Are there any legitimate “fact check” sites?

Are there any legitimate “fact check” sites?

Paul Craig Roberts

When Dr. Haruo Ozaki, Chairman of the Tokyo Medical Association said at a press conference on Feb. 9, 2021, that Japanese doctors should be permitted to use Ivermectin to treat Covid, the American whore media went berserk . 

The presstitutes and “fact-checker” sites (actually disinformation sites) spoke as one pointing out that Ozaki is not the health minister.  Among those anxious to throttle any talk of a real cure were AP News, Reuters, Tech ARP, Factcheck, PolitiFact, Snopes, Public health Communications Collaborative, USA Today, Poynter, and Full Fact.

Why were so many so eager to suppress any talk of Ivermectin as a cure for a disease that was allegedly a major pandemic killing huge numbers of people?  The answer is obvious. Ivermectin is a cure and a preventative, but this information had to be suppressed.  Otherwise the untested vaccine could not be used under Emergency Use Authorization.  

We now know that the “vaccine” has had devastating health effects on millions of people.  In contrast, Ivermectin has been in wide successful use for decades against a number of health threats and has an outstanding safety record.  If an unproven and untested “vaccine” could be mandated, why couldn’t a known safe medicine be tried?  As the main treatment–ventilators–was failing, Ivermectin could do no worse.

As it has turned out, those treated with Ivermectin survived, but those who were “vaccinated” are suddenly dropping dead all over the world.  

I believe an investigation would reveal that “fact check” sites are funded by Big Pharma and other interest groups with their own agendas who advance their agendas by controlling narratives.  The narratives are lies, and often deadly lies.


Share this page

Follow Us