John Anthony<\/p>\n
Thomson Reuters describes itself as \u201cthe world\u2019s leading source of news and information for professional markets.\u201d Their Trust Principles were, \u201cdesigned to preserve Thomson Reuters independence, integrity and freedom from bias in the gathering and dissemination of information and news.\u201d<\/p>\n
Recently I decided to see how well Reuters lives up to those principles.<\/p>\n
September, 17, 2021, the FDA accepted a request by Steve Kirsch, a retired tech entrepreneur for an invitation to speak at the virtual public meeting of the FDA\u2019s vaccine advisory committee.<\/p>\n
Kirsch proposed that vaccines kill 2X as many lives as they save and provided slides supporting his claim.<\/p>\n
The presentation was distributed widely among internet platforms and Thomson Reuters used their fact checking team to verify the accuracy of one of the articles and Kirsch\u2019 statements (here<\/a>).<\/p>\n As you will see, Reuters\u2019 factcheck is stunning in its revelations.<\/p>\n The Reuters\u2019 fact checkers rightly call out one publication for referring to Kirsch as an \u201cFDA expert.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cFirstly, Kirsch is not and has never been an FDA employee or member of the VRBPAC, the FDA told Reuters in an email.\u201d<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n At this point their fact check slides in a singular direction. Without comment they quote the FDA spokesperson\u2019s obvious attempt to discredit Kirsch,<\/p>\n \u201cFurthermore, the statements made by Mr. Kirsch during the open public hearing portion of the meeting were not based in science and go against FDA\u2019s public health mission.\u201d<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n It seems unusual that Reuters would accept the FDA’s condemnation of Kirsch for failing to abide by science given that neither masks (here<\/a>) and here<\/a>),\u00a0 lockdowns (here<\/a>), social distancing (here<\/a>),\u00a0 nor processing of PCR tests at 40 cycles to detect the SARS2 virus (here<\/a>), were ever based on science. All recommended by the CDC and\/or the FDA.<\/p>\n At best this is an FDA throwaway line, at worst intentional deceit to misdirect the public. For Reuters fact checking team to legitimize the deceit without exposing the irony is a disservice to readers.<\/p>\n Reuters continues:<\/p>\n \u201cKirsch\u2019s presentation appears to cite research from a paper he co-authored (here<\/a>). The analysis relies heavily on data from the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), which documents suspected reactions to COVID-19 shots to detect possible safety issues. It is managed by the FDA and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Reuters admits they are not sure where the research originated which again is odd, because Kirsch\u2019 presentation clearly states his data originated from Pfizer\u2019s 6 month trial report (here<\/a>) and (here<\/a>), a breakdown of the VAERS reporting system (which they did pick up) (here<\/a>). A short search also shows he relied on data from the UK\u2019s Vaccine Surveillance Reports. (here<\/a>)<\/p>\n The team did investigate Kirsch\u2019 claim that VAERS under reports by a factor of 41X.\u00a0 However, their research does not extend beyond asking the FDA and CDC their input.<\/p>\n \u201cFDA strongly disagrees with the analysis Mr. Kirsch put forth during the VRBPAC meeting, as we believe the data from VAERS that he referenced were not properly interpreted.\u201d<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n They added:<\/p>\n \u201cAlthough under reporting is a limitation in VAERS with regard to COVID-19 vaccine safety monitoring, there currently is not evidence to suggest it would underestimate the amount of COVID-19 vaccine-related deaths to such a large degree.\u201d<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Reuters never questions that the CDC has failed to provide any \u201cevidence\u201d showing VAERS data is not underestimated to \u201csuch a large degree.\u201d (here<\/a>)<\/p>\n You can find this admission tucked away in this CDC\u2019s weekly report:<\/p>\n \u201cFourteen (0.02%) children reportedly received care at a hospital; information regarding reason for hospitalization was available for five children and included appendicitis (two), vomiting and dehydration (one), respiratory infection (one), and retropharyngeal cellulitis (one). Parents and guardians of all hospitalized children were contacted; two parents completed VAERS reports, and one revealed hospitalization was reported in error.\u201d\u00a0 (Here<\/a>)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n While the CDC discounts VAERS data as a voluntary system anyone can complete, they ignore the posted threats of fines or imprisonment for false reporting and the difficulty in completing the reports (here<\/a>).<\/p>\n “Knowingly filing a false VAERS report is a violation of Federal law (10 U.S. Code 1001) punishable by fine and imprisonment.”<\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Since each report clearly identifies the professional status of the reporting person it is easy enough for the CDC to verify if the entries are legitimate. To date, they have failed to do this in a transparent manner.<\/p>\n CDC and FDA go on to claim adverse effects are rare and cannot establish causality. (Here<\/a>)<\/p>\n They argue their use of\u00a0 multiple systems in addition to VAERS effectively monitors vaccine safety.<\/p>\n “Given the COVID-19 vaccine is operated under \u201cEmergency Use Authorization\u201d in the United States, vaccine administrators and manufacturers are mandated to report all adverse reactions. This would likely result in increased recording of suspected deaths associated with the COVID-19 vaccine, the FDA spokesperson said.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Reuters seems OK with leaving it up to the same drug companies that polluted their own trial data (here<\/a>) to report now on adverse vaccine events.<\/p>\n “An analysis of safety surveillance data from Vaccine Safety Datalink that monitored more than 10 million people, including 6.2 million vaccinated, found no vaccine-outcome association met the requirement to signal serious adverse effects, including death (here<\/a>). Vaccine Safety Datalink is a vaccine-monitoring effort by the CDC and nine healthcare organisations.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The FDA said:<\/p>\n \u201cA review of available clinical information, including death certificates, autopsy, and medical records, has not established a causal link to COVID-19 vaccines.\u201d<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n But a review of the Vaccine Safety Datalink shows it is not a randomized control study that could provide conclusive evidence of causality. Instead, it is a retrospective review of hospital records to create a mathematically derived Rate Ratio. (here<\/a>)<\/p>\n Retrospective studies are one of the least reliable methods of analysis and are subject to bias and confounding that can lead to misleading results. \u00a0(here<\/a>)<\/p>\n While VAERS raises compelling evidence of abnormal increases in deaths closely following vaccination. The agency claims the 10,000+ vaccine related deaths are \u201cbackground deaths.\u201d Deaths that routinely occur from other causes.<\/p>\n Yet that does not explain why the majority occur within 14 days of receiving the vaccine.\u00a0 If these were background events, they would create cycles and patterns. Instead, the only visible pattern is a surge of deaths within days of the being vaccinated. Reuters did not see fit to investigate.<\/p>\n In other words, the agencies said we disagree with detractors, we think they interpreted data incorrectly and if there is a problem the drug companies will tell us. Believe us, not VAERS. Thomson Reuters\u2019 fact checkers unquestioningly accepted this meatless avoidance of the topic. (here<\/a>)<\/p>\n The clear pattern among Reuters fact checkers is to treat Kirsch\u2019 remarks with skepticism while accepting CDC and FDA comments as higher truth.<\/p>\n A true fact find questions all issue sides seeking only the truth. Thomson Reuters\u2019 fact checkers are at best inept researchers, at worst dangerously biased. Unfortunately, the results are the same. Tens of thousands of medical professionals and hundreds of thousands of Americans are duped into believing they can trust prejudiced and potentially rancid information.<\/p>\n Perhaps that is no surprise.<\/p>\n James Smith, the former CEO of Thomson Reuters and current Chairman of the Thomson Reuters Foundation, (here<\/a>)\u00a0 also sits on Pfizer\u2019s Board of Directors, (here<\/a>)\u00a0has partnered with the unscrupulous Trusted News Initiative and provides Factchecking services for Facebook and Twitter. (here<\/a>) and (here<\/a>).<\/p>\n If that role of policeman and promoter is not sufficient conflict of interests, consider Mr. Smith also sits on the board for the World Economic Forum (here<\/a>). The WEF released this document that teaches health professionals and business owners\u00a0 “How to Build Trust in Vaccines” by changing their language and approach (here<\/a>).<\/p>\n That this serpentine network of self-interested elites exists at all is unsettling. That a once esteemed news source like Reuters should use its past reputation to prey on unsuspecting readers is dangerous.<\/p>\n How many readers torn between vaccinating their families or getting early COVID treatments rely on Reuters\u2019 deception? How many business owners seeking the truth to set company policies unknowingly digest toxic propaganda with the potential to destroy families\u2019 lives?<\/p>\n Kirsch and others like him may be right or may be wrong. This applies equally to government agencies. It is only by seeking the truth that Americans can rekindle unity and protect those we care about and those we love. \u00a0Propagandists like Reuters offer no help in that search.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" John Anthony Thomson Reuters describes itself as \u201cthe world\u2019s leading source of news and information for professional markets.\u201d Their Trust Principles were, \u201cdesigned to preserve Thomson Reuters independence, integrity and freedom from bias in the gathering and dissemination of information and news.\u201d Recently I decided…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[75,67,74,73,76],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/sustainablefreedomlab.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1156"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/sustainablefreedomlab.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/sustainablefreedomlab.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sustainablefreedomlab.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sustainablefreedomlab.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1156"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/sustainablefreedomlab.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1156\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1160,"href":"https:\/\/sustainablefreedomlab.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1156\/revisions\/1160"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/sustainablefreedomlab.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1156"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sustainablefreedomlab.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1156"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sustainablefreedomlab.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1156"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}Reuters ignores that CDC fails to support their stance on VAERS<\/h3>\n
\n
CDC and FDA Vaccine Safety Datalink weak<\/h3>\n
CDC and FDA fail to support “background death” theory<\/h3>\n
Massive conflicts erase Reuters’ credibility<\/h3>\n