Has Snopes Been Snoped? Will Retraction Watch Retract?

Has Snopes Been Snoped? Will Retraction Watch Retract?
Source: GreenMedInfo.com
Celeste McGovern
May 22, 2017

Originally published on CMSRI.org.

The NEVER-retracted vaccinated vs. unvaccinated study that revealed significantly higher odds in risks of chronic illness among vaccinated children is back online. But will Retraction Watch admit it launched the attack to discredit it? Will Snopes fact-check itself? If not, why not?

The first-ever study of vaccinated vs. unvaccinated American children (and a subset study) published two weeks ago in the peer-reviewed Journal of Translational Science have reappeared online after briefly disappearing while under fire from a small band of Skeptics and the staff at Retraction Watch, an organization that reports Science retraction news. Snopes, the fact-checking website, is still misreporting that the study has been retracted, even while it sits, published, in the science journal’s pages.

It is a troubling saga unfolding in the scientific publishing world, and it is worth paying attention to because it’s revealing of powerful forces in that realm that are trying to censor scientific research and to shield important data from public viewing. Not at all the methodical and logical sort of thing you would expect from modern scientific types.  It looks more like a secret 17th century Salem witch trial…interrupted.

Most readers here will be aware of Anthony Mawson et al.’s pivotal pilot study on the health of homeschooled American children. It is one of very few studies to examine the explosion of once rare disorders and conditions affecting modern children (all the millions of 21st century First World earaches, allergies, hayfever, ADD, neurodevelopmental disorders and autism, that is damaging young children’s brains in spiking numbers). And it is the only study (yes, the ONLY study to contain totally unvaccinated American subjects.) There are no other studies of American children who have never had a vaccine compared to kids with the motherload of CDC protection.

The researchers cautiously asked a logical, but unorthodox question: is it possible that all this immune –mediated disease has anything to do with the immune-mediating drugs that children are given in doses five times that of their parents?   (And yes, autism is brain damage but it is almost certainly the result of a damaged immune system). Could it have anything to do with the 50 doses of 15 immune-stimulating vaccines before age six compared to the three doses of three vaccines the last generation — that wasn’t so sick — got?

The researchers got some very troubling answers. They reported Odds Risk ratios similar to smoking and lung cancer for vaccination and immune-mediated allergic rhinitis, for example.  And a more than four-fold higher risk of vaccinated children having been diagnosed on the Autism Spectrum than unvaccinated children. We better have another study, the researchers concluded. A bigger and better study.

Round One: Suppressing the Study Results

Enter the Skeptics. When the Mawson paper was under review at Frontiers last year, a Skeptic named Leonid Schneider leapt into action.

“I pride myself to have caused the Frontiers anti-vaxx retraction with one tweet!” he tweeted. “The anti-vaxx paper was published as abstract, a reader alerted me, I tweeted, Frontiers got scared, pulled the paper.” Before it was published. It was never published. NEVER RETRACTED. Just tweeted away by Leonid and his Skeptic friends.

Most scientists are skeptical — they don’t like claims without evidence – but not all scientists are Skeptics. Skeptics are champions of objective scientific inquiry who fight against anything they see as irrational and unscientific, which is everything outside of pharmaceutical manufacturing interests. Functional Medicine is equal to Bigfoot to them.  They know the difference between Good Thinking and Bad Thinking and some theories (like evolution) they think are very good and some ideas, like God, are particularly bad. They don’t like religion, but Skeptics can be quite dogmatic themselves about some things. Like vaccines. According to them, all vaccines are safe and effective. No one is ever injured by vaccines. Every child is healthier because of vaccines. The epidemic of childhood disorders is caused by something that is not vaccines. Questioning vaccines is heresy.

Retraction Watch, which bills itself as “a window into the scientific process,” got a little more involved than window-watching and inaccurately reported that the study was retracted, based on a Tweet. It ignored that accepting science on its merits, and then rejecting it on Tweets from those who disagree, is in violation of the publishing code of conduct.  Not to mention that there is a big difference in the world of science between having a paper retracted – which implies scientific misconduct or gross scientific error – and having a paper declined because of disgruntled Tweets.

Frontiers publicly posts their retraction policy and affirms that they abide by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines and recommendations in cases of potential retraction. Frontiers also abides by two other key principles, as recommended by COPE:

  • Retractions are not about punishing authors.
  • Retraction statements should be public and linked to the original, retracted article.

There was no retraction statement ever made or posted by Frontiers; therefore Retraction Watch’s statement about Dr. Mawson’s paper being retracted is inarguably false. This proven lie was used to interfere with and misconstrue Dr. Mawson’s research, resulting in a temporary removal of his article from The Journal of Translational Science pending an inquiry. Inquiry resolved, the articles have been reinstated on the journal’s website, demonstrating sufficient proof that the articles were never retracted as claimed by Retraction Watch.

Round Two: Discrediting the Study Results

Retraction Watch was again the first to misreport the retraction of the Mawson paper from the Journal of Translational Science last week. Rather than reporting on the facts, Retraction Watch took an activist role in the attempted takedown of Dr. Mawson’s research. Misconstruing and misrepresenting another scientist’s research is considered scientific misconduct. Retraction Watch still has (at the time of writing) an article posted that claims the paper has been doubly retracted. Their actions have a ripple effect, furthering the harm to Dr. Mawson and his younger colleagues, actions which are harmful to reputations, careers, and their future livelihoods. Snopes, the “fact-checking” entity, was still reporting that the papers were retracted because of methodological flaws, with only a tiny disclaimer at the bottom showing the papers restored to the Journal’s webpages. I pointed out the error to the editors and they updated the story today, without apology for inaccuracies.

Continuing to retain articles that are demonstrably and provably false on their website shows a lack of regard for the integrity and truth they espouse to protect. The public should be aware that their representations are not well researched and supported by the facts, and that the due diligence they claim to conduct in the interest of scientific integrity is not as it appears once you scratch the surface.

No answers have been forthcoming from Retraction Watch’s editor Alison Cook. She has not replied to my inquiries. Snopes founder David Mikkelson and managing editor Brooke Binkowski did not reply to messages. I did not receive explanations from the journal editors either.

The Digital Media Law Project publishes guidelines for publishing information that “harms the reputation of another person, group, or organization.” Injury to one’s reputation that stems from a falsehood is defamation, and claiming an article was retracted when it wasn’t is false, defamatory and should be corrected when notice and evidence has been provided to the author of the defamatory article. In the case of the Snopes article, the DMLP states “the republication of someone else’s words can itself be defamatory. In other words, you won’t be immune simply because you are quoting another person making the defamatory statement, even if you properly attribute the statement to its source.”

The DMLP also advises publications to “be prompt and give your correction the same prominent position that you gave the inaccurate information you previously posted.”

Can Snopes and Retraction Watch be Trusted? 

The whole ordeal puts scientific publishing into a bad light. Can it be so easy to push editors out of publishing? Is the code of conduct meaningless? Don’t the researchers have recourse to defend their work if there are allegations against it, in a scholarly manner? Has science stooped so low, so beneath accepted standards of professionalism, that it is time to call in lawyers?

This disturbing event leaves the public bewildered. Is there something to worry about for our children’s health or not? Why did these researchers find such a high risk of autism and other disorders in vaccinated children?  What are the possible mechanisms of immune system injury from vaccination in children?

The way the Mawson study was received undermines public trust in a system that is meant to be seeking better health for humanity. It will continue to erode so long as it fails to answer these questions that our children need answers to, now.

Read More At: GreenMedInfo.com
___________________________________________________________

The Children’s Medical Safety Research Institute (CMSRI) is a medical and scientific collaborative established to provide research funding for independent studies on causal factors underlying the chronic disease and disability epidemic.

Disclaimer: This article is not intended to provide medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. Views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of GreenMedInfo or its staff.

‘Fact checker’ for Facebook exposed as alleged embezzler who reportedly spent tens of thousands of company dollars on prostitutes

Image: ‘Fact checker’ for Facebook exposed as alleged embezzler who reportedly spent tens of thousands of company dollars on prostitutes
Source: NaturalNews.com
JD Heyes
January 9, 2017

The political Left has collectively lost its mind since their anointed nominee, two-time presidential loser Hillary Clinton, was soundly vanquished by now President-elect Donald J. Trump.

The Leftist media has particularly gone insane, having invented a narrative to help explain Clinton’s loss: ‘Fake news.’

It couldn’t be that Clinton was just a low-energy candidate who could not connect with enough voters in enough states to give her the 270 electoral votes necessary to win the presidency; of course not. It had to be something else—fake news supplied to hundreds of news and information sites throughout the campaign by Russian propagandists, which, of course, turned out to be completely bunk.

Still, the ‘mainstream media’ is sticking to its phony narrative, and that includes Facebook, which has pledged to team up with a gaggle of “fact-checking” websites and news agencies that themselves have a dubious history regarding accuracy and bias. One of those partner sites is Snopes.com, whose co-owners are now involved in a bitter legal dispute and whose CEO is being accused of using company funds to hire hookers.

O0ps. Credibility alert.

‘Fact checkers’ who cannot be trusted

Further, as reported by the UK’s Daily Mail, one of Snopes.com’s main contributors who is charged with ‘fact-checking’ is a former sex blogger who once called herself “Vice Vixen.”

That’s troubling for a number of reasons—not the least of which is that Snopes.com’s association with Facebook is liable to be extremely valuable, given the social media giant’s reach and influence.

Facebook’s partner sites are going to be trusted to fact-check whether news stories trending on the News Feed and throughout the social site are in fact reputable and real. The partners will be tasked with deciding whether stories are genuine or whether they ought to be marked as “disputed.”

In addition to Snopes.com, other partner sites include ABC News (which has had its own credibility issues, including faking crime scene coverage), The Associated Press, and other “fact-checking” sites like Politifact.com, which also has a well-established political bias.

Besides these obvious problems, the Daily Mail found that Snopes.com’s founders, former husband and wife David and Barbara Mikkelson, are now embroiled in a bitter legal dispute in the wake of their divorce.

While he has since remarried, the issue is his choice of bride: She was once a former escort and porn actress who is now a staff member on the Snopes.com ‘fact-checking’ team.

The former married couple have exchanged accusations of financial impropriety: Barbara claims her ex-husband has embezzled company funds and suggested that he is attempting a “boondoggle” to change tax arrangements; David, by comparison, is alleging that Barbara took millions from their joint account and bought property in Las Vegas with some of the proceeds.

The site was founded in 1995. The couple met in the early 1990s on a folklore-themed online message board, getting married before they established their website. Profiles of the site note that for a while before it was established, the couple were known as “The San Fernando Valley Folklore Society,” even using the name on letterheads though it did not really exist.

‘I’d love to respond…’

A Webby Awards profile that was published in October says it was “an entity dreamed up to help make the inquiries seem more legit.”

In 1997, David Mikkelson told the Los Angeles Times, “When I sent letters out to companies, I found I got a much better response with an official-looking organization’s stationary”—meaning the “fact-checker” was posing as someone he wasn’t.

The couple divorced in 2015, but a bitter legal dispute has been ongoing. Both of them remained as co-owners of Snopes.com, registered under the legal name of Bardav, Inc., with the couple as the company’s only board members.

In legal filings that were reviewed by the Daily Mail, there are details showing a long financial and corporate dispute that has continued since the couple divorced, which one attorney has described as “contentious” in court documents. In the filings Barbara, 57, is accusing her former husband, 56, of “raiding the corporate business Bardav bank account” for his personal use and attorney fees, and without any consultation with her.

In addition, she accuses David of embezzling $98,000 from the company over the course of four years, “which he expended upon himself and the prostitutes he hired.”

When the Daily Mail contacted David, he told the paper he was not legally permitted to discuss his ex-wife’s allegations. “I’d love to respond, but unfortunately the terms of a binding settlement agreement preclude me from publicly discussing the details of our divorce.”

Barbara simply said, “No comment.”

This fact-checker is a ‘loose cannon’ who always has to ‘have her way’

In court papers, Barbara alleges that David took thousands of dollars from their business account between April and June of 2016 to pay for trips for him and a “girlfriend.” She said he spent almost $10,000 on a 24-day “personal vacation” to India earlier this year while expensing the girlfriend’s plane tick to Buenos Aires. “He’s been depleting the corporate account by spending monies from it on his personal expenses,” Barbara said in a filing in June.

She also said that David should be suspended from using the company checkbook and debit card immediately, “before there are no funds left in the corporate account.”

In countering Barbara’s charges, David, through his attorneys, said the India trip was legitimate corporate business, and that he only expensed a fraction—22.5 percent—of the total cost of it. In addition, he claims he is establishing a fact-checking website in India, and wanted to experience the culture. And he said he went to Buenos Aires to attend an international fact-checking conference there. His attorneys blasted Barbara—a site fact checker, mind you—for being a “loose cannon” who has to “have her way.”

And these are just some of the people Facebook would have you believe have enough credibility to spot “fake” news—even though the “fake news” narrative is made up to begin with.

The corporate lapdog media and its political enablers are now daily exposing themselves for the inconsolable charlatans they have always been.

J.D. Heyes is a senior writer for Natural News and News Target, as well as editor of The National Sentinel.

Sources:

DailyMail.co.uk

Money.CNN.com

USNews.com

NaturalNews.com

Read More At: NaturalNews.com

Facebook Fascism: Facebook to become left-wing propaganda echo chamber with Orwellian plan to label independent journalism “fake”

Image: Facebook to become left-wing propaganda echo chamber with Orwellian plan to label independent journalism “fake”

Source: NaturalNews.com
Mike Adams
December 16, 2016

Facebook has announced a new plan today that will very quickly transform the social media site into an “echo chamber” of left-wing media lies and delusional propaganda (just like we’ve recently seen pushed by the Washington Post).

The new effort will rely on left-wing “fact checker” organizations like Politifact and Snopes to determine the “truthiness” of news stories, reports Business Insider. Those stories deemed by left-wing “fact checkers” to be inaccurate will be buried in Facebook users’ feeds as a form of organized totalitarian censorship.

This Ministry of Truth “news dictatorship” plan will, of course, transform Facebook into nothing more than a news “bubble” where left-wing propaganda is repeated as “fact” while independent journalism is labeled “fake.”

This means all stories that are critical of vaccines, GMOs, Planned Parenthood or Hillary Clinton will be censored out of existence. The political left, you see, doesn’t seek to win any debate at all… their goal is to ban the debate so that you never read any views other than theirs. (They can’t win any legitimate debates or legitimate elections, so they cheat.)

In essence, Facebook has now announced it’s going to become the North Korea of social media.

Facebook’s “fact checkers” are left-wing propagandsts who despise factual journalism

“Facebook has announced it will introduce warning labels on stories they deem to be “fake news,” with the help of partisan “fact checking” organisations such as Snopes and PolitiFact,” reports Breitbart.com.

Business Insider reports that these organisations will include the likes of Snopes, ABC, Politifact, and FactCheck.org, all of which have records of left-wing partisanship — particularly throughout the 2016 election.

For example, PolitiFact infamously said it was “mostly false” when Donald Trump claimed in a presidential debate that Hillary Clinton wanted “open borders.” PolitiFact made this ruling despite Clinton being on the record at a paid speech saying “My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders.”

Trump also said that Russia has 1,800 nuclear warheads and has expanded its arsenal while the U.S. has not. PolitiFact admitted that Trump’s claim was factual, but it rated the statement as “half true” for supposedly “missing the big picture.”

In both of these cases, PolitiFact went beyond mere fact-checking and moved the goal posts in ways that benefited Clinton’s candidacy. This type of ideological “fact checking” went beyond parody during October’s presidential debates, with NBC taking Trump’s statement that Clinton “acid washed” her emails (a reference to the data deletion tool “BleachBit”) 100% literally and declaring the statement “false.”

It’s time to leave Facebook and discover alternatives like Diaspora or Gab.ai

As Facebook turns into an echo chamber of mentally ill liberal whackos, informed people will look elsewhere for uncensored, independent news.

One of the best alternatives for Facebook is Diaspora, a network of independent social media hubs run by independent, open source organizations like Natural News.

Our Diaspora hub is found at Share.NaturalNews.com, and it’s rapidly growing. There, you’ll receive every story we post, unlike Facebook where 99% of our posts are deliberately buried by Facebook itself.

Gab.ai is also rapidly growing, promising uncensored free speech in a social media format. You can find my articles posted in real time at these two accounts:

https://gab.ai/healthranger

https://gab.ai/NaturalNews

Join all these sources so that you can stay informed. Understand that Facebook, Google, Twitter, Yahoo and all the other internet gatekeepers are now engaged in an all out war against independent news, hoping to censor it out of existence. (They’ve lost the narrative, and they lost the election. Now they’re desperate to destroy whatever voices they don’t control… but it will only cause them to lose their audience.)

A mass exodus away from Fakebook

By censoring independent journalism, Facebook is going to lose tens of millions of users who will simply go somewhere else. The left-wing propaganda swallowers who stay behind at Facebook will simply become increasingly misinformed and mentally ill as they follow the left-wing media down the rabbit hole of delusional Russian hacker conspiracy theories and hatred against America, the Constitution and the entire male population in general.

It won’t be long, probably, before Snopes “officially” confirms that having white skin makes you a racist, or that all men are evil due to their genetics. Politifact might throw down its own delusional “facts” that claim Donald Trump was hypnotized by the Russians as a Manchurian candidate to commit genocide against women (or whatever) whose body parts will be harvested for organ donations to gray aliens from planet Cockamamie.

I can’t wait for Snopes to confirm that people can transform XY chromosomes into XX chromosomes by declaring themselves to be transgender. Before long, everything pushed by the left — from climate change lunacy to transgender psychosis — will be rooted in sheer delusion that stands in complete contradiction to scientific reality.

Yet it will all be pushed by Facebook as “verified fact.” To the utterly insane left, “facts” are whatever they believe in, no matter how disconnected from reality they might be.

We have now entered the Orwellian nightmare we all knew was coming. The good news is that you can simply change the channel and escape the nightmare by avoiding Facebook altogether.

It’s time to #DumpFacebook for good.

Read More At: NaturalNews.com