Like 9/11, covid has served as a catalyst for a large shift in human consciousness. It’s served as a trigger for people to change the way we look at our world, perceive our world, and ask important questions like why do we live the way we do? Do government agencies really have the best interests of the people at heart when making decisions and/or recommendations, or are they serving other interests that seek to benefit off of human beings?

Many questions, thoughts and ideas that were once deemed a “conspiracy theory” are now starting to be taken seriously, asking these questions is no longer taboo but rather a necessity, and it’s all happening because again, human consciousness is shifting.

During this SCAMdemic, we’ve seen an unprecedented amount of “experts” in the field provide information, evidence and opinions that completely contradict what we are and have been receiving from government health agencies as well as mainstream media. The only issue is that these concerns have been heavily censored by social media companies as well as Google. For the average mainstream media news watcher, they are impossible to find unless you’re really passionate about digging for information. When information that “goes against the grain” does seem to get traction, it’s then subjected to a massive ridicule campaign by mainstream media and big tech “fact-checkers.”

This type of censorship alone has created an “awakening” among the general population, as many people have become quite aware of it, especially a large part of the scientific community.

Science is being suppressed for political and financial gain. Covid-19 has unleashed state corruption on a grand scale, and it is harmful to public health. Politicians and industry are responsible for this opportunistic embezzlement. So too are scientists and health experts. The pandemic had revealed how the medical-political complex can be manipulated in an emergency- a time when it is even more important to safeguard science. –  Dr. Kamran Abbasi, recent executive editor of the prestigious British Medical Journal, editor of the Bulletin of the World Health Organization, and a consultant editor for PLOS Medicine. He is editor of the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine and JRSM Open.

The latest example I came across comes from Vinay Prasad MD MPH, an associate professor at the University of California San Francisco.

He has been quite outspoken on his twitter lately about big tech censorship, and again, he is one of many in the field doing so. A few of his latest tweets read, “If you can’t see that stamping articles as misleading or false on the world’s largest media platform is different than writing a rebuttal, maybe you shouldn’t be in charge of that stamp.”

Another one states, “Turning science into politics, and censoring people who disagree with you when there is residual uncertainty will leave us weak and vulnerable for the next crisis that requires coordination between science and policy.”

He recently published an article in MEDPAGE TODAY titled titled “Facebook: A Worthy Judge of of Medical Info?” It’s a follow up to one he wrote back in November when he expressed,

Over the last few months, I have seen academic articles and op-eds by professors retracted or labeled “fake news” by social media platforms. Often, no explanation is provided. I am concerned about this heavy-handedness and, at times, outright censorship. – Vinay Prasad, MD, MPH (source)

In his most recent article, he criticizes Facebook “Fact-Checkers,” taking aim at Health Feedback regarding a recent “fact check” of  a Wall Street Journal opinion article by Marty Makary, MD, MPH, Johns Hopkins professor and editor-in-chief at MedPage Today,

How does this third-party fact-checking system work? Does it solicit reviews from the top academics in a field or discipline? Why is it targeting an op-ed? As I researched this piece, I discovered that the process is obscure. However, what was clear is who the reviewers are.

They are disproportionately academics on Twitter who have mega-follower counts. They mostly have similar worldviews, and advertise those views on Twitter. In a different case, a reviewer already tweeted criticism of the article before being selected as a “fact-checker.” This isn’t an independent or fair process — it is cherry picking criticism from Twitter celebrities in order to extinguish dissenting opinions.

Of the 19 fact-checkers selected since the start of COVID-19, 15 (79%) have active Twitter accounts. These folks are followed by an average of 42,000 followers (median 10,000). Four of the fact-checkers have served on more than one occasion.

Let’s compare the COVID-19 reviewers against pre-COVID-19 fact-checkers and academics in general. Among the 10 fact-checkers for three reviews on HealthFeedback.org prior to COVID-19, there were no repeating reviewers. Half were on Twitter and their average follower count was 442 (median 130).

To compare these rates against average academics, I visited the Johns Hopkins University Department of Epidemiology faculty listing. I picked 10 academics and searched for their Twitter accounts. Just three of the 10 had Twitter accounts with an average following of 800 (median 120).

This should come as no surprise: the average scientist is not on Twitter, including many of the best and brightest. Yet, for pandemic fact-checking, HealthFeedback.org seems to choose from Twitter celebrities who average 40,000 followers.

The independent fact-checkers used by this website appear to be far more active than the average epidemiology faculty member on Twitter. Several have stated their thoughts on COVID-19 policy and support for continued restrictions, while Makary is suggesting we should begin planning to loosen restrictions.

No matter how anyone feels about who is right — is this a fair process? They are reviewing an opinion article using scientists who are disproportionately on a website that allows them to advertise their opinion in advance. I promise you, I can search Twitter and find three people who will review Makary positively and three who will review him negatively, just by pursuing one’s past tweets.

Put together, the fact-checking is suspect. It appears to be a website with its own policy ideas about COVID-19, which is selecting academics who are popular on Twitter, and have declared a point of view — and gives them the chance to extinguish ideas that oppose their own.

It feels like a high school clique. These are the popular kids. They are using their position to label views they disagree with as “misleading.”

Scientists fact-checking fact checkers has been happening since the. beginning of this pandemic. For example,  A study recently published in Global Advances In Health & Medicine titled “Ascorbate as Prophylaxis and Therapy for COVID-19—Update From Shanghai and U.S. Medical Institutions outlines just how effective vitamin C has been for viral infections. Information regarding intravenous vitamin C and how it was tremendously effective in Wuhan for treating moderate to severe covid patients went viral, including the news that hospitals were recommending and requiring their staff to take it. Fact checkers claimed this was false.

One of the authors of the paper quite early on in this pandemic also had a message for fact-checkers via his YouTube Channel:

I was made aware that FB Fact Check claims “Shanghai did not officially recommend high-dose IVC for the treatment of Covid-19” (left on the above photo). Let me make it clear that not only Shanghai, but also Guangzhou, Guangdong Province, another major city in China, publicly endorsed high-dose IVC for the treatment of Covid-19. Those who does Fact Check, please be more careful.

Fact checkers trying to control the perception of information coming out that threatens government/corporate agendas, profit or power seems to be a common theme .

Final Thoughts: “Fact-Checking” is something Collective Evolution has experienced for quite some time, and from our perspective it’s nothing short of perception manipulation and control. It’s not about a healthy debate, it’s simply labelling something as false, regardless of the fact that it may not be false at all, in order to shift the perception of those who may come across the article.

Don’t get me wrong, there is a lot of “false” information out there as well no doubt, which gives these fact checkers more credibility and makes their job quite easy.

What’s not mentioned in Prasad’s article is, not only do they label something as “false” when it’s not false, the content in question is then hidden from Google searches, and the Facebook pages who post the content, for example, see their reach, distribution and revenue cut. What we have here is, as I’ve said many times before, a digital authoritarian Orwellian “Fact-Checker” patrolling the internet telling people what is and what isn’t. Should people not have the right to examine information openly and transparently and determine for themselves what is and what isn’t?

This is why we created CETV.

The number of scientists, doctors and journalists who are speaking up about this, and who are experiencing it is truly unprecedented. Any information, again, that opposes government recommendations is censored. Some of the latest examples would be the fact that various publications are showing that lockdown measures have no impact on the spread of covid and are going to be responsible for more deaths than covid itself. Another would be the fact that not all deaths attributed to covid have been a result of covid, or the fact many scientists are raising concerns with PCR testing and false positives.

The point is, we should be able to have conversations, and information should be shared openly and freely without being subjected to such heavy censorship, and thus silencing any type of debate. It’s great to see that issues with this type of censorship are going “mainstream.” Again, it’s one of many examples showing how covid has been, and will continue to be a catalyst for a shift in human consciousness, where people are able to see aspects about our current human experience that were once not visible to them.

In my opinion, global ‘chaos’ is happening in response to an emerging consciousness within us that no longer resonates with the society we have created. The ‘chaos’ inspires us to let go of many of the current systems we have in place that were created from a way of thinking and being we simply don’t connect with any longer. More than ever, people are feeling the urge to imagine and create new systems and structures in our society that better match this emerging level of consciousness.