In a recent video, Dr. Nathan Thompson, a Wellness Way affiliate in the Yorkville, Illinois area, shared some insights on a patient’s immune response labs. Dr. Thompson explained his patient’s lab results and how he had helped guide a patient through a wellness journey that included balancing immune markers, losing significant weight, and even relieving symptoms of type 2 diabetes. From being unable to walk a mile to now running 5k’s, the patient had turned his lifestyle around. The man’s health restoration was well documented in lab tests and bloodwork. His immune response markers all indicated health and showed within a normal, vital range, truly a health victory!
When the patient was confronted by his employer, he complied and took the COVID vaccinations. Dr. Nathan suggested they run some labs to be clear as to where the man’s immune response was functioning. Many doctors and professionals who advocate for vaccines suggest a heightened immune response as the body handles the injected viruses and adjuvants that make the vaccines work. With the new mRNA vaccines, Dr. Nathan sought to help his patient maintain the healthy immune system he had worked so hard for. With no long-term data, there are still many unknowns.
What Dr. Nathan saw on the test results raised all kinds of concerns. Sharing the patient’s labs with permission on the video, Dr. Nathan explained, using the simple facts of numbers, how the man’s adaptive immune response dropped off, leaving him more susceptible to infection and unable to respond in the way vaccine proponents suggest. As he explained the components of the immune response, Dr. Nathan explained how the numbers indicated damage to tissue, a typical autoimmune response, and a decreased ability to respond to an infection, the very thing the vaccine is supposed to help the body do!1
Considering reports of breakthrough infections and tissue damage such as myocarditis and pericarditis, these immune markers make sense. However, Dr. Nathan’s thorough testing was called into question when “fact checkers” from PolitiFact came calling.
What is PolitiFact?
PolitiFact is an organization tapped by Facebook, Google, YouTube, and other organizations to cut down on information that violates their “community standards.” PolitiFact has a history of tagging articles, videos, and comments made by politicians and rating them true or false. The company is run as a non-profit under the Poynter Institute for Media Studies located in St. Petersburg, Florida.2 The PolitiFact “fact-checkers” typically favor leftist views and have frequently been criticized for less fact-checking and more opinion-casting on statements made by conservatives.3 PolitiFact isn’t limited to the U.S. Under the Poynter Media Group, the International Fact Checking Network spans the world. With a robust team of fact-checkers building out a database of information deemed false, the organization has become quite focused on the COVID narrative.2
Just in time for the 2008 presidential election, PolitiFact made its debut to rate statements made by politicians and candidates. With a rating system from “True, Mostly True, Half True, Mostly False, False, and Pants on Fire,” the self-appointed fact checking system has developed a reputation for commentary from their preferred point of view. Critics of the fact checkers state the organizations aren’t checking facts as true or false as much as weighing in with their opinions3:
Critics from across the political spectrum have said that PolitiFact’s rulings categorize as “true” or “false” many matters that are truly matters of opinion, or for which there is not enough information to make a judgment, or that are simply predictions about whether they will come true in the future.
For example, left-wing MSNBC commentator Rachel Maddow took issue with PolitiFact’s presentation of opinions and analyses around President Barack Obama’s 2012 State of the Union address as “facts” subject to checking. She criticized the service saying, “You [Politifact] are undermining the definition of the word ‘fact’ in the English language by pretending to it in your name. The English language wants its word back. You are an embarrassment. You sully the reputation of anyone who cites you as an authority on fact-ishness, let alone fact.”
Similarly, libertarian Cato Institute health policy expert Michael Cannon, whom PolitiFact had regularly used as a resource for health care-related analysis, withdrew his participation in PolitiFact in 2011 because PolitiFact characterized statements that were at most mistaken – and arguably correct – as “Lies of the Year.”3
Fake News List
In April of 2019, Poynter published a list of 515 news sites it deemed “unreliable.” The UnNews list came under swift scrutiny and was quickly retracted.3,4
Poynter made it clear that one goal of its UnNews database was to cause financial harm to listed media outlets by providing a blacklist that could automate advertiser boycotts of publishers for reasons that included “some kinds of political messaging.”3
In reality, many verdicts handed down by PolitiFact align closer with the title of “fake news.” In 2016, when Facebook announced they’d be using PolitiFact as their fact checker, critics weighed in once again. In a Breitbart article, several instances of PolitiFact’s shortcomings and misinformed judgments exposed just how misleading the term “fact checker” can be. With the task of pointing out “fake news” on the line, PolitiFact seemed to be chasing down how to report fake news rather than pointing it out.
Contributors: Soros, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Clintons
Because Poynter Media is a 501c3, their donors are listed and open for review. According to influencewatch.org, some of the contributors include George Soros’s Open Society Foundation,5 The Newmark (founder of Craig’s List) Philanthropies, and the Google News Initiative.3 In 2015, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation was also a high-ranking contributor.6
In light of the coverage of the 2016 presidential election, it is notable that several contributors of the Clinton Foundation are also substantial donors to Poynter.
YouTube Community Standards
This past week YouTube adjusted their community standards to ban anything that spoke unfavorably about any vaccines. According to their statement:
"Specifically, content that falsely alleges that approved vaccines are dangerous and cause chronic health effects, claims that vaccines do not reduce transmission or contraction of disease, or contains misinformation on the substances contained in vaccines will be removed," YouTube wrote.8