One of the most tiresome features of the covid era has been the growth industry of ‘fact-checkers’ generously funded by Government, Pharma companies and the likes of Bill Gates to silence anybody challenging the ‘official narrative’. The Law, Health and Technology Newsletter has covered this extensively.
There have been a few ludicrous attempts to ‘fact-check’ my own work but, as an example of how biased and incompetent these people are, I present a request I received today from an AFP fact-checker asking me to help ‘debunk’ something …. and my self-explanatory response to it (I have spared the ‘fact-checker’ personal embarrassment by removing their name).
Sent: Thursday, March 2, 2023 9:17 PM
To: Norman Fenton
Subject: Media Request (AFP) - Addressing Misinterpretations of ONS Covid-19 Data
I hope you are well. I am a fact-check reporter at AFP based in Washington DC. I am working to debunk online articles that claim English health data indicates that fully vaccinated people are far more likely to die of Covid-19 than those who have not received the shots. Several articles have made this allegation, citing this ONS dataset: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/datasets/deathsbyvaccinationstatusengland
For reference, I will archive examples of these articles making the claims here and here.
Based on this ONS insight and a previous bulletin, which says the data is not intended to show vaccine efficacy, it seems like the article is misinterpreting the dataset. Would you be able to offer comment with a brief explanation as to how this sort of data is supposed to be read and used?
Thank you for your consideration,
Agence France-Presse (AFP)
Office #: (202) 414-0527
From: Norman Fenton
Sent: Thursday, March 2, 2023 9:44 PM
Subject: RE: Media Request (AFP) - Addressing Misinterpretations of ONS Covid-19 Data
Like all mainstream “fact checkers” you clearly have no understanding of what it is you are checking.
The ONS dataset is so flawed and biased that even the Statistics Regulator agreed with us that it could not be used to make any inferences about vaccine efficacy or safety. But you are missing the big problem here.
Instead of focusing on those who are using the data to suggest the vaccine is not as safe and effective as claimed, what you should be focused on are the government and mainstream media who (against the advice of the Statistics Regulator) are using the ONS data to claim the vaccine is safe and effective. Have a look at this article in the Daily Mail – this is one you should be fact checking. Why aren’t you doing that?
Our most recent article covers this whole issue of the ONS data:
In fact, if you make adjustments for the multiple flaws and biases in the ONS data, then it is increasingly clear that the vaccinated have a higher all-cause mortality in many age groups, especially the under 50’s. In other words, the evidence increasingly points to the need for the covid vaccine programme to be shut down completely. But that isn’t the message you want to portray is it, because your funders are the ones pushing the vaccines?
Only one of the links to examples of reports you were seeking to ‘debunk’ seems to be working, namely the article in The Expose. The claim there is that the ONS report reveals that “the Vaccinated account for 9 in every 10 COVID Deaths over the past TWO Years”. Based on the ONS dataset this is correct. Of course, without knowing the true proportion of vaccinated in each age group, we still cannot conclude that the vaccinated are at higher risk of death from covid. But the article is not claiming that, it is simply stating the FACT that a far higher number of vaccinated people have died of covid than unvaccinated since Jan 2022. That the number of vaccinated people who have died of covid is 25,768 is relevant, because we were told by people like you that this could not possibly happen; the vaccines were supposed to have ‘stopped hospitalisation and death from covid’.
Where are the numbers? by Norman Fenton and Martin Neil is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
The so-called 'fact checker': 'why yes hello sir if you could just do my job for me and go ahead and just debunk yourself that'd be great'.
Pro-tip to the factchecker: if you're finding it impossible to disprove, chances are it means that it is true.
Excellent reply to the purported "fact checker", Norman!
The fundamental problem and most ironic thing, given they use "fact" in the description of themselves, is that they don't seem to know the meaning of the word "fact" or how a fact is established. They seem to conflate "claim" or "allegation" with fact, when they are entirely different things.
A claim or allegation is merely just that, nothing else. It may be true and it may be false. For it to be true it must be supported by and fully aligned with ALL the relevant facts (not just with a few cherry-picked facts whilst conveniently ignoring/ disregarding facts that are contrary to the claim).
These self-appointed "fact checkers" have tried to elevate themselves (in the eyes of the public that somehow take cognisance and have regard to what they say) to be of a higher authority with regard deciding what is the truth. People who are genuinely appointed into such elevated positions in society (e.g. judges and arbiters) must be independent, impartial and free from conflict. They must also have the necessary experience in order to make sound decisions on the matters they are considering. The fact-checkers do not meet any of this criteria.
To be an independent & impartial decision maker, you have to begin with an open mind (with no preconceived notions) and be prepared to consider all possibilities (not matter how unlikely they may be) then let all the relevant facts and evidence (which must be credible & reliable and, preferably, independently corroborated) lead to a conclusion. The fact-checkers do none of this.
The 2nd sentence of the email to Norman is revealing. It says " I am working to debunk online articles that claim...". So it is clear that he/she is already starting with the preconceived idea that the claim (they are reviewing) is false and their mission is to "debunk" it. This, itself, shows a bias that should not be exist with a purportedly "independent" decision-maker.
As Norman pointed out, their focus is fundamentally misplaced, as it should be upon those who originally made, not only unsubstantiated claims but also (as has been increasingly demonstrated), claims that were patently false. Instead, they accept these unsubstantiated/ false claims as the gospel truth, without question or enquiry. This completely contradicts & undermines what they claim they stand for (allegedly the truth) because if they were independent/ impartial, they apply as much rigour as they claim they do towards the claims they are trying to debunk.
Over the years, I have actually found the fact-checkers to be quite helpful. Whatever they claim to be a fact or the truth is a very good indication of what is most definitely not the truth!!