The below article is related to "fact checkers" which are discussed in this thread and could potentially be relevant to covid "fact checks" in the future.

[Link]

Why should fact checkers display right wing bias more than left?

[Link]

Wonderful! Now we get two spreaders of conspiracy theories for the price of one. Russell Brand preaching his usual irrational self righteousness and John Campbell nodding away in agreement whilst reiterating the claims he trotted out recently about Moderna, the loaded questions put to its CEO and the appointment of Professor Van Dam. Both things that I have dealt with in a previous post so won’t repeat. They are though nonsensical.

Then yet another attempt at trying to undermine confidence in the development of mNRA development in general by suggesting this wonderful new technology is somehow unsafe because it’s “untested”. Which is total nonsense, The technology is well understood and each specific product that is based on it will receive thorough testing. The idea that we could simply develop traditional vaccines to do the same job is particularly revealing of the motivations of these two charlatans. If we could, we would. That’s blindingly obvious. A vaccine that was effective against a corona virus didn’t exist before the emergence of mNRA technology. Technology that promises new treatments never before considered possible, especially for cancers, and almost certainly why the funding for the new production facilities has been provided.

Rather than condemning progress it would be nice to see it recognised and praised once in a while.

Nothing actually here on Myocarditis because YouTube won’t allow such obvious misinformation to be spread. You need to view that on an “alternative” platform. It is not though difficult to predict the kind of things that would be claimed. They have appeared here often enough.

This is just more of the nauseating same accompanied by self congratulatory sycophancy. Anyone who cannot see through this needs to go to Specsavers.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Why indeed?

The referenced article doesn’t really suggest it does. It suggests that whenever a human being is involved their unconscious attitudes automatically impact their judgement and that this can lead to the perception of bias and consequential distrust.

It’s a good, thoughtful and well argued article which recognises the great value of fact checking and makes some sensible suggestions on how to improve the way things are done in order to ensure the maximum trust in the results.

I hope they are acted on.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Most of these so called fact checkers are designed to make lies sound truthful and degeneracy respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.

That's a bit rich comming from you. What if an individual judges for themselves in a way you don't like? Are they then mis informed? Cancelled? Far right? Conspiracy theorist? Etc....