A Note On So-Called Fact Checkers
Dear Reader,
The wearing of a face mask to protect against a respiratory virus is an act of grand deceit. It is a behavior that defies research on the topic. Wearing a face mask, as this article (one of many) points to — is unsafe to do and is ineffective.
Until the narrative around mandatory masking has changed, each day by 6am Eastern, I will both post here and send out a science-based reason why no one should wear a face mask.
I ask that you help me circulate these pieces to those around you who you believe could most benefit from them. It is important not to remain silent on this topic. These are important discussions to be having with friends, family members, business owners, healthcare practitioners, public servants, and others in the community.
-Allan
Future generations will look upon this book and realize what times we live in today, for a book chapter like this to even have to be written.
Virtually every chapter in this book has material that can be searched for on a search engine and will produce top results that lead directly to so-called fact checking websites. If so-called fact checking websites are the top returns, that is almost a guarantee that the topic is politically controversial and offends some powerful interest.
The major internet search engines likely to produce these inferior results are Bing, Google, Yahoo, Swiss Cows, Qwant, Yippy, Internet Archive, Search Encrypt, Gibiru, Verizon’s One Search, Start Page, and Duck Duck Go. Some of these search engines concern themselves with privacy, but produce very bad results, often censored. These results are often not based on the smart and effective algorithm Google was built on, but which produce the results that someone else wants you to see instead. The original Google algorithm was based on the exact opposite concept — showing you the results you want to see. Google has strayed a great distance from its original vision, and even small, scrappy search engines have followed along by providing censored results.
While the so-called fact checkers, likely see themselves as doing sincere and legitimate work, they come from a dishonest starting point — some likely without even realizing it.
Truth-seeking inquiry must begin without a predetermined result in mind other than “seeking the truth.” Our society is not built upon that process. Our government and legal system, so dominant in society, are not built upon that process. Our educational system is not built upon that process, and that process is not commonly a part of daily life.
Instead, the very opposite takes place: a search for supporting evidence is pursued under the desire to prove a predetermined point. A search for truth is nowhere involved in such a process. Truth only comes into play as a word applied superficially at the end of the process to help add validity to the claim being made.
This is the equivalent of Daily Planet editor, Perry White, telling his reporters, Clark Kent and Lois Lane, “Write an article for me saying that last night’s fire did not take place last night,” rather than “Go cover the fire that we are getting reports from.”
While so-called fact checking websites are far more subtle in their dishonesty, such an egregious example is akin to the process that takes place at so-called fact checking websites.
As such, it can be no surprise that so-called fact checking websites can have articles supporting total falsehoods and often do. Overwhelmingly, that is what exists on so-called fact checking websites. Such websites often have accurate data that is presented, or “spun,” in such a way that renders the results inaccurate.
Despite their overwhelming inaccuracy, they also provide a useful purpose, though quite limited in scope. When such articles contain links, oftentimes, one need only click on those links as a researcher to find quality evidence that entirely debunks that so-called fact checker who cites it.
Additionally, so-called fact checking websites can be useful for writers, like myself, seeking to identify, in advance, what narratives will
be used to attack the results of truthful inquiry and address those ahead
of time.
So-called fact checking websites often come with a headline labelling a specific detail true or untrue, often in salacious and well-marketed ways. While such websites have usefulness, my experience with such headlines — the part of the article most intended to be read and which most people read — is that they are inaccurate 90 to 95% of the time for so-called fact checking articles that I have read.
Given this trend, it is no surprise to me that the topic of virtually every chapter in this book has been “debunked” or will be “debunked” by such websites.
The savvy reader knows this and understands the lack of truthful
inquiry that takes place at such websites and throughout the media
and society.
Popularity, or lack thereof, does not make truth any more or less accurate. Search engine rank does not make truth any more or less accurate. Appearance as a media talking point does not make truth any more or less accurate. In fact, quite the opposite is more likely to be the case. Truth is unlikely to appear in a media talking point. Half-truth or outright deceit is far more likely to appear there — a condemnable detail of the era in which we live.
As bold truth seekers rise up in greater number and replace those who make a living dispensing lies, such a state of affairs will come to be remedied. That state of affairs may also return one day if truth seekers let down their guard.
Such is the way of the world in this period and in all of history. I ask you, dear reader, to do your part, to be diligent about that, and to as often as possible, seek to identify the truth rather than to identify evidence in support of a point you aim to prove.
That is at the heart of the scientific method. That is at the heart of rational inquiry. Each of us must be comfortable re-examining our own views and holding them up to scrutiny to see if they ring true.
The narrative of the safe and effective face mask does not ring true. Despite that, public health professionals have been slow to address that policy. This indicates a disinterest in the scientific method and a disinterest in rational inquiry. This behavior demonstrates defense of science or the protection of health cannot, at this point, be said to play any role in the mask policies of 2020 and beyond.
The bestselling book "Face Masks In One Lesson" by Allan Stevo describes how to never wear a face mask again. The follow-up to the book, "Face Masks Hurt Kids," describes why to never wear a face mask again. We must defeat the awful, narrative around the mandates.
Examples of how face masks hurt kids will be posted to the Lockdown Land Substack each morning by 6am Eastern until the narrative around this ineffective and harmful medical intervention has shifted. Face masks are, in fact, not just harmful to children. Face masks are harmful to everyone. Thank you so much for helping me circulate this research.