Poynter: Self Claimed “Factchecking Group” Funded By Media Giants

Ever get the impression that all major media is controlled by a few people? Well, meet Poynter, the factchecking group that is financed by media conglomerates. There’s no conflict of interest here.

In short, these groups act as a form of counterintelligence groups. Their mission being to discredit and deflect from real truth, in order to promote what Governments and corporations are saying. This is little more than propaganda in today’s society.

By supporting the Poynter Institute, you fortify journalism’s role in a free society. Poynter champions freedom of expression, civil dialogue and compelling journalism that helps citizens participate in healthy democracies. We prepare journalists worldwide to hold powerful people accountable and promote honest information in the marketplace of ideas.

Founded in 1975, Poynter is an inspirational place but also a practical one, connecting the varied crafts of journalism to its higher mission and purpose. From person-to-person coaching and intensive hands-on seminars to interactive online courses and media reporting, Poynter helps journalists sharpen skills and elevate storytelling throughout their careers.

We bring together Poynter faculty and industry experts to explore the intersection of journalism, technology and the public interest. Poynter specializes in:
-Ethics and fact-checking
-Reporting and storytelling
-Developing journalism’s leaders
-Advancing newsroom diversity
-Strengthening local news companies

Poynter claims it prepares journalists to hold powerful people accountable. That’s interesting, considering who their donors are. Also, if truth is important, why the focus on storytelling? This group is noticeably silent on the topic of media and social media censorship. As an example, Kevin Chan of Facebook Canada bragged about removing 16 million pieces of information in 2020.

This group is part of the Coronavirus Facts Alliance, whose mission it is to route out “misinformation”, which is pretty much anything that contradicts the official narrative.

As for their major donors, at least they are open about it:

BIGGEST FUNDERS

  • Charles Koch Foundation
  • Democracy Fund
  • Environmental Defense Fund
  • Facebook
  • Foundation to Promote Open Society
  • Gill Foundation
  • Google News Initiative
  • Institute for War and Peace Reporting
  • John S. and James L. Knight Foundation
  • Lumina Foundation
  • MacArthur Foundation
  • Miami Foundation
  • National Endowment for Democracy
  • Newmark Philanthropies
  • Newton & Rochelle Becker Charitable Trust
  • Omidyar Network | Luminate
  • Rita Allen Foundation
  • Robert R. McCormick Foundation

LARGEST CUSTOM TRAINING PARTNERS IN 2019-2021

  • American Society of Business Publication Editors
  • Charles Koch Institute
  • ESPN
  • Facebook
  • Huffington Post
  • Marketplace
  • MRC Media
  • Middle East Broadcasting Networks
  • National Public Radio
  • Newsweek
  • New York Times
  • Pinellas County School District
  • Southern Newspapers Publishers Association
  • The Washington Post
  • TikTok
  • USA Today Network
  • Vice
  • Voice of America – Broadcasting Board of Governors

Do you get it now? This is just another group of fact checkers doing what they can to ensure that the “correct” opinions and points of view are promoted. These aren’t independents, or even quasi independents.

(1) ttps://www.poynter.org/
(2) https://www.poynter.org/major-funders/
(3) https://www.poynter.org/about/

Getting Started With Researching Registered Canadian Charities

In both Canada and the United States, registered charities are open to at least some degree of scrutiny by members of the public. This is of importance since a surprising number of NGOs who try to influence your life are actually charities. In addition to meddling, these groups are being subsidized with your tax money. The upside is that it makes it much easier to look into them.

Also in this series, we covered: (a) research, investigative journalism for beginners; (b) FOI/ATIP filings; (c) court record searches; and (d) lobbyist registrations. This is meant as introductory lessons, and not to include everything.

While the focus on this is Canadian charities, you should be aware that it’s possible to search the finances of American ones in much the same way. The information is made public by the Canada Revenue Agency, and Internal Revenue Service, respectively.

A disclaimer: it’s probably best to go into this with an open mind. Surely, the bulk of these groups operate in a completely transparent manner. That said, groups that few have heard of have a disproportionate impact on our lives. Be curious, but willing to have beliefs changed. Also, a great many of these organizations have revenue of just a few thousand or tens of thousands per year. They aren’t pulling too many strings.

Referring to the Canadian site: checking out if a company is registered as a charity is about as complicated as running a Google search. Simply type in the name, or part of a name. It is actually quite surprising the amount of places that are charities. This includes colleges, universities and many public health “authorities”.

Now, let’s try an example:

Searching with the term “public health“, we get 6 hits. The Public Health Association of British Columbia is one of those on that list, so let’s take a look at that.

Basic information about the PHABC (and other groups) are instantly available. Typically, the last 5 years of financial data will be available, although one can ask the CRA for filings from further back. They will also list the number of employees, and typically the salary ranges of the top 10 highest paid. Usually, these are executives. While this certainly does not include everything, it’s a great starting point when investigating charities.

(Anecdotally) it seems very common that a large part of the revenue is from “other” sources. It would be nice to know specifically what that involved. Perhaps some assets were sold off to make it happen?!

While non-profits are subject to many of the same laws, the financial information isn’t so readily available. Just a clarification here.

The CRA Charity Page works well in conjunction with Corporations Canada. From here, one can look up which groups are registered, and obtain many of their filings. These are free. If a corporation is set up provincially, the filings can be obtained that way, although some charge for copies.

When you know who the Directors are — either from the CRA or a corporate search — do a little digging. Have they sat in Government before? Have they held any public office? Do they have relatives, close friends, or business associates who are in a position to influence policies? While this approach may make some uncomfortable, realize that this is how things work in the real world. It’s not Bills or Motions, but secret handshakes that often determine how things go.

As for formal meetings, check the piece on getting started with lobbyist registries. It’s amazing how much information is out there.

Now, why would a corporation structure itself as a charity? The most obvious explanation is for the tax benefits. Since donations are tax deductible — almost 50% in most cases — it provides an incentive for donors, as the public will actually help finance it. Also, charities are taxes by the CRA in a more generous way than other businesses, or even non-profits. But, there is a trade off: more forced transparency.

Can a person call up a charity to ask for information? Yes, absolutely. In fact, depending on how easy going you are, you may learn about things that never crossed your mind.

This isn’t to suggest that all charities are run with some nefarious purpose. Far from it. However, it’s important to know what you are helping to fund, and if and how they are trying to influence public policy.

Then of course, we have “charities” like the Century Initiative who promote genocidal policies of population replacement with open borders initiatives. Ones like this are definitely worth a deep dive.

Now, if the entity being researched is not a registered charity, then this article will have no impact. That said, a stunning number of them are, so it’s at least worth a look.

One other thing to point out: programs run through the CRA — like the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy and various sickness programs — post a lot of their data online. If nothing else, there’s a significant amount of information available.

Is this a lot of work? It can be, but with practice, it gets much easier. And this is what this series is trying to underscore: self reliance. Instead of depending on some blogger, or YouTuber, or podcast, “you” are your own most reliable source of information. Figure out what’s true and what’s not.

IMPORTANT LINKS
(1) https://apps.cra-arc.gc.ca/ebci/hacc/srch/pub/dsplyBscSrch
(2) https://apps.irs.gov/app/eos/
(3) https://ic.gc.ca/app/scr/cc/CorporationsCanada/fdrlCrpSrch.html

PROGRAMS RUN BY THE CANADA REVENUE AGENCY
(A) https://apps.cra-arc.gc.ca/ebci/hacc/cews/srch/pub/bscSrch
(B) https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/services/subsidy/emergency-wage-subsidy.html
(C) https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/services/subsidy/emergency-wage-subsidy/cews-statistics.html
(D) https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/services/subsidy/emergency-wage-subsidy/cews-statistics/stats-detailed.html
(E) https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/services/benefits/recovery-benefit.html
(F) https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/services/benefits/recovery-caregiving-benefit.html
(G) https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/services/benefits/recovery-sickness-benefit.html

SURPRISING INSTITUTIONS THAT ARE “CHARITIES”
(1) https://canucklaw.ca/bc-provincial-health-services-authority-is-a-private-corporation-charity/
(2) https://canucklaw.ca/bc-centre-for-disease-control-foundation-is-registered-charity-with-pharma-funding/
(3) https://canucklaw.ca/alberta-health-services-mostly-autonomous-corporation-charity/
(4) https://canucklaw.ca/public-health-ontario-a-semi-autonomous-corporation-whose-leaders-sit-with-on-science-table/
(5) https://canucklaw.ca/executives-of-public-health-charities-drawing-huge-salaries-to-lock-you-down/
(6) https://canucklaw.ca/canadian-public-health-association-is-a-charity-funded-by-drug-companies/
(7) https://canucklaw.ca/charity-university-of-toronto-institute-for-pandemics-funded-by-millers-merck-run-by-ontario-science-table/
(8) https://canucklaw.ca/charity-mcmaster-university-bill-gates-future-of-canada-project-nexus-for-infectious-diseases/
(9) https://canucklaw.ca/media-5-the-origins-of-true-north-canada-which-its-founder-hides/

ACOG, Council On Patient Safety In Women’s Health Care, Partnered With Drug Companies

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the ACOG, made quite a stir when they recommended back in December 2020 that it was okay for pregnant women to get these experimental “emergency use authorization” vaccines. Apparently, that is still the case.

Turns out, there is a bigger picture to look at. The ACOG is part of the Council on Patient Safety, a collective of health care groups that work together.

The Membership Of The Council On Patient Safety In Women’s Health Care comprises 19 different spots, and there are currently 2 vacancies. The groups have different goals, but there is a lot of overlap with what they do. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists is a member, and so is the American College of Nurse Midwives. By itself, that it nothing remarkable.

  • American Academy of Family Physicians
  • American Association of Nurse Anesthetists
  • American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology
  • American College of Nurse Midwives
  • American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists
  • American College of Osteopathic Obstetricians and Gynecologists
  • American Society for Anesthesiologists
  • American Society for Reproductive Medicine
  • Advancing Female Pelvic Medicine & Reconstructive Surgery
  • Association of Women’s Health, Obstetric and Neonatal Nurses
  • Nurse Practitioners In Women’s Health
  • Preeclampsia Foundation
  • Society for Academic Specialists in General Obstetrics & Gynecology
  • Society of Gynecologic Surgeons
  • Society for Obstetric Anesthesia and Perinatology
  • Society of OB/Gyn Hospitals
  • Society for Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility

The problems start to set in once you realize that the Council on Patient Safety also has an “industry” branch, including pharmaceutical companies. Needless to say, whatever policies the Council pushes can greatly increase the market for these products

The Forum on Patient Safety in Women’s Health Care, created in January 2013, is a collaboration between the Council and industry partners committed to advancing patient safety in women’s health care. The Forum is designed to facilitate open and ongoing dialogue in order to identify and maximize common interests in women’s health and to develop collaborative initiatives.

There is a scrolling banner of those industry partners, and it was capped for illustrative purposes. Anyone find it odd that drug companies are partnering with health groups this closely?

Some familiar names, including Pfizer, and Johnson & Johnson. Is it any wonder that vaccines are still recommended for pregnant women? I don’t suppose the industry partners had anything to do with that. Interesting, that people online are recently getting upset over these recommendations, yet no one takes that time to do even a basic search.

The U.S. Center for Disease Control Foundation (the fundraising arm), receives considerable donations annually, including from drug companies. This isn’t really a secret these days. And what a shocker, Johnson & Johnson, and Pfizer, are both on the donors list.

Now, the USCDC recommends mass vaccinations, including for pregnant women. The Council on Patient Safety recommends them too. And both have ties to companies that will benefit from these decisions. Do you get it now?

(Update): This problem isn’t limited to the United States, which isn’t surprising. The Society for Obstetricians and Gynecologists of Canada has some interesting donors. The largest is MD Financial Management, a company that provides money management services to doctors. The next largest are Bayer, Merck and Pfizer. Related health care groups probably are funded by big pharma as well.

Now, SOGC refers to this as “providing resources”. Is that a euphemism for drug companies providing money? Or discounting their products? Wish it was a little more specific.

(1) https://cwcnova.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/ACIPURGINGEUA.pdf
(2) ACOG Recommends Vaccinating Pregnant Women
(3) https://www.phillytrib.com/news/health/ob-gyn-associations-recommend-all-pregnant-people-get-vaccinated-against-covid-19/article_74130a85-fb9d-5ed6-a4f2-002b4746f238.html
(4) https://safehealthcareforeverywoman.org/
(5) https://safehealthcareforeverywoman.org/council/about-us/council-members/
(6) https://safehealthcareforeverywoman.org/council/about-us/industry-form/
(7) https://www.cdcfoundation.org/partner-list/corporationshttps://archive.is/cYdV4
(8) https://www.sogc.org
(9) https://www.sogc.org/en/-COVID-19/COVID-19/COVID-19-Champions/en/content/COVID-19/covid-champions.aspx?hkey=1d24c3f0-be85-48f3-bc0a-a006c53b98a2
(10) https://archive.is/lGQpy

FDA Stopping Emergency Authorized PCR Tests? Not Approved In Canada Either

The FDA has allowed so called RT-PCR testing under the pretense that it’s effective for virus detection. It has been given emergency use authorization, which is set to run out in December 2021. Okay, what will take its place, or will this whole hoax come to an end?

“After December 31, 2021, CDC will withdraw the request to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) of the CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel, the assay first introduced in February 2020 for detection of SARS-CoV-2 only. CDC is providing this advance notice for clinical laboratories to have adequate time to select and implement one of the many FDA-authorized alternatives.”

Public health officials in Canada always talk about how they are “following the science”. Turns out, at least part of it has been farmed out to the United States. And what is adopted here is sketchy, at best. If Canada is relying on this “testing” method, and the U.S. stops, what happens here?

Read between the lines on Health Canada’s own website.

Health Canada refers to guidance published by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on nucleic acid-based tests:
.
-for testing devices intended for laboratory or point-of-care use, please refer to FDA’s guidance on molecular -tests
-for testing devices intended for self-testing, please review the FDA guidance for molecular and antigen tests for non-laboratory use
-Manufacturers following the FDA guidance for molecular and antigen tests for non-laboratory use should note that Health Canada expects them to follow the guidance for non-prescription testing. This is because the distinction made by the FDA between prescription and non-prescription testing does not exist in Canada.
.
The FDA, Food & Drug Administration, guidances are in a template format and outline requirements that these products must meet.

Health Canada says in its own guidelines that it uses the USFDA as a reference point in how nucleic-acid based tests are conducted. That’s quite interesting considering that the FDA’s own tests are not approved, but instead have emergency use authorization. And that is set to lapse at the end of 2021. And it’s about to get more interesting from that.

Now, FDA approval is different than FDA emergency use authorization. This parallels Health Canada, in which approval is different than interim authorization. The FDA lists a few circumstances where EUA will be given. The following is from their site:

1. A determination by the Secretary of Homeland Security that there is a domestic emergency, or a significant potential for a domestic emergency, involving a heightened risk of attack with a CBRN agent(s);
.
2. A determination by the Secretary of Defense that there is a military emergency, or a significant potential for a military emergency, involving a heightened risk to United States military forces of attack with a CBRN agent(s);
.
3. A determination by the Secretary of HHS that there is a public health emergency, or a significant potential for a public health emergency, that affects, or has a significant potential to affect, national security or the health and security of United States citizens living abroad, and that involves a CBRN agent or agents, or a disease or condition that may be attributable to such agent(s);
.
4. The identification of a material threat, by the Secretary of Homeland Security pursuant to section 319F-2 of the Public Health Service (PHS) Act, that is sufficient to affect national security or the health and security of United States citizens living abroad.

Presumably, the emergency use authorization is granted under #3. However, the document makes it clear that this is not the same thing as being approved. Furthermore, when the emergency is over, sales and distributions of such products must end.

Health Canada links that FDA document on their own site. Presumably, this is used as a starting point for how the Canadian Government handles such things.

Under Section B on that same page, Health Canada lists the “specific nucleic acid sequences from the genome of the SARS-CoV-2 (please specify the targeted gene(s) of the pathogen).” In other words, these tests are not supposed to test for an isolated virus, but to test for a gene, or a portion of a virus — assuming it exists.

The World Health Organization also doesn’t think isolating a virus is necessary. See page 3 of its March 2020 guidance, page 8 of its September 2020 guidance.

Health Canada, again, same page, asks companies applying for an authorization to disclose the known limitations of their testing equipment. On F, Proposed Intended Use, it provides the following:

  • Negative results do not preclude SARS-CoV-2 infection and should not be used as the sole basis for patient management decisions. Negative results must be combined with clinical observations, patient history and epidemiological information.
  • Negative results from pooled samples should be treated as presumptive. If inconsistent with clinical signs and symptoms or necessary for patient management, pooled samples should be tested individually. Negative results do not preclude SARS-CoV-2 infection and must not be used as the sole basis for patient management decisions. Negative results must be considered in the context of a patient’s recent exposures, history, presence of clinical signs and symptoms consistent with COVID-19.
  • Use of the [test name] in a general, asymptomatic screening population is intended to be used as part of an infection control plan, that may include additional preventative measures, such as a predefined serial testing plan or directed testing of high-risk individuals. Negative results should be considered presumptive and do not preclude current or future infection obtained through community transmission or other exposures. Negative results must be considered in the context of an individual’s recent exposures, history, presence of clinical signs and symptoms consistent with COVID-19.

These are what Health Canada lists as examples (emphasis mine). In other words, the tests, if negative, don’t really mean negative. It must be taken in context of other factors. This is a long way away from being the “gold standard” that we are always told it is.

Such guidelines seem ripe for abuse, as a test result could mean whatever the person wants it to be. The above disclaimer means that it’s very subjective, and unreliable as a standardized medical or scientific device.

The BC Centre for Disease Control admitted in April 2020 that the tests are useless. If they can’t detect infection, and the actual error rate is unknown, then they are of no help, other than to artificially drive up false positives. Also, let’s not forget this now scrubbed article of Bonnie Henry admitting false positives could overburden the hospitals. Does this virus even exist?

Other provinces, like Ontario and Manitoba, claim that PCR tests are the “gold standard”. At testing what exactly?

It’s not just nucleic acid tests (or PCR tests) that are held to virtually non-existent standards. Other tests follow the same pattern.

Results are for the identification of SARS-CoV-2 [protein name]antigen. Antigen is generally detectable in [specimen type]during the acute phase of infection. Positive results indicate the presence of viral antigens, but clinical correlation with patient history and other diagnostic information is necessary to determine infection status. Positive results do not rule out bacterial infection or co-infection with other viruses. The agent detected may not be the definite cause of disease. Laboratories within the United States and its territories are required to report all positive results to the appropriate public health authorities.

Negative results should be treated as presumptive, and do not rule out SARS-CoV-2 infection and should not be used as the sole basis for treatment or patient management decisions, including infection control decisions. Negative results should be considered in the context of a patient’s recent exposures, history and the presence of clinical signs and symptoms consistent with COVID-19, and confirmed with a molecular assay, if necessary, for patient management.

The [test name] is intended for use by [include intended user, for example, trained clinical laboratory personnel specifically instructed and trained in vitro diagnostic procedures]. The [test name] is only for use under the Food and Drug Administration’s Emergency Use Authorization.

Under Section F: Proposed intended use, there are some rather lengthy disclaimers to be added in. In short, these tests are to be used as an emergency authorized test by the FDA, not approved.

Beyond that, the test results are meaningless. A positive result could be a false positive, and a negative result could be a false positive. It’s only to be used in conjunction with a patient’s history. Again, this is competely subjective.

Interim Orders, like this one signed on March 30, 2020, allow medical devices and medications to be distributed in Canada, even if they don’t meet all the regulatory conditions. In short, as long as there is an “emergency”, there will always be a way to get them into the market.

That Order since lapsed, and Patty Hajdu signed another one on March 1, 2021. Theoretically, as long as this keeps getting extended, then Health Canada will never need to make a determination as to whether these products are safe.

Limitations related to the intended use of serological tests
.
Based on the information available at the present time, Health Canada will not authorize serological tests intended to be used for diagnosis or for self-testing. As research evolves and we learn more about the virus, the disease and the immune response, the requirements in this Guidance may be updated accordingly based on available scientific evidence.
.
The following statements should be included as limitations of serological tests:
.
-This assay is not intended to be used for screening patients or as an aid for diagnosis of patients with suspected COVID-19 infection.
-This assay is not intended for home testing (or self-testing).
Negative results do not preclude SARS-CoV-2 infection and should not be used as the sole basis for patient management decisions.
Negative results must be combined with clinical observations, patient history, and epidemiological information.
-False negative results can occur in elderly and immunocompromised patients.
False positive results for IgM and IgG antibodies may occur due to cross-reactivity from pre-existing antibodies or other possible causes.

The above listings are limitations of serology testing. All of these tests come with a common disclaimer: we don’t know that they actually work.

If people haven’t figured out by now that this is all a scam, then they probably never will. This is obvious to anyone paying attention.

(1) https://www.cdc.gov/csels/dls/locs/2021/07-21-2021-lab-alert-Changes_CDC_RT-PCR_SARS-CoV-2_Testing_1.html
(2) https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/drugs-health-products/covid19-industry/medical-devices/testing/nucleic-acid-devices.html
(3) https://archive.is/HaFdq
(4) http://www.bccdc.ca/Health-Professionals-Site/Documents/COVID19_InterpretingTesting_Results_NAT_PCR.pdf
(5) https://canucklaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/BC-COVID19_InterpretingTesting_Results_NAT_PCR.pdf
(6) https://canucklaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/WHO-COVID-19-laboratory-Testing-March-17-2020.pdf
(7) https://canucklaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/WHO-2019-nCoV-laboratory-September-11-2020-Guidelines.pdf
(8) https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/drugs-health-products/covid19-industry/medical-devices/testing/antigen-devices/fda-guidance-molecular-diagnostic-template-commercial-manufacturers.html
(9) https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/drugs-health-products/medical-devices/application-information/guidance-documents/covid19-requirements-serological-antibody-tests.html
(10) https://archive.is/ISGAH
(11) https://archive.is/hyKJj
(12) https://www.cdc.gov/csels/dls/locs/2021/07-21-2021-lab-alert-Changes_CDC_RT-PCR_SARS-CoV-2_Testing_1.html
(13) https://archive.is/oc5OY
(14) https://www.fda.gov/media/97321/download
(15) FDA Emergency Use Guidelines
(16) https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/drugs-health-products/covid19-industry/medical-devices/testing/antigen-devices/fda-guidance-antigen-template-test-developers.html
(17) https://archive.is/wASc9
(18) https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/drugs-health-products/compliance-enforcement/covid19-interim-order-drugs-medical-devices-special-foods.html
(19) https://archive.is/sPj1p
(20) https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/drugs-health-products/covid19-industry/drug-medical-device-food-shortages/interim-order-2021.html
(21) https://archive.is/n3dPV
(22) https://archive.is/U2k6g

Rockefeller Spends $13.5 Million To Combat “Misinformation” In U.S., Elsewhere

Think that it’s only taxpayers who are funding efforts to stop so-called “misinformation”? Turns out, the Rockefeller Foundation is financing it as well, and this is quite the contribution.

July 15, 2021—The Rockefeller Foundation is announcing $13.5 million in new funding to strengthen Covid-19 response efforts in the U.S., Africa, India, and Latin America to counter health mis- and disinformation – confusing, inaccurate, and harmful information that spreads at an unprecedented speed and scale and threatens the health and wellbeing of communities around the world. The announcement responds immediately to Confronting Health Misinformation: The U.S. Surgeon General’s Advisory on Building a Healthy Information Environment, which calls for a “whole-of-society” effort so that people around the world know what to do—and trust the sources they hear from—during a public health emergency.

“By identifying mis- and disinformation as a challenge to our collective health, the Surgeon General’s guidance reinforces The Rockefeller Foundation’s role in investing in data-driven public health interventions to meet the unique challenges of today’s media environment,” said Bruce Gellin, Chief of Global Public Health Strategy at The Rockefeller Foundation.

The funding will support the design and evaluation of interventions, tools, and methods to build trust in Covid-19 vaccination efforts and counter inaccurate information, and research to understand how inaccurate health information impacts online and offline behaviors, the true cost of mis- and disinformation on health and economic outcomes, and what strategies might be most effective to counter and manage inaccurate and harmful information from malicious sources. Funded projects will provide a foundation for modern information and communication networks that better serve people and are better prepared to encourage actions and behaviors essential to public health response efforts. Detailed information is slated to be released by the end of 2021.

“Science alone is not sufficient to drive action: the best data analysis in the world will not stop an outbreak if people at risk are not aware of the problem, do not think it is a real threat, do not trust the messenger, or do not know what actions to take to protect themselves and their loves ones,” said Estelle Willie, Director of Health Policy and Communications at The Rockefeller Foundation. “The Rockefeller Foundation’s $13.5 million commitment is a direct acknowledgment that effective public health begins with effective communication that cuts through the noise and confusion stemming from mis- and disinformation.

Today’s announcement marks another step in The Rockefeller Foundation’s commitment to reinvigorate public health for the 21st century so that the world can effectively prevent, detect, and respond to health threats to avert future pandemics. This investment builds on the Foundation’s U.S. Equity-First Vaccination Initiative, which supports community-based organizations serving people of color with the expertise and resources to own and drive evidence-based, misinformation-resilient conversations about vaccines in their communities. Launched in April 2021, the year-long initiative will identify effective strategies to increase vaccine confidence in diverse communities, and assess, to the extent possible, the role misinformation plays in shaping knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs about Covid-19 vaccines.

“Vaccine equity” is a term that’s based on the assumption that racism and structural inequalities are the reasons that certain minorities are unable to get vaccines in high enough numbers.

Of course, Rockefeller is also the same organization who brought the “Lockstep Narrative” back in 2010. It was also a partner in the 2016 project, ID2020.

Don’t worry, nothing to see here.

(1) https://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/news/the-rockefeller-foundation-commits-13-5-million-in-funding-to-strengthen-public-health-response-efforts/
(2) https://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/covid-19-response/achieving-vaccine-equity/
(3) Rockefeller.Foundation.lockstep.2010
(4) https://id2020.org/alliance

San Francisco Gay Men’s Chorus Claims Video Was Satire, Makes It Public Again

The San Francisco Gay Men’s Chorus recently put out a video, where very creepy men sing about “coming for your children”. They claim it’s about teaching kids not to hate, although the entire atmosphere gives off pedo vibes.

At a minimum, this was an incredibly tone-deaf stunt. Sensible parents, even open minded ones, are not going to want to subject their children to this. Is this how tolerance is taught?

But if this was just a joke, what exactly is the punch line? What were they aiming for? Or was this a way to manufacture victimhood? Did they never once stop to think how unsettling this is?

“The San Francisco Gay Men’s Chorus was founded, in part, to fight discrimination and bigotry against all peoples. Today, our chorus members are facing death threats, vile attacks, false accusations, doxing, and other forms of harassment because of our satirical video performance “Message from the Gay Community.”

“We placed the video in private mode to quell the intolerance and hateful responses from mostly anonymous people. Upon reflection, we have made it live again for all to see the satirical and obviously tongue-in-cheek humor. We want everyone to judge for themselves. We will not allow ourselves, even in the face of death threats, to retreat or bow to attempts to twist our words, meaning, self-deprecation and humor.

“We are thankful for the efforts of the San Francisco Police Department and law enforcement for their quick response and assistance in handling these threats.

“The San Francisco Gay Men’s Chorus is dedicated to being role models, teaching, and spreading the message of love, inclusion, humor, and celebration through our music. We believe, most fervently, in open dialogue , communication, and free speech. We will continue to do so through our music. We invite everyone to join us.”

The San Francisco Gay Men’s Chorus performed a tongue-in-cheek song commissioned by an external arts organization which ironically had a simple message around teaching young people to speak out against anti-LGBTQ hate. The Chorus sings in harmony, ‘Someone’s got to teach them not to hate.’ As a result of manipulation from anti-LGBTQ media figures, the Chorus is now facing uncalled-for and disgusting threats of violence, as well as hate and harassment, across social media. As GLAAD’s Social Media Safety Index reported, hate and harassment too often goes unchecked on social media and the platforms need to act swiftly to address the hateful content directed at the Chorus, especially the threats of violence. The ugly anti-LGBTQ rhetoric just reinforces the need for LGBTQ visibility, community, and advocacy, all of which the SFGMC has exemplified in its 40+ year history.”

Now, a series of responses had compared some of the names against the California sex offender registry. While there were several matches, keep in mind, California has some 40 million residents. Therefore, it’s quite possible for many people to have the same names. While the video above is disgusting, these weirdos shouldn’t be mistaken for those — if the names are coincidental.

If this performance was just tone deaf, it would make sense to take it down. However, the Chorus seems to thing that this “should” be thrown in the faces of everyone.

Yes, tolerance for gays is declining. And antics like this are directly responsible for it happening. Say what you will about the Muslims, but they would never stand for such degeneracy.

(1) https://www.sfgmc.org/
(2) https://www.sfgmc.org/press-releases-1/2021/7/9/statement-from-san-francisco-gay-mens-chorus-july-9-2021
(3) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INfxtSbh6Do