vaccine science presented to the general public. Vaccinology involves multiple fields of knowledge including virology, biology, biochemistry, immunology, toxicology, metals, microbiology, genetics, and more. Not everything is well-understood. The literature shows that vaccine scientists and researchers have admitted as much on multiple occasions (see image below).

How can Settles take on Dr. Lindsay when the science is complicated and even vaccinologists have difficulty understanding what they’re doing? And, with the genetic COVID-19 vaccines, even more so, since according to Moderna CEO Tal Zaks, they are ‘hacking the software of life''?^[57]

It doesn’t matter.

Settles shouldn't have relied on Facebook fact-checkers to bolster her claims against Dr. Lindsay

In her defamatory post about Dr. Lindsay, Settles tries to bolster her position by pointing to Dr. Lindsay’s post (see image below left) which was tagged as false by Facebook ‘fact-checkers’, (see image below right), and to the relationship between PolitiFact and Facebook (now Meta). (A transcript of Dr. Lindsay's public comment before the CDC, referenced in her post, can be read here.)

However, when John Stossel sued Facebook for defamation, Facebook's attorneys said that their fact-checkers provide “opinions” they don't check facts!

“[i]n a court filing responding to a lawsuit filed by John Stossel^[58] claiming that he was defamed by a "fact check" Facebook used to label a video by him as "misleading," Meta's attorneys assert that the "fact check" was an "opinion," not an actual check of facts and declaration of facts. Under libel law, opinions are protected from liability for libel.” (Emphasis added)

Dr. Lindsay's credentials compared to the credentials of Settles's experts

Settles derides Dr. Lindsay as “… someone touting toxicology credentials,” “who describes herself as managing director of Toxicology Support Services, LLC. A website for that business states that Lindsay holds a doctorate in biochemistry and molecular biology,” and to an AFP fact-check article “in which someone who identifies herself as Lindsay” falsely said vaccines could end up sterilizing "an entire generation." (Emphasis added.)^[59]

Settles uses craftily created wording to prime her readers to expect, before she provides any evidence, that the person about whom she is writing, has no credibility and is not to be believed but the people she spoke with know better. She didn’t use derisive language when introducing the “experts” she presented. She didn’t state that Dr. Fagbuyi is “someone who identifies himself as an emergency room physician …” or “A biography of Dr. Amesh Adalja, on the Center for Health Security’s website states that he is a senior scholar …”.

These are Dr. Lindsay’s credentials:

Dr. Janci Lindsay, PhD., spent most of her career as a research scientist, and has more than 30 years of scientific experience, primarily in the area of toxicology. She holds a doctorate in Molecular Biology & Biochemistry from the University of Texas, Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, M.D. Anderson Cancer Center. Biochemistry is the basis of toxicology as a discipline. She is a full member of the Society of Toxicology. Dr. Lindsay authored and co-authored multiple scientific publications and has presented her research at national and international scientific meetings. Her work has included investigating exposures to chemicals, drugs, and particulates, assessing health risks, and the potential for chemical contribution to disease and impairment based on the dose-response relationship, and the known toxicological properties of the chemicals involved. She has personally worked on a contraceptive vaccine in the 1990s which failed for purpose and caused ovarian destruction rather than temporary contraception.^[60]

These are the credentials and responses of the experts who addressed Dr. Lindsay’s statement about vaccines creating the variants:

Dr. Dan Fagbuyi is an ER Physician, Biodefense Expert, Chief Medical Officer, War Veteran, Asst. Professor and Media Expert, in public health literacy, biodefense, disaster preparedness, emergency management, and more. He also worked with the FDA, among other positions that he held.^[61]

Do his accomplishments, great as they may be, make him qualified to speak about vaccines? Can his work with the government and the FDA makes it difficult for him to be unbiased and honest, lest he lose his reputation and job the same way “fact-checkers” such as PolitiFact are trying to destroy Nicole Sirotek, Steve Kirsch, Dr. Lindsay, and many others?

According to Settles, Dr. Fagbuyi responded to Dr. Lindsay's claim stating:

“Facebook claim’s blanket statement that vaccinations are causing the unvaccinated to get sick misses a key point about when and how the variants developed and spread.

"If that were the case, based on all the other (COVID-19) cases, we wouldn’t have seen all these variants before we got the vaccines…"

Dr. Fagbuyi also made a blanket statement without providing any sources backing him up! Settles provides no evidence that Dr. Fagbuyi is more correct than Dr. Lindsay.

Dr. Amesh Adalja specializes in infectious disease, bioterrorism, and emergency medicine at Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security and is a clinical assistant professor at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine. He is also “an outspoken advocate towards the COVID vaccine and dismantling misinformation.” (Emphasis added.)^[62]

Do Dr. Adalja's impressive credentials, despite his work with infectious diseases, indicate that he is knowledgeable about vaccines? Can it be that his work with Johns Hopkins and as someone who has been combatting “COVID misinformation” means that he is not unbiased and would be in jeopardy of being discredited, just like Sirotek, Kirsch, and Dr. Lindsay have been, if he was to confirm Dr. Lindsay’s assertions.

Regarding Dr. Adalja's response to Dr. Lindsay's statements, Settles wrote:

“… Dr. Amesh Adalja … pointed out that the newest and most dangerous variant spread most rapidly through unvaccinated populations.

"The delta variant emerged in a largely unvaccinated country," Adalja said, referring to India, where the variant drove soaring case rates starting in the spring of 2021. "The more the virus spreads, the more chance there is for variants to emerge."

Dr. Adalja's response sounds reasonable if you don't understand how variants emerge and leaky vaccines can spread disease. He provides no sources to prove what he is claiming. Settles provides no evidence that Dr. Adalja is more correct than Dr. Lindsay.

Evidence supporting Dr. Lindsay's claims

Many papers show that, in one way or another, the vaccines are driving the variants.

1.This paper looks at six diseases for which we have been vaccinating for several decades. Vaccine-induced variants have even been found to occur many years after vaccination began.

Evidences of Parasite Evolution After Vaccination^[63] (Emphasis added.) (Emphasis added.)

• Hepatitis B Vaccine: “… there is now growing evidence that mutations occurring within the surface antigen allow replication of HBV in vaccinated people. In 1990 a mutation … was described [3]. Since then, several other HBV variants have been found in many countries. Interestingly these mutants have also been identified in unvaccinated hosts s [4], though in lower frequency than in vaccinated individuals.”
• Pertussis (Whooping Cough) vaccine: “… but in many countries pertussis remains an endemic disease. Worse still, in some highly vaccinated populations the incidence of pertussis has started to increase again since 1990s. It has been suggested that this reemergence could be due to the spread of vaccine-favored variants. For example … new mutations in two surface proteins, pertactin and pertussis toxin, have appeared after the start of vaccination, replacing the variants which are found in the pertussis vaccines. … These mutations may thus be involved in evading the immune response induced by vaccination. In fact these new variants were observed more frequently among vaccinated individuals than in unvaccinated individuals [7].
• Marek’s Disease: “Vaccination started in the 1950s but new virus strains rapidly emerged. These strains have the ability to infect and exploit vaccinated birds. Witter [15] showed experimentally that these emerging strains are more able to cause disease than ancestral strains in both naïve and vaccinated hosts. However, in contrast with the previous examples, there is evidence that these mutants are also much more virulent (i.e., they induce more extreme symptoms) in both naıve and vaccinated individuals [15–17].
• Malaria: “… at least one study in humans has demonstrated that vaccination exerts selective pressure in favor of strains not included in vaccines [21]. Furthermore, there is experimental evidence from rodent malaria that vaccination can affect virulence evolution… more virulent strains persist at higher densities and for longer... leading to increased transmissibility and decreased recovery rate in immunized hosts.”
• Diphtheria: “… Given that the diphtheria toxoid vaccine is imperfect [31] the production of more toxin may be an alternative way to overcome the effect of the toxoid. Depending on the magnitude of the cost and the benefit associated with the toxin, vaccination may either select for or against toxin production [17,32]…”

From the Discussion section:

“The above empirical examples show that vaccine-favored variants do occur and, in some cases, may even be implicated in the reemergence of disease …”

2. This paper validates the theoretical mechanism by which the HPV vaccine can improve the virus's ability to transmit.

Could the human papillomavirus vaccines drive virulence evolution?^[64] (Emphasis added.)

From the abstract:

“Here, we present and theoretically validate a mechanism by which the vaccine alters the transmission–recovery trade-off that constrains HPV's virulence such that higher oncogene expression is favoured. With a high oncogene expression strategy, the virus is able to increase its viral load and infected cell population before clearance by the vaccine, thus improving its chances of transmission.”

3. This paper explains that a vaccine that doesn't stop transmission can increase the risk of mutations. Because this is a live virus vaccine, there is also a risk that it will revert to its original virulence.

Porcine Reproductive and Respiratory Syndrome Modified Live Virus Vaccine: A “Leaky” Vaccine with Debatable Efficacy and Safety^[65] (Emphasis added.)

From the abstract:

“… On the other hand, MLV can still replicate in the host, inducing viremia and virus shedding, and it fails to confer sterilizing immunity against PRRSV infection, that may accelerate viral mutation or recombination to adapt the host and to escape from the immune response, raising the risk of reversion to virulence.”

4. This paper, which reviews the different SARS CoV-2 variants, explains that naturally the virus mutates slowly.

Emerging SARS-Cov-2 Variants: A Review of Its Mutations, Its Implications and Vaccine Efficacy^[66] (Emphasis added.)

“Viral variants result from mutations during viral replication … The mutation rate is slow compared to other common viruses, such as influenza [3]. This means SARS-CoV-2 is less likely to experience mutational changes, such as antigenic drift and antigenic shift responsible for altering the virus composition that leads to differences in infectivity, transmission, and disease severity. As COVID-19 spreads across the world, the virus naturally mutates to form new variants that can either be more or less infectious than the previous form depending on the altered composition.”

5. However, as the following paper shows, vaccines that do not prevent infection and transmission can not only foster evolution of variants but can also alter (speed up) the time frame during which the variants are created and transmitted.

The authors suggest that the devastating 2nd wave in India may have happened because the small number of vaccinated individuals became a breeding ground for the delta variant to emerge.

Understanding the devastating second wave of COVID-19 pandemic in India^[67] (Emphasis added.)

“… a vaccine, … if it cannot prevent infection completely (i.e., if it cannot provide sterilizing immunity), has the potential to significantly decrease the time lag required for the emergence of new strains … (McLean, 1995) (Figure 3).”

“… the sequence diversity of the spike protein is lesser in viruses sequenced from infections originating in vaccinated versus unvaccinated individuals suggesting that vaccines are indeed interfering with viral evolution (Niesen et, 2021). Curiously, India's devastating second wave of infection which was driven by the highly infectious delta strain/variant (Mascarenhas, 2021; Sadam, 2021) has closely followed India's vaccination drive, with a slight lag in time …"

"… The question then is, did the small but increasing number of vaccinees in India become breeding grounds for the delta variant to emerge and initiate the second wave? In a country like India that had a huge number of unvaccinated and most likely unexposed (to the adaptive immune system) hosts, the delta variant found a fertile ground to stabilize itself in the population. Yes, the curves shown in Figure 4 seem to be mere correlations and not evidence to believe that vaccines drove the second wave of infection in India; but, absence of evidence for causation is not evidence for absence of causation either! When two events happen simultaneously during a raging pandemic, there is no way to show that one event is causing the other, in which case we should invoke other forms of evidence. There is proof from experiments in livestock that shows, ''leaky or imperfect vaccines'' “can facilitate the evolution of pathogen strains that put unvaccinated hosts at greater risk of severe disease” (Read et al., 2015).”

“… It is noteworthy, that the delta variant did not cause a severe disease in the vaccinees (Gupta et al., 2021), but it did cause high mortality in the unvaccinated and most likely unexposed hosts, especially in rural India. The Israel observation (Horowitz, 2021; Rosenberg, 2021) also raises another important scientific question for India: could the vaccines have precipitated infections, even though not severe, among the vaccinees during the beginning of the second wave? The answer to this question is important to prove the hypothesis that the vaccines used in India gave rise to the second wave.”

6. This paper explains that the immune response among people infected with COVID-19 who have no antibodies against the virus, give the virus little reason to mutate in a way that will result in them avoiding antibodies. Therefore, there may be an underestimate of the potential for the creation of variants that will evade the neutralizing antibodies. Because mutations are always occurring, once the population has a great degree of neutralizing antibodies, the mutants will “expand deterministically” and create resistance to neutralizing antibodies. High vaccination rates are responsible for vaccine resistant strains.

Risk of rapid evolutionary escape from biomedical interventions targeting SARS-CoV-2 spike protein^[68] (Emphasis added.)

“… These kinetics suggest the immune response in naïve individuals exerts limited selection pressure on the virus, consistent with direct genetic evidence from deep sequencing showing little to no positive selection [6] … When nAbs are broadly present in the population, population-level selection for antibody-evading, infection-competent viral mutants may result in a rapid resurgence of SARS-CoV-2 infections.

“… Although these mutants are at a fitness disadvantage compared to the wild-type virus before nAbs are broadly present in the population, they are constantly generated through de novo mutation which allows them to exist at nonzero frequencies. However, once nAbs are common in the population, these mutants will have a selective advantage. If they already exist at sufficient frequency in the population, the escape mutants will expand deterministically and lead to widespread SARS-CoV-2 resistance to nAbs.”

“.... vaccine-resistant mutations will gradually become one of the main evolution driving forces of SARS-CoV-2, especially in those areas with high vaccination rates.”

“By tracking the evolutionary trajectories of vaccine-resistant mutations in more than 2.2 million SARS-CoV-2 genomes, we reveal that the occurrence and frequency of vaccine-resistant mutations correlate strongly with the vaccination rates in Europe and America.”

“The early stage of SARS-CoV-2 evolution was entirely dominated by infectivity-strengthening mutations. However, since late March 2021, once vaccines had provided protection to highly vaccinated populations, several vaccine-resistant mutations such as Y449S and Y449H have been observed relatively frequently.”

7. This paper explains that high vaccination rates allow mutants to escape vaccine immunity.

Vaccines and variants: Modelling insights into emerging issues in COVID-19 epidemiology^[69] (Emphasis added.)

“Based on early evidence, the main barrier to effective control through vaccination could be the emergence of new viral variants escaping vaccine immunity [11]. As vaccination coverage increases, reduced transmission will reduce opportunities for emergence and population immunity will act as a selective pressure, increasing the rate of vaccine escape mutants … “

8. This paper shows that vaccines can cause more virulent forms of the disease to emerge.

The evolutionary epidemiology of vaccination^[70] (Emphasis added.)

“The second line of enquiry focuses on the so-called ‘virulence’ or ‘life-history’ mutants and is directed towards understanding how vaccination causes evolutionary changes in the extent to which a parasite harms its host … The central premise behind this research is that virulence evolves as a result of constraints among parasite life-history characteristics, and that vaccination can alter the form of these constraints, thereby causing evolutionary changes in virulence.”

9. The following map of the COVID variants shows minimal variant spread at the beginning of the pandemic; most of it happened after the vaccines were rolled out.^[71]

Marek's Virus vaccine study author on Dr. Lindsay's reference to the Marek's virus vaccine

Settles claims that Andrew Read, director of the Huck Institutes for the Life Sciences at Penn State University and the person who wrote the Marek’s disease study,^[72] stated that

"… Lindsay’s claim citing his study muddles the facts and misapplies his work.

“Marek's disease and COVID-19 are totally different viruses, with different vaccines and different hosts ...”

Neither of these two statements explains how, or even that, Dr. Lindsay is wrong. Reading them carefully, one realizes that it is unclear what muddling the facts and misapplying his work mean. The statement that Marek's disease and COVID-19 are different viruses with different vaccines and different hosts is merely a statement of fact; he didn't say that the basic principles of virology and vaccinology are different for animals and humans. If that was the case we could never do animal studies for vaccines or drugs. However, what those statements do is imply that Read said Dr. Lindsay was wrong. The implication is enough for the uncritical reader to fill in the damaging “facts” themselves.

Settles own references prove Dr. Lindsay correct

Two sources that Settles supplied for her fact-check prove Dr. Lindsay correct.

The first one is the WHO webpage, Tracking SARS-CoV-2 variants^[73] which includes vaccines among the factors that may be responsible for variants.

From the first paragraph on that page (emphasis added):

“… some changes may affect the virus’s properties, such as how easily it spreads, the associated disease severity, or the performance of vaccines …"

The other source that Settles provided is a paper in which Andrew Read is the first author listed, "Imperfect Vaccination Can Enhance the Transmission Of Highly Virulent Pathogens".^[74] This one proves that Dr. Lindsay was correct in her statement that leaky vaccines promote variants and that the Marek's Virus vaccine is the classic example.

An excerpt from the abstract:

“…Here we show experimentally that immunization of chickens against Marek's disease virus enhances the fitness of more virulent strains, making it possible for hyperpathogenic strains to transmit. Immunity elicited by direct vaccination or by maternal vaccination prolongs host survival but does not prevent infection, viral replication or transmission, thus extending the infectious periods of strains otherwise too lethal to persist. Our data show that anti-disease vaccines that do not prevent transmission can create conditions that promote the emergence of pathogen strains that cause more severe disease in unvaccinated hosts.”

The last sentence in the summary:

“… The future challenge is to identify whether there are other types of vaccines used in animals and humans that might also generate these evolutionary risks.”

Here are more instances demonstrating that Andrew Read concurs with Dr. Lindsay

• “For instance, it would be extremely important to know if Ebola vaccines could lead to such transmission, Read said. Follow-up studies should test whether leaky human vaccines could also lead to the spread of deadlier disease strains, he added.”^[75]
• “We now are entering an era when we are starting to develop next-generation vaccines that are ‘leaky’ because they are for diseases that do not do a good job of producing strong natural immunity — diseases like HIV and malaria,” Read said.”^[76]
• “But in the context of the COVID-19 virus, our work does prompt a fair question: Could vaccination cause the emergence of even more harmful variants?”^[77]
• In a talk Read gave about his work with chickens and Marek’s virus vaccine, “Some Vaccines Support Evolution of More-Virulent Viruses," he explained that the virus used to be a benign disease in chickens. Once they started vaccinating, the virus mutated and now kills all chickens that haven't been vaccinated. He expressed serious concern about what this means for human vaccines that don't inhibit transmission.^[78]

“It used to be a very benign disease so in the 1950s it did not cause much harm to chicken. These days the strains that circulate kill all unvaccinated birds in 10 days…

“I think one of the important things to get across here that even though the Marek's disease virus evolved to be much, much nastier than it was, is that it isn't causing problems for industry these days precisely because of the vaccinations. So almost every bird, every chicken in the world is vaccinated against Marek's disease and that controls it. That stops the birds dying. and so if you can vaccinate all the hosts in a population and that protects them, it doesn't matter if the thing has become more virulent.

"… In the US and in Europe the birds that get Avian influenza are culled so there is no evolution because everything is dead, but in Southeast Asia they vaccinate. And the vaccines leak. So, this sort of evolution could happen with Avian influenza. And I think that's a very real concern.

“So, it's natural to ask what this means for human vaccines … The question is about next-generation vaccines, things we might develop where the immunity is not likely to be so good. And we can imagine leaky vaccines. So, for instance I think it's very, very important that we determine as quickly as we can that the Ebola vaccines that are currently under trial are not leaky; that they prevent onward transmission. We do not want the evolution of diseases that pathogenic going in a direction what we've seen in these chicken viruses. If this sort of virulence evolution takes place and when it takes place in response to vaccination it's the unvaccinated that are at the greatest risk. Those are the ones who are going to be exposed to, without protection, to these hotter strains. So again, an argument for getting vaccinated.”

This source doesn't prove Dr. Lindsay wrong

Settles wrote that Read referred her to a scientific analysis of how rapidly the delta variant spread during an outbreak in Guangdong, China. The paper, "Transmission Dynamics And Epidemiological Characteristics Of Delta Variant Infections In China," had not yet been peer-reviewed.^[79] Anyone who looks at the study will notice that it was conducted with only 167 patients; we have far greater and more reliable information about the delta variant from the studies and graphs referenced above. Additionally, one of the authors received honoraria from several pharmaceutical companies, several are employed by the WHO, and several by the Chinese Center for Disease Control. They are not independent nor unbiased.

The truth about hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin

It's critically important to recognize the undue and unaccountable influence that fact-checking has garnered. The success that fact-checking has had in infiltrating society and obstructing the scientific process of debate and discussion which is supposed to ensure the evolution of safe medical and scientific knowledge raises significant concern that this will lead to future support of more lethal and dangerous vaccines and/or prevent life saving treatments and drugs from being administered, such as we are currently experiencing.

Settles wrote that:

"… Lindsay stated that vaccines should stop and be replaced with treatment of "cheap, safe and effective hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin until the virus is driven out." PolitiFact has previously fact-checked claims on both of these medicines, and reported that the FDA revoked its approval of hydroxychloroquine in June 2020 due to its ineffectiveness in treating COVID-19, and did not approve of ivermectin as a treatment because it is not a drug used to treat viral infections, and large doses of it can be dangerous."

Despite efforts to undermine the use of these drugs in favor of remdesivir and vaccines, as AFLDS has shown previously, both hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin have had very favorable results in numerous studies. Dr. Lindsay's report in support of the use of ivermectin vs. remdesivir can be read here. They are both included on the WHO’s list of essential medicines and have a long history of safe and effective use, including for COVID-19. There is little reason to resort to drugs and vaccines that can kill more people than they save.

As COVID-19 vaccines are responsible for promoting variants and we cannot vaccinate every person in the world, nor do we cull people like we cull diseased birds, Dr. Lindsay is correct in her assessment that these vaccines should not be used and safe and effective drugs like hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and ivermectin should be the treatment of choice. (Learn more about COVID-19 treatment protocols here.)

Settles completely ignored the information Dr. Lindsay provided her

The clincher to Settles’ defamation and libeling of Dr. Lindsay is that, as she did with Kirsch, Settles had communicated with Dr. Lindsay and then ignored the inconvenient truths provided by Dr. Lindsay when writing her article. Dr. Lindsay provided Settles with the data upon which she based her statements and other experts who said the same, but all Settles wrote was that Dr. Lindsay stands by her claims. While technically true, ignoring the evidence enabled Settles to defame and libel her without anyone being the wiser. (Images of the email communication Dr. Lindsay forwarded to me follow the conclusion below.)

5. Why a leaky vaccine will drive a pandemic

A respiratory virus, like a coronavirus, enters through the nose and throat, calling the mucosal immune system into action and, thereby, proffering mucosal immunity. Injected into a muscle, the vaccine evades the mucosa and, therefore, cannot stop the virus at its entry point, allowing the vaccinee to become infected, colonize, and transmit the disease to others.^[80] A vaccine that doesn't stop transmission is a leaky vaccine. The mRNA vaccine is also focused on developing antibodies against only one of the virus's proteins, the spike protein; it does not promote the development of antibodies against all the other viral proteins. What are the consequences when the spike protein mutates, vaccines can no longer neutralize it, and the individual becomes infected with wild-type COVID?

There were no vaccines for both the SARS and MERS pandemics and both pandemics basically died out.

6. PolitiFact's Truth-O-Meter scam

PolitiFact's Truth-O-Meter scam confirms what we've found - that the organization is not about rooting out misinformation, but about spreading misinformation, even as Settles uses the Truth-O-Meter ratings to bolster her points.

The PolitiFact website purports to advise the public on how they decide the Truth-O-Meter rating for each article.^[81] This is what they share with their readers:

How we determine Truth-O-Meter ratings

The goal of the Truth-O-Meter is to reflect the relative accuracy of a statement. The meter has six ratings, in decreasing level of truthfulness:

TRUE – The statement is accurate and there’s nothing significant missing.

MOSTLY TRUE – The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information.

HALF TRUE – The statement is partially accurate but leaves out important details or takes things out of context.

MOSTLY FALSE – The statement contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression.

FALSE – The statement is not accurate.

PANTS ON FIRE – The statement is not accurate and makes a ridiculous claim.

The burden of proof is on the speaker, and we rate statements based on the information known at the time the statement is made.

The reporter who researches and writes the fact-check suggests a rating when they turn in the report to an assigning editor. The editor and reporter review the report together, typically making clarifications and adding additional details. They come to agreement on the rating. Then, the assigning editor brings the rated fact-check to two additional editors.

The three editors and reporter then review the fact-check by discussing the following questions.

• Is the statement literally true?

• Is there another way to read the statement? Is the statement open to interpretation?

• Did the speaker provide evidence? Did the speaker prove the statement to be true?

• How have we handled similar statements in the past? What is PolitiFact’s jurisprudence?

The three editors then vote on the rating (two votes carry the decision), sometimes leaving it as the reporter suggested and sometimes changing it to a different rating. More edits are made; the report is then published.

While they make the explanation sound reasonable at first read, they don't exactly explain how they presume to know all the information available when a statement is made or what type of and how much research the fact-checker does. They write that the burden of proof is on the speaker, but as we've seen, the information provided by the speakers may be ignored in favor of their biased experts and data.

Now read PolitiFact Founder Bill Adair's more forthright and honest explanation about the Truth-O-Meter rating, which he offered during an interview in 2016, as reported by PolitiFact Bias's Bryan White^[82] which they don't share with their readers:

“But yeah, we’re human. We’re making subjective decisions. Lord knows the decision about a Truth-O-Meter rating is entirely subjective. As Angie Holan, the editor of PolitiFact, often says, the Truth-O-Meter is not a scientific instrument.”

Imagine PolitiFact putting that as a disclaimer on its home page and requiring readers to click that they agree before reading further!

The header on their web pages (image below) is even more astounding - declaring that their only agenda is to publish the truth so you can be an informed participant in democracy. And, they have the chutzpah to ask you to help fund their assault on democracy!

PolitiFact raises thousands of dollars from individual contributors through their “Truth Squad” campaign. It might make contributors feel good and more loyal, but do they need that money? Look who funds/has funded it here, here, and here.

7. Conclusion

The above reveals the hijacking of civil debate by fact-checkers in favor of a scripted view of a “settled science” that has no basis in reality even as it exerts tremendous influence and power over society. It is responsible for grievous wrongs and injuries. At the same time, readers have been given some of the tools necessary to be able judge the veracity of claims or the integrity of a writer. While this takes some effort on the reader's part, standing up for truth and freedom has always made demands upon the individual. PolitiFact and Gabrielle Settles are only two of the many dangerous cogs in this wheel. Look around and you will find many others.

"There remains however, one other kind of harmful action which it is generally thought desirable to prevent and which at first may seem distinct. This is fraud and deception. Yet, though it would be straining the meaning of words to call them “coercion,” on examination it appears that the reasons why we want to prevent them are the same as those applying to coercion. Deception, like coercion is a form of manipulating the data on which a person counts, in order to make him do what the deceiver wants him to do. Where it is successful, the deceived becomes in the same manner the unwilling tool, serving another man's ends without advancing his own.

“… it seems that freedom demands no more than that coercion and violence, deception and fraud, be prevented …”

F. A. Hayek, The Constitution of Liberty^[83]

8. Email communication between Settles and Dr. Lindsay.

You can read it as pdf here.

‍

‍