Users who attempted to share the link were met with a warning message stating the URL to the video goes against Facebook’s community guidelines because it contained “COVID-19 claims that our fact-checking partners have repeatedly rated false.”
It seems that those who “check” the “facts” did not actually check any facts, because they were all working off the identical script, which they dutifully regurgitated, to smear me and the film. Who gave them all the same talking points, which were outdated and fail to acknowledge the current controversy among scientists, intel professionals and others regarding the provenance of the SARS-2 virus?
Politics406, AFP, checkyourfact, healthfeedback, TechTimes, Factcheck and Politifact all reference the exact same March article in Nature Medicine (that I and others debunked at the time), which claimed to prove SARS-CoV-2 came from a bat. The NatureMed authors used a straw man argument that essentially said, if we were going to design a lethal coronavirus, we would have done it this way. But it wasn’t done that way, so it came from a bat and not a lab. Please ignore the fact we have been unable to find a similar virus in bats, and we certainly cannot explain why this virus is so much better adapted to humans than bats. Trust us anyway.
This is the best argument that can be made for a natural origin? Yet it has been used to ban my appearance, the film Plandemic 2, and discussion of the film from many platforms.
The link Checkyourfact uses to claim scientific consensus, in fact discusses the scientific disagreement on the origin of the virus. And while the Office of the Director of National Intelligence said at one time it believed the virus came from nature, it backtracked shortly afterward, raising the possibility it came from a lab. Sir Richard Dearlove (former head of Britain’s MI6) raised the lab hypothesis in the same story Checkyourfact linked to, to support its claim of consensus regarding the natural origin theory. Fact checkers don’t have enough time to check their own facts apparently.
Who gave all these so-called fact-checking sites the identical set of talking points? And could this level of coordination be evidence of a conspiracy to suppress the film and smear those appearing in it? How is it that such shoddy fact-checking by “partners” is sufficient to ban and shadowban the film in most major outlets, including Facebook and Reddit?
UPDATE: A tweet from Professor Richard Ebright from February was used as evidence against a lab origin in one of the fact-check articles. Professor Ebright has since clarified his opinion that the virus could have come from a lab with the following:
“The op-ed’s conclusion that SARS-CoV-2 genome shows no signatures of purposeful human manipulation is correct,” he said in an email exchange. [Professor Ebright is referring to the article I challenged in March and April, which was mentioned by every one of the fact-check pieces to claim I was wrong.–Nass]
“The absence of signatures rules out the possibility the virus was engineered using methods that leave signatures. However, the absence of signatures of manipulation does not rule out the possibility the virus was engineered using widely employed – including at WIV – methods that do not leave signatures. The op-ed does not even address the possibility that an unpublished WIV bat coronavirus… could be the progenitor of SARS-CoV-2.”
UPDATE: Just in case you still do not think there is a conspiracy to suppress the documentary, here is what Politifact wrote:
Update: On August 23 USAToday factcheck uses the identical argument as the 6 fact-check sites to insist on a natural origin of coronavirus, citing the Nature Medicine commentary and the Lancet letter, both of which I debunked in March and April. Like the 6 sites, USAT criticizes me for not explaining in the film the reasons I think the virus came from a lab. Never mind that I have provided those reasons at length in my blog here here here here here here here and here (using USAT as the source for the last post), and gave that information to the single fact-checker who called me. My reasoning, which all 7 of these organizations criticized me for not providing, is certainly not hiding, and has been detailed by me for the past 5 months.