Can Vaccine Fact Checkers really be Trusted?

Social media has become a major source of news and other information for Americans. 53% of adults say they “often” or “sometimes” get news from social media.

Are Fact Checkers Really Independent?

According to a Pew Research Center survey, Facebook is the most popular social media site, with 36% of Americans using it as a regular news source.

However, Big Tech, including Facebook, actively manipulates the spread of information by censoring and silencing anything it deems “misinformation.” To this end, they employ “fact checkers.” Facebook has partnered with, which claims to “apply the best practices of journalism and science to improve public knowledge and understanding.”

But are fact checkers truly independent? In a series of tweets, U.S. Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) has questioned’s independence, stating that is funded by an organization that holds nearly $2 billion worth of stock in Johnson & Johnson, the maker of a COVID-19 injection. As Russel Brand said in the video:

“Facebook, as one of the most important places where people get their information these days, has a de facto obligation to be objective, and when that obligation is not met – for example, by funding fact checkers from Johnson & Johnson – that’s a serious problem.”

Facebook Fact Checkers in Collusion with Vaccine Maker?

Ever wonder who’s behind Facebook’s fact checkers? is funded in part by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, which holds nearly $2 billion worth of Johnson & Johnson stock. “Be blessed if you believe is an unbiased source of vaccine information,” Massie tweeted.

According to, the “SciCheck” feature was launched in 2015 to “improve public knowledge and understanding of science and scientific research.” In December 2021, SciCheck’s COVID-19/Vaccination Project was launched, which says aims to “improve access to accurate information about COVID-19 and vaccines while reducing the impact of misinformation.”

Conveniently, SciCheck’s COVID-19/vaccine project was made possible by a grant from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, which not only holds billions of dollars of Johnson & Johnson stock, but was also founded by the late Robert Wood Johnson II, who was president of Johnson & Johnson from 1932 to 1963 [8]. In addition, its CEO Richard Besser is a former (2009) director of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. states, “The foundation has no control over our editorial decisions” , but Facebook’s “independent” arbiters profit from vaccines. “Who pays the fact checkers’ paychecks?” Massie tweeted, again pointing out the glaring conflict that.

“vaccine fact checkers at @factcheckdotorg, who claim to be independent, are funded by an organization that holds over $1.8 billion in vaccine company stock and is headed by a former director of @CDCgov.”

Fact Checkers Hunt for Vaccine Information

Daniel Horowitz, senior editor at The Blaze, puts it this way:

“In other words, vaccine companies control the flow of information about vaccines. Welcome to the world of ‘independent fact-checkers.'”

What happens when highly conflicted “fact checkers” control social media coverage? Open debate is silenced and science is suppressed. It’s funny that has the gall to claim:

“The views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of the Foundation.”

“In fact,” Horowitz said, “the views expressed here almost certainly reflect the views of the foundation … have you ever seen the organization provide balanced coverage or even flag a single post on the other side of this debate as false, no matter how hair-raising the claim, including articles advocating experimental emergency approval of vaccines for young children?”

Horowitz is among those, like me, who have censored information they have shared when questioning the science behind bans and mask orders. Other frequently “flagged” articles discuss potentially life-saving drugs like ivermectin or mention vitamin D15 and zinc for SARS-CoV-2, but nothing has been targeted more heavily by fact-checkers than “misinformation” about vaccines.

“We all know that the goal is to spread only positive information and to spread concerns about the about the vaccine at all costs,” Horowitz explained. “Facebook, which is the biggest promoter of their [’s] work, has openly made this its policy.”

The Corruption Runs Deep

NewsGuard is another self-proclaimed Internet watchdog that sells a browser plugin that rates websites on nine criteria of credibility and transparency. The company has also monitored Facebook pages that it claims are “superspreaders” of COVID-19 information. NewsGuard received much of its seed funding from Publicis Groupe, a giant global communications group with divisions in branding, digital business platform design, media relations and healthcare.

Publicis Groupe’s healthcare subsidiary, Publicis Healthcare Communications Group, and its various affiliates list Pfizer, Abbott, Allergan, Merck, Astra Zeneca, Sanofi, Bayer and, as they describe it, “40 life sciences clients, including 13 of the world’s top 20 pharmaceutical companies as preferred partners.” In fact, the PR firm that developed and executed Purdue Pharma’s misleading marketing campaigns for the opioid Oxycontin is none other than Publicis.

In early May 2021, the Massachusetts Attorney General filed a lawsuit against Publicis Health, accusing Publicis’ Purdue subsidiary of assisting in the creation of the misleading marketing materials designed to entice physicians to prescribe Oxycontin.

Overall, Publicis appears to be playing a major role in the global censorship of information about COVID-19, and Publicis Health admitted its involvement in this agenda in an April 2021 tweet announcing its partnership with NewsGuard “to combat the ‘infodemic’ of misinformation about COVID-19 and its vaccines.”

NewsGuard is clearly out to censor the truth and has already classified as Fake News for reporting on the SARS-CoV-2 virus possibly leaking from the Biosafety Level 4 (BSL4) lab in Wuhan, China.

Given that Publicis represents most of the world’s major pharmaceutical companies and funded the creation of NewsGuard, it is not far-fetched to assume that Publicis could influence NewsGuard’s ratings of pharmaceutical industry competitors, such as alternative health sites. As a partner of Google, Publicis also has the ability to hide undesirable views that could harm its clientele.

NewsGuard’s health-related service, HealthGuard, is also partnered with the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) – a progressive rubber-stamp culture leader with extensive ties to government and global think tanks that has called people who question the COVID-19 injection a “threat to national security.”

A One-Stop Shop for Disseminating the COVID-19 Narrative

These connections explain how views that contradict the official narrative can be so effectively erased. One of Publicis’ selling points is “the power of one.” The company is a one-stop store that offers clients seamless end-to-end marketing, communications and digital transformation, powered by the alchemy of data, creative, media and technology, and uniquely positioned to deliver personalized experiences at scale.

Publicis is not only a global hub for pharmaceutical marketing as a partner of the World Economic Forum, which is leading the call for a “Great Reset” of the global economy and a complete transformation of society, but is also aligned with the technocratic, transhumanist deep state.

The censorship of COVID-19 truth and the fabrication of pro-industry propaganda simultaneously serves three important masters – Big Pharma, Big Tech, and the deep state – as the pandemic fuels a manufactured psychological operation to usher in the Great Reset, while Big Pharma makes a killing on pandemic vaccines and uses the “necessity” of vaccination as justification for biosurveillance.

In other words, if Publicis and represent the pharmaceutical industry, and the pharmaceutical industry wants you to believe that you are helpless against COVID-19 without their expensive drugs and vaccines, what do you think Publicis and NewsGuard will classify as “misinformation”?

Preventive strategies and alternative therapies, perhaps? And it doesn’t matter how much science there is to support such therapies, because it’s not about science. It’s about controlling what you think works.

Conflicting Entities Have Become Social Regulators

Social and mainstream media have played an outsized role in deciding who is an “expert” worthy of sharing information and who is not, while those who question the “experts'” data or ask for more evidence are vilified – a “condescending, authoritarian approach ‘in defense of science,'” John Ioannidis, professor of medicine and professor of epidemiology and population health at Stanford University, said in Tablet.

The end result is a changed reality in which highly conflicted companies acted as regulators of society rather than being regulated themselves:

“Other potentially conflict-ridden companies became the new regulators of society, rather than the ones being regulated. Large technology companies that generated trillions of dollars in cumulative market value by virtually reshaping human life during the lockdown developed powerful censorship mechanisms that distorted the information available to users on their platforms.

Consultants who made millions of dollars advising corporations and governments received prestigious positions, power, and public praise, while unbiased scientists who worked pro bono but dared to challenge the prevailing narratives were vilified as conflicted.”

Social media and its fact-checkers also distort science itself through their conflicted “misinformation.”

Even healthy skepticism is now considered intolerable, while the COVID-19 cult of science – consisting of “science, expertise, the university system, executive branch ‘norms,’ the ‘intelligence community,’ the State Department, nongovernmental organizations, the traditional news media, and the hierarchy of recognized achievement in general” – was considered gospel during the pandemic.

Increasingly, Big Tech is trusted to dictate the truth, via ambivalent fact-checkers whose funding makes them beholden to big business. It is dangerous to rely on a single source or group of people as an authority on truth, as this paves the way for inevitable censorship. Even in the best of circumstances, everyone is subject to their own biases, and when billions of dollars are involved, bias is impossible to ignore.

Yet it remains true that the path to truth depends on continued scientific inquiry, open debate, challenge, and skepticism – all things now being questioned by fact-checkers on social media and increasingly seen as anathema due to the authoritarian and adversarial control assumed during the pandemic.

Watch the Video Here:


1. Pew Research Center January 12, 2021

2. July 6, 2017

3., Our Mission

4. Twitter July 20, 2021

5. YouTube September 26, 2021

6. Massie Twitter April 24, 2021

7., COVID-19 Misconceptions

8. April 26, 2021

9. Evidence Not Fear May 26, 2021

10. Twitter, Thomas Massie April 27, 2021

11. The Blaze April 27, 2021

12. Scientific Reports volume 11, Article number: 10641 (2021)

13. NewsGuard April 23, 2020

14. Medical Marketing & Media

15. Commonwealth of Massachusetts Superior Court Complaint CA No. 21-1055 (PDF)

16. Twitter Publicis Health Media April 27, 2021

17. Google Marketing Platform Partners, Publicis Sapient

18. NewsGuard HealthGuard

19. Off-Guardian August 11, 2020

20. Publicis Power of One

21. Businesswire October 10, 2019

22. World Economic Forum, Publicis Groupe

23. World Economic Forum, The Great Reset

24. Tablet September 8, 2021

25.The Guardian June 1, 2021