Why you can no longer trust the BBC, Reuters or the mainstream media: Fake fact checkers.

The reason I have made this website, as have very many others far more capable than me, is because we have become aware of how the media are hiding highly relevant information from you, are misleading you and even lying to you in order to propagate their Covid narrative. Their goal is fear.

Our ‘Banned Series’ are interviews with doctors, scientists and lawyers, of international reknown, who were well respected before Covid and have since been vilified after they criticised Government policy and safety decisions. Google and Facebook Whistleblowers have exposed fiercely enforced directions to quell any critics of big pharma or government policy. Many anti vaxxers report threatening phone calls.

The ‘Whistleblow Series‘ are employees of Pharmaceutical companies, mainstream media or social network companies. Most Whistleblowers’ have banned as well.

The object of free speech is to allow both sides of an argument to be heard so the informed can make an informed choice. this principle is enshrined in natural law under the latin maxim, audi alterum partem, to hear both sides of an argument. It is enshrined in medical law under the principle of informed consent. It is clear now that we no longer, if we ever did, have a free press. All news sources are now under the control of a single author. Nearly all media in both print and on tv are now owned by a single source. See my blog on the end of free speech. (Coming soon).

A brilliant video has been made which shows how the mainstream media reads from a single script.

A young Dutch lady has also made a video showing how Vanguard and Blackrock own every blue chip company on the Planet and that Vanguard own 60% of Blackrock. Who they represent is a guarded secret.

It is clear now we are only meant to hear one side of the story. I aim to bring you the other side. Fake news, fake fact checkers, and the mainstream media have embarked on a mission to ban any dissenting voices no matter what they are saying or how relevant it is to you. If it is said with the intention of making you think twice about being vaccinated then it is automatically banned. If you doubt that see my blog on Project Veritas and the whistle blowers they have interviewed who admit to Facebooks, Google and Fox News’ fiercely stifling critical comment.

The term conspiracy theory has become a term for a person who opposes the mainstream narrative. I have taken a legal approach to the analysis of evidence and have only included in the Banned series individuals who, in my opinion, retain credibility despite the often unfair, untrue and twisted character assassinations that have become part of the woke culture.

Where possible I will address the criticisms and explain why they are not justified. The mainstream media or our own government who have become the biggest pedlars of misinformation since the Daily Star posted a photo of a World War 2 bomber found on the moon.

Mainstream media have become more obsessed with trashing the truth than telling it.

Here is an example of how the mainstream media, untruthfully, assassinate characters.

There is a simple method used to attack anyone who opposes lockdowns, masking or vaccines. It is a method used in courts of law. It is the method of distraction. What you will often find is the fake fact checkers will divert your attention to a side issue and ignore the main issue. They will find a minor error and divert your attention to it ignoring the main issue which they are unable to credibly prove wrong. That is even taking into account thier low threshold for accuracy. It is a childish attack because anyone with any intelligence will not be distracted but the mainstream media know you will not have the time to double check what they say.

An Example

Take Michael Yeadon for one. He and Delores Cahill are the people the media seem to fear the most. Probably because they are gamekeepers turned poachers. They do not historically oppose vaccine, but they are warning us all in no uncertain terms that this jab is not a vaccine in the traditional tried and test sense. It is genetic modification. Neither are anti big pharma they both made careers working with and for big pharma.

They both have deep inside knowledge of the industry and they have spoken out at great personal costs because their reputations and careers have been trashed by the media for simply raising the alarm, and for bringing to the publics attention the risks of experimental vaccines.

Character Assassination of Michael Yeadon by Reuters.

Reuters article on Michael Yeadon

What did Reuters say?

False Statement No: 1

Reuters said: “Late last year, a semi-retired British scientist co-authored a petition to Europe’s medicines regulator. The petitioners made a bold demand: Halt COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials.

Even bolder was their argument for doing so: They speculated, without providing evidence, that the vaccines could cause infertility in women.

The document appeared on a German website on Dec.1. Scientists denounced the theory. Regulators weren’t swayed, either: Weeks later, the European Medicines Agency approved the European Union’s first COVID-19 shot, co-developed by Pfizer Inc. But damage was already done.”

That is not an accurate statement in a number of respects.

First, the letter was not from Michael Yeadon and one other as co-authored suggests, it was from:

Professsor Sucharit Bhakdi MD, Professor Emeritus of Medical Microbiology and Immunology, Former Chair, Institute of Medical Microbiology and Hygiene, Johannes Gutenberg University of Mainz (Medical Doctor and Scientist) (Germany and Thailand)

Dr Marco Chiesa MD FRCPsych, Consultant Psychiatrist and Visiting Professor, University College London (Medical Doctor) (United Kingdom and Italy)

Dr C Stephen Frost BSc MBChB Specialist in Diagnostic Radiology, Stockholm, Sweden (Medical Doctor) (United Kingdom and Sweden)

Dr Margareta Griesz-Brisson MD PhD, Consultant Neurologist and Neurophysiologist (studied Medicine in Freiburg, Germany, speciality training for Neurology at New York University, Fellowship in Neurophysiology at Mount Sinai Medical Centre, New York City; PhD in Pharmacology with special interest in chronic low level neurotoxicology and effects of environmental factors on brain health), Medical Director, The London Neurology and Pain Clinic (Medical Doctor and Scientist) (Germany and United Kingdom)

Professor Martin Haditsch MD PhD, Specialist (Austria) in Hygiene and Microbiology, Specialist (Germany) in Microbiology, Virology, Epidemiology/Infectious Diseases, Specialist (Austria) in Infectious Diseases and Tropical Medicine, Medical Director, TravelMedCenter, Leonding, Austria, Medical Director, Labor Hannover MVZ GmbH (Medical Doctor and Scientist) (Austria and Germany)

Professor Stefan Hockertz, Professor of Toxicology and Pharmacologym, European registered Toxicologist, Specialist in Immunology and Immunotoxicology, CEO tpi consult GmbH. (Scientist) (Germany)

Dr Lissa Johnson, BSc BA(Media) MPsych(Clin) PhD, Clinical Psychologist and Behavioural Psychologist, Expertise in the social psychology of torture, atrocity, collective violence and fear propaganda, Former member Australian Psychological Society Public Interest Advisory Group (Clinical Psychologist and Behavioural Scientist) (Australia)

Professor Ulrike Kämmerer PhD, Associate Professor of Experimental Reproductive Immunology and Tumor Biology at the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University Hospital of Würzburg, Germany, Trained molecular virologist (Diploma, PhD-Thesis) and Immunologist (Habilitation), Remains engaged in active laboratory research (Molecular Biology, Cell Biology (Scientist) (Germany)

Associate Professor Michael Palmer MD, Department of Chemistry (studied Medicine and Medical Microbiology in Germany, has taught Biochemistry since 2001 in present university in Canada; focus on Pharmacology, metabolism, biological membranes, computer programming; experimental research focus on bacterial toxins and antibiotics (Daptomycin); has written a textbook on Biochemical Pharmacology, University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada (Medical Doctor and Scientist) (Canada and Germany)

Professor Karina Reiss PhD, Professor of Biochemistry, Christian Albrecht University of Kiel, Expertise in Cell Biology, Biochemistry (Scientist) (Germany)

Professor Andreas Sönnichsen MD, Professor of General Practice and Family Medicine, Department of General Practice and Family Medicine, Center of Public Health, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna (Medical Doctor) (Austria)

Dr Michael Yeadon BSc (Joint Honours in Biochemistry and Toxicology) PhD (Pharmacology), Formerly Vice President & Chief Scientific Officer Allergy & Respiratory, Pfizer Global R&D; Co-founder & CEO, Ziarco Pharma Ltd.; Independent Consultant (Scientist) (United Kingdom)

Secondly, the Dr’s were not only complaining about the risk of infertility. That was only one of many issues. They raised too many concerns to mention here. Please see their letter link below.

Then Reuters said:

This is an important comment that has no weight whatsoever. This is where Reuters now start to embarrass themselves. Now lets remember Reuters are responding to the considered opinion of a whole field of medical professionals. I hasten to guess their combined experience but is certainly pushing 600 years.

In response Reuters rely on a ‘spokesman for Britain’s Department of Health’, without giving any idea what experience they have, what their field of expertise is or even their argument against the issues raised. They do not profer a single reason to support their assertion ‘These claims are false’. No argument, no science and no reasoning just a bold assertion from an anonymous source. This is the same as telling your child they should do what you say ‘because you said so’ or rather someone else said so.

Let us not overlook the importance of this. Do you believe Reuters did not attempt to have a leading professional critique the arguments? Do you think they do not know quoting an anonymous source seriously undermines their argument? There is only one reason to quote an anonymous source and that is because you cannot find a suitable expert to comment openly.

If I were in court I could properly ask the judge to make the presumption that if a party does not bring expert evidence to supports its case it is only because none exists. I suppose Reuters could argue against that saying they are merely incompetent. I find that hard to believe. Corrupt yes, incompetent, unlikely.

I do not mean to be disrespectful to anyone who has been falling for these lies because until March 2020 I always assumed Reuters and the BBC had serious credibility, but that is only because I never bothered to check, now I have I am shocked. Their researchers and analysts are complete amateurs.


Are being ordered to argue and present a hopeless argument but nevertheless pursue it anyway. I have had to do that as a barrister.

Reuters then go on to argue

“References to Yeadon’s petition appear on the website of a group founded by influential vaccine skeptic Robert F. Kennedy Jr., scion of the American political dynasty, who recently was banned on Instagram because of his COVID-19 vaccine posts. Syndicated writer and vaccine skeptic Michelle Malkin reported Yeadon’s concern about fertility in a column last month under the headline, “Pregnant Women: Beware of COVID Shots.” And a blog with an alarmist headline – “Head of Pfizer Research: Covid vaccine is female sterilization” – was shared thousands of times on Facebook.

They then seem to try to attack Yeadon for his association with Robert Kennedy Jnr. citing his ban on Instagram as proof he has no credibility. This may be indicative of the new age of Reuters customer. I have never heard anyone before try to suggest that if Instagram banned someone it proves they are wrong. I do not know what else to say about that. It speaks for itself.

But the article was then blocked and taken down they failed to report.

Just a quick stock take here.

Firstly, Robert Kennedy Jnr. is not an anti vaxxer he is pro vaccine. He is anti using experimental vaccines, hiding the side affects and preventing legitimate argument and debate. Robert Kennedy, and I seriously suggest you watch his interview, is one of the foremost environmental activists and lawyers on the planet. To attempt to trash his credibility because Instagram banned him really just shows the bias of the Reuters author. It is circular Instagram banned him for posting anti MRNA posts and therefore neither he nor Michael Yeadon are credible. It is, when you think about it, an insult to our intelligence. In my mind nowadays a ban from Facebook, Instagram and Twitter is a sign you are probably telling the truth.

Instagram are part of the same propaganda campaign as Reuters (with shared owners) but to try to discredit an experienced professional without presenting any argument seems to prove there is no argument because if their was Reuters could easily have had a Dr, of Michael Yeadons stature, explain why he is wrong instead of a mere denial by an anonymous spokesperson. A credible journalist would have attacked these experts with equally experienced experts giving suitable scientific explanation. It is fair to assume that no credible answer to these questions exist. Reuters fake fact check actually proves Michael Yeadon and his colleagues are correct.

An even more astonishing claim

Reuters went on to say, “Earlier this year, a group of Yeadon’s former Pfizer colleagues expressed their concern in a private letter, according to a draft reviewed by Reuters. Again no mention of the critic. They claim the draft letter read as follows;

“We have become acutely aware of your views on COVID-19 over the last few months … the single mindedness, lack of scientific rigour and one sided interpretation of often poor quality data is far removed from the Mike Yeadon we so respected and enjoyed working with.”

Noting his “vast following on social media” and that his claim about infertility “has spread globally,” the group wrote, “We are very worried that you are putting people’s health at risk.”

“Reuters couldn’t determine whether Yeadon received the letter.” What does that even mean. They do not know if was sent, they could ask, or do they mean it was sent but they do not know if it arrived. It is deliberate obfuscation to write in such vague terms. A court would assume it was never sent.

This really is a remarkable comment. Reuters are now attempting to gain some credibility by a referring to a letter that they ‘saw in draft’ and do not know if Mr Yeadon received it or if it was sent. They do not name the purported authors. In summary they say they saw some evidence that some ex colleagues who wish to remain anonymous did not agree with Mr Yeadon and they showed Reuters a draft but they are not sure if it was sent or not.

Reuters are saying because of an Instagram ban and some anonymous people who disagree you should ignore the collective option of 12 of the, pre COVID, most respected Drs on the planet.

Whenever I walk into a court room I pray my opponent is as inept as that. Is that some kind of a joke? “I think I saw some evidence but it was never finalised or sent.”

There is a not a single scientific or medical comment in the entire article.

The article is deigned to have a single impact, its headline. Reuters hope you are too busy to read their articles beyond the headlines because if you did read it and fact check it you would realise their story does not even support their own headline. In fact you do not need to go beyond the article itself to know it is nonsense.

If you have been vaccinated or you are considering whether to have your first or second shot I beg you to at least watch the Banned videos. It is not my aim to discourage you from having the vaccine it is merely my aim to make sure you know the risks so you can make an informed choice. I feel the need to make up for the total lack of informed consent. If this blog saves a single life it was worth writing.


Follow by Email
%d bloggers like this: