Sleight of Hand: Reuters

In the 20th century, there are countless examples of mass murder of scientists, journalists and professors who went against the "official narrative" when one country violently conquered another country or subdued a perceived enemy.  In the 21st century conquerors simply invalidate, censor, debunk and defame... because let's face it, there are too many scientists and academics to murder worldwide.  It would be too expensive to euthanize all of them, when it would be much easier to kill their digital identity.

Enter the Fact Checkers

Sometimes it's just so blatant.  Nowadays "debunking" and "fact checking" are on the rise.  Large corps and their holdings and interests are all pitching in and lending a hand to debunk anything that doesn't fit their narrative of reality.

In a recent article debunking claims by an ex-Pfizer scientist found here:

https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/health-coronavirus-vaccines-skeptic/

You can see that it's a long story, but the tl;dr of it is... This guy is crazy and has undergone some sort of weird change because he used to be all down for our company and now he's just an anti-vaxxer nutter.

Here's a screenshot from that fact checking article:

Upon further investigation into the actual twitter profile shown on the Reuters article. Simply reading the user name on the image from the article found me his profile, but changed... Pay attention to the @ user name under the name ... isn't it the same in both the quote and the tweet from this year?

Yeah, doesn't something seem off?  For instance the fact that it says "parody" now as a disclaimer so that the account does not get deleted by twitter?  I triple checked... it's the same user account... Literally, the same account is parodying itself and showing screenshots from last year on the same account, referring to Yeadon in third person.  So what are the probable and most likely things that could have happened here?  It would appear that Reuter's fact checkers didn't actually do their homework because at this point they are slow dancing with a slander lawsuit.

What on earth could have happened?

Well, it's obvious this is not the real guy even though Reuters claims he said all of this radical parody nonsense.... so what happened?  Here are the only things I could come up with as the probable causes:

• Michael Yeadon never had a twitter account and someone just literally created a fake twitter account which matches his in order to parody him without actually marking the profile as a parody, thus effectively stealing his online identity
• He did have a twitter profile but somebody hacked it, then made it seem like he said a bunch of shitty things
• Pfizer themselves perhaps cancelled him and since he's no longer working there, how are employees going to know it's not him saying all of those things since it was right in the middle of the beginning of the plandemic and he wasn't in the office

The article goes on to discredit him in any way possible.  It includes shocked quotes from his former colleagues as well as showing everything they claim he said in the banner image in red.  It truly is a work of art psychologically... just, I find it unscrupulous to fabricate a profile which steals someone's identity and make it seem like they have gone "insane" relatively.  It's too much of a coincidence that he left Pfizer, having access to insider secrets, and then all of the sudden all of this drama happens around what he did or didn't say right when he mentions that they aren't playing fair and immediately Reuters comes to Pfizer's rescue? Don't they say on their totally trustworthy foundation's website that they are all for...

... media freedom? Why would a free and independent media corporation go out of it's way to fact check someone who has insider information into one of the largest and most popular pharmaceutical companies of our time?  Wouldn't it be in the best interest of "free press" to actually interview him and set the record straight? Then I remembered that they said "media freedom" which, seems like fluffy wording to me which implies free press or independent media, backed up by the fact that they have the words inclusive and "human rights" in the same context.  Is someone trying to pull my leg?

Umm... Because Logic

If someone wasn't worth listening to, or truly crazy, you wouldn't have to go out of your way to defame and deplatform them as a multi million dollar news corporation.  It would be obvious to people that this person was dealing with psychological issues.

Could Reuters have any possible ... skin in the game when it comes to defaming this scientist?

How does Reuters work financially?

Well, they have a fund, they do trading, and they get "gifts" from their foundation... The Thompson Reuters foundation... Which, by the way, seems that the chairman of the organization behind that foundation; The Thompson Reuters Group, James  C. Smith is also "Pfizer Director since 2014".  He's actually got quite a career behind him, involving powerful positions in mass media funding and the pharmaceutical industry.

Looking at this page: http://www.trust.org/about-us/#funding

You can see that the Thompson Reuters Foundation is also in part funded by the Gates Foundation, shall I dare mention his name?

I mean, do we really need to follow the money any further here?  I think this post can be considered complete.  Conclusion? Don't trust organizations claiming to be free thinkers when they are obviously under the boot of some of the richest and most powerful corporations and individuals of this century.  Reuters, just like every other media corporation is a Puppet Show.  But hey, you gotta stay "informed" somehow right?

Edit May 1st: Rewriting History

I was making a video about how I was able to research and find all of this information easily for any website.  I think DYOR (do your own research) is vital in today's internet, and we lack general education on how to critically think.  We have more power to gain knowledge, but we also have so much more exposure (directly or indirectly) to propaganda from globalist corporations via mass media.  More than ever, we need to pay heed to that popular phrase:

Follow the Money.

George Orwell warned us about this in his book "Animal Farm".  Reuters, within 2 days of me posting this, has removed three entries from their list of Funding from "Charitable Projects".  Take a look at the list on the right side of this screenshot...

Notice anything missing?  Yes, they removed three entries from their "Charitable projects funding" list.

1. Gates Foundation
2. Deutsche Bank
3. UK Postcode Heroes Trust

Is this just a coincidence?  Am I lying?  Well, I'm not sure if it's a coincidence, but perhaps we can get a cached version of the site (which will most likely be deleted).  Oh wait, no, no... Archive.org seems to have it here.  See that? Do you see how they just rewrite history to put themselves in a better light?  Of course, it's their website and they can put whatever they want on there.  But the internet never forgets.

As to if this is a coincidence or not.  You can bet your socks that just one month after publishing the Reuters article slandering Michael Yeadon someone caught on to the fact that there were multiple incoming links from websites like Minds.com and news outlets where reporters still DYOR and try to seek the truth, or at least as close to the truth as you can get.  A Simple search for the link to the Thomson Reuters Foundation's funding page on Ahrefs backlink checker returns these top results for backlinks.

Ooh yeah, looks like even the Corbett Report is all over them... So, now we see trust.org removed Gates Foundation from it's list.  Just skimming over the summaries from the content, it looks like there are even more scandals linked to that page.

Now, to be fair, the controversial page is the one at trust.org, but we what about back links to the actual news article.  My logic is that most people will see the article, read it, and not DYOR.  So, let's take a look...

Okay, so mainly at the top are news aggregator blogs and sites... including one bitchute video ranking in at #3.  What about just after that?

Yup, I guess that would do it, tons of incoming links from the alternative internet.  Shouts out to Natural News.  I am guessing that they saw something like this in their monthly traffic review meeting and decided that it would be better to take the Gates Foundation off of their list of "charitable funding" rather than take their article down.

This is a cut-and-dry example of doubling down on manipulation when the going gets rough.  These lapdog news corporations are doing everything in their power to try to rewrite history as you read this, so that your memory of this entire year-long debasement of the human condition is whatever they want it to be.  However, I am glad that the internet itself is keeping them on their feet.  Globalist mega-corps can call critical thinkers whatever they want: (anti-vaxxers, negationists, conspiracy theorists, radicals, terrorists, etc.), but it will never stop them thinking.

Keep your eyes open, don't let your guard down when reading anything purported as facts on the internet.  Just because it implies the word "facts" doesn't mean the following content is the truth. In short: DYOR.

A Word on your Slavery

I guess as slaves, we don't get "the right" to a real free reporting platform unless we make one ourselves.  Stop being a slave, reclaim your humanity. Use true decentralization to opt out of their money, their social media platforms, and their new world order.