Detecting language using up to the first 30 seconds. Use `--language` to specify the language
Detected language: English
[00:00.000 --> 00:03.600]  Warning, the following show contains explicit language.
[00:03.600 --> 00:07.720]  Certain people should not listen to this show, such as children and panty-waist adults who
[00:07.720 --> 00:15.280]  cry like 12-year-old little girls when they hear profanity.
[00:15.280 --> 00:16.280]  Welcome back, my friends.
[00:16.280 --> 00:17.420]  It's a pleasure to be here.
[00:17.420 --> 00:21.760]  This is the Dr. Reality Podcast, and if you're new, I'm Dave Champion.
[00:21.760 --> 00:28.320]  Today I want to discuss the scam of social media fact checking.
[00:28.320 --> 00:29.320]  Why is that important?
[00:29.320 --> 00:32.960]  You might be saying, oh, I know it's a scam, but there's more to it than that.
[00:32.960 --> 00:36.440]  Let me briefly explain, then we'll get into the guts of the issue.
[00:36.440 --> 00:45.360]  The fact checking done by these fact checkers, otherwise known as boneheads, the fact checking
[00:45.360 --> 00:52.880]  is then what the social media platform uses to silence people trying to bring out alternative
[00:52.880 --> 00:53.880]  points of view.
[00:53.880 --> 00:55.880]  Now, I'm going to share with you my construct.
[00:55.880 --> 00:56.880]  Yours may be different.
[00:57.280 --> 01:03.760]  When I'm on a social media platform, I do not, I absolutely, 1000% do not want the social
[01:03.760 --> 01:08.360]  media platform to decide what material I get exposed to.
[01:08.360 --> 01:11.580]  When I'm on a social media platform, I want to see everything.
[01:11.580 --> 01:18.400]  It may go from all the way over here the most credible to the biggest pile of crap ever
[01:18.400 --> 01:22.040]  that utter nonsense, but I want to be the one to make that choice.
[01:22.160 --> 01:27.000]  I don't want a social media platform saying, well, you can take on a scale of 1 to 10,
[01:27.000 --> 01:32.480]  you can see these 7.8 things, but these 2.2 things, no, fuck that.
[01:32.480 --> 01:33.480]  You can't see it.
[01:33.480 --> 01:36.680]  You're not allowed to be exposed to that information.
[01:36.680 --> 01:38.560]  No, fuck that.
[01:38.560 --> 01:40.000]  That's what fact checking does.
[01:40.000 --> 01:47.160]  Fact checking empowers, fact checking justifies these social media platforms silencing perspectives
[01:47.160 --> 01:52.280]  that perhaps are adverse to the establishment's narrative.
[01:52.280 --> 01:56.640]  So let's get on to the detail of how this works.
[01:56.640 --> 02:07.040]  Fact checkers use exclusively information that comes from establishment acceptable sources.
[02:07.040 --> 02:08.200]  It can be from a government agency.
[02:08.200 --> 02:16.160]  It can be from a large institution, a prestigious organization, and even if that establishment
[02:16.160 --> 02:25.000]  sanction source is 100% wrong because the fact checkers have no relevant education,
[02:25.000 --> 02:30.120]  they have no subject matter expertise, if the information put out by the establishment
[02:30.120 --> 02:34.760]  sanction sources is completely wrong, the fact checkers don't know.
[02:34.760 --> 02:44.200]  They have zero way to discern that, and that is exactly why you've seen so many inane studies
[02:45.200 --> 02:46.880]  going into 2021.
[02:46.880 --> 02:51.840]  The establishment knows if they pick an institution, they say, hey, you government agency or you
[02:51.840 --> 02:56.880]  institution over there or you group of researchers at that university, if you create a study
[02:56.880 --> 03:03.280]  that says this and such because you are an establishment sanction source, then any time
[03:03.280 --> 03:08.600]  anybody says anything adverse to the conclusions of that study, even if the conclusions are
[03:08.600 --> 03:14.080]  complete nonsense, any time anybody says anything adverse to those conclusions, then the fact
[03:14.080 --> 03:19.000]  checkers can say, that's wrong, that's a lie, that's false and misleading information,
[03:19.000 --> 03:24.240]  thus empowering the social media platforms to say, you know what, you have said so many
[03:24.240 --> 03:29.160]  things, whoever you might be, you have said so many things that are false and misleading,
[03:29.160 --> 03:32.040]  we're going to silence you.
[03:32.040 --> 03:37.160]  You see how, in a very real sense, because all of the sources fact checkers use are establishment
[03:37.160 --> 03:41.800]  sanction sources, you see in a very real sense that the information that's being removed,
[03:41.800 --> 03:46.000]  the people that are being deplatformed, they are those who are speaking something adverse
[03:46.000 --> 03:49.240]  to the narrative the establishment is promoting.
[03:49.240 --> 03:53.040]  And that doesn't mean that the people being silenced, people being deplatformed, the material
[03:53.040 --> 03:55.640]  being removed is wrong.
[03:55.640 --> 03:59.440]  It only means it's adverse to the establishment narrative.
[03:59.440 --> 04:03.480]  Now it may happen to be wrong, but the fact that it's adverse to the establishment narrative
[04:03.480 --> 04:06.720]  absolutely does not make it wrong.
[04:06.720 --> 04:09.920]  If you're watching on video from this point out, you're going to see me glancing down
[04:10.360 --> 04:16.080]  I'm looking at my notes on an iPad, so I apologize, but there's a lot of information, a very lot
[04:16.080 --> 04:19.280]  of specific language, and I want to make sure I get it all right for you, so please excuse
[04:19.280 --> 04:21.080]  me if I'm looking down at the iPad a bit.
[04:21.080 --> 04:26.080]  Okay, so we talk about these studies that are contrived nonsense, simply they exist
[04:26.080 --> 04:28.120]  for one reason and one reason only.
[04:28.120 --> 04:32.960]  So fact checkers can say anything that's adverse to those conclusions is false and misleading,
[04:32.960 --> 04:37.360]  and social media platforms can then remove the message that's adverse to the establishment's
[04:37.360 --> 04:42.800]  narrative or deplatform a person who consistently cuts against the grain of the establishment
[04:42.800 --> 04:43.800]  narrative.
[04:43.800 --> 04:49.840]  One such study was put out by San Diego State University's Center for Health Economics and
[04:49.840 --> 04:51.440]  Policy Studies.
[04:51.440 --> 04:57.280]  It was featured in an article by the Washington Post back in September of 2020 entitled Worst
[04:57.280 --> 05:07.320]  Case Scenarios at Sturgis Rally Could Link Event to 266,000 Coronavirus Cases Study Says.
[05:07.520 --> 05:16.520]  That bogus study was put out by a prestigious organization, and hence, for social media
[05:16.520 --> 05:20.920]  platforms, that study could thereafter be used, even though I'm going to get into why
[05:20.920 --> 05:25.480]  it was complete nonsense, just crap, just trash.
[05:25.480 --> 05:29.720]  To even associate the word science with it is to do violence to the word science, okay?
[05:29.720 --> 05:35.560]  So I'm going to show you that, but featured in the Washington Post, splashed all over
[05:35.720 --> 05:38.760]  social media, and it's complete and utter crap.
[05:38.760 --> 05:43.880]  But, and here's the seminal point, the fact checkers, they're so uneducated they don't
[05:43.880 --> 05:45.480]  know it's crap.
[05:45.480 --> 05:54.480]  The San Diego University study relied on anonymized cell phone data then associated with or connected
[05:54.480 --> 05:59.520]  to test results in various locales.
[05:59.520 --> 06:05.000]  And how many variables does that technique take into account?
[06:05.000 --> 06:08.000]  Whenever you do a study, you need to control the variables.
[06:08.000 --> 06:12.160]  So in that equation, in the study done by the San Diego University, how many variables
[06:12.160 --> 06:13.160]  were controlled?
[06:13.160 --> 06:16.400]  Yeah, like very close to zero.
[06:16.400 --> 06:22.480]  Any study that does not control every relevant variable is worthless.
[06:22.480 --> 06:27.960]  It's trash, as I said a moment ago, and that's exactly what this San Diego University study
[06:27.960 --> 06:28.960]  is.
[06:28.960 --> 06:33.280]  As I said, the San Diego University study controlled for virtually no variables at all,
[06:33.280 --> 06:37.160]  but there are two that leap out, and I want to share those with you.
[06:37.160 --> 06:42.880]  The San Diego researchers did not compare geographic areas that were hit by coronavirus
[06:42.880 --> 06:46.960]  infections from Sturgis with other nearby areas.
[06:46.960 --> 06:52.600]  For example, a county in Arizona was compared to counties in Maine and Hawaii, despite significant
[06:52.600 --> 06:54.520]  differences in the population.
[06:54.520 --> 06:58.200]  Now that's from an analysis of the study, however, I want to show you that even the
[06:59.200 --> 07:05.840]  bias because it says researchers didn't compare geographic areas that were hit by coronavirus
[07:05.840 --> 07:08.040]  infections from Sturgis.
[07:08.040 --> 07:13.720]  The people that are analyzing the study to show that it may not be all that the researchers
[07:13.720 --> 07:17.880]  would like to have you believe it is already start from the presumption that there was
[07:17.880 --> 07:21.600]  an increase due to Sturgis without any evidence of that.
[07:21.600 --> 07:27.720]  Second one that jumps out is the Sturgis rally likely caused more people to get a coronavirus
[07:27.720 --> 07:33.440]  test given the numerous warnings before and after the event about potential health risk.
[07:33.440 --> 07:38.880]  That increase in testing, not direct transmission from people at the rally could explain the
[07:38.880 --> 07:40.920]  jump in reported cases.
[07:40.920 --> 07:44.920]  Yeah, in terms of research, that's like nursery school stuff.
[07:44.920 --> 07:51.720]  That would be the very most basic entry level variable controls you would want to install.
[07:51.720 --> 07:56.480]  And yeah, the researchers from San Diego University didn't even do that.
[07:56.600 --> 08:04.600]  Whether it's some other professional analyzing the research paper by the San Diego University
[08:04.600 --> 08:11.600]  or just the media, they never asked the really poignant questions.
[08:11.600 --> 08:14.440]  I was going to say the hard questions, but they're not even hard.
[08:14.440 --> 08:18.320]  But they pierce right to the heart of the matter.
[08:18.320 --> 08:23.440]  In body science, I talk about the fact, I quote somebody who says, and I'm paraphrasing,
[08:23.960 --> 08:29.320]  the most important part about modern research is that you never actually point out that
[08:29.320 --> 08:31.920]  anybody else's research is wrong.
[08:31.920 --> 08:36.360]  At this point, I want to share with you a mock interview I wrote.
[08:36.360 --> 08:41.920]  This would be an interview with one of the authors of the San Diego University Research
[08:41.920 --> 08:43.840]  Study Report.
[08:43.840 --> 08:49.040]  And we're going to use Chris, an androgynous name, so it could be a man or a woman.
[08:49.040 --> 08:55.960]  And everything you're about to hear presumes that Chris would actually be truthful about
[08:55.960 --> 08:56.960]  science.
[08:56.960 --> 09:03.280]  Let's set up this scenario that I would present to Chris before I began asking Chris the questions.
[09:03.280 --> 09:07.720]  And it would be Bob, that's going to be our hypothetical infected person.
[09:07.720 --> 09:16.800]  Bob tested positive and saw 120 people in the 10 days before he tested positive.
[09:16.800 --> 09:24.280]  Of those 120 people, 19 tested positive a few days after Bob interacted with them.
[09:24.280 --> 09:29.560]  Of those 19 people who tested positive shortly after having a conversation with Bob, he had
[09:29.560 --> 09:35.480]  face-to-face 30-minute conversations with nine of them.
[09:35.480 --> 09:36.760]  Pretty simple framework, right?
[09:36.760 --> 09:44.480]  So Chris should be able to answer with sound, scientific, hard-hitting, reputable responses
[09:44.480 --> 09:47.040]  to every question I ask, right?
[09:47.040 --> 09:49.280]  At this point, I'm going to ask the question, and then you can tell by the short little
[09:49.280 --> 09:53.320]  pause and perhaps change of tone that Chris is answering.
[09:53.320 --> 09:55.600]  So here's my first question.
[09:55.600 --> 10:02.960]  Chris, from which of the 120 people with whom Bob interacted, did he become infected with
[10:02.960 --> 10:03.960]  SARS-CoV-2?
[10:03.960 --> 10:08.480]  Well, almost certainly one of the nine.
[10:08.480 --> 10:14.880]  That would be the nine with whom Bob had a face-to-face 30-minute conversation.
[10:14.880 --> 10:19.160]  Why almost certainly one of the nine, Chris?
[10:19.160 --> 10:25.880]  Chris responds, because they tested positive within a few days of interacting with Bob.
[10:25.880 --> 10:33.000]  Can you say for certain, and that's the key phrase, can you say for certain, any of those
[10:33.000 --> 10:36.240]  nine were infected at the time they interacted with Bob?
[10:36.240 --> 10:37.600]  No.
[10:37.600 --> 10:39.000]  We can't know that.
[10:39.000 --> 10:40.000]  Hmm.
[10:40.000 --> 10:45.320]  Does your response about those nine people take into account someone who was infected,
[10:45.320 --> 10:51.560]  perhaps minimally symptomatic, didn't get tested, and interacted with Bob?
[10:51.560 --> 10:52.600]  Chris replies, no.
[10:52.600 --> 10:56.500]  We can't factor in things of which we're unaware.
[10:56.500 --> 11:01.560]  Not being able to factor in what you don't know is huge.
[11:01.560 --> 11:06.040]  It's a gaping flaw in your projections.
[11:06.040 --> 11:10.200]  Given that you can't factor in what you don't know about, would it be reasonable to say
[11:10.200 --> 11:17.040]  that in the real world, Bob could have been infected by any of those 120 people?
[11:17.040 --> 11:18.040]  Yes.
[11:18.040 --> 11:23.440]  Okay, Chris, we've talked about nine people with whom Bob had a face-to-face conversation
[11:23.440 --> 11:29.780]  for 30 minutes, yet if he merely passed someone in a grocery store aisle and that person coughed
[11:29.780 --> 11:35.360]  or sneezed on Bob as they passed by, is it possible Bob became infected by a complete
[11:35.360 --> 11:36.360]  stranger?
[11:36.360 --> 11:39.120]  Yes, that's possible.
[11:39.120 --> 11:43.880]  Okay, so while you said it was almost certainly the nine, you're now admitting it could have
[11:43.880 --> 11:46.920]  been any of the 120.
[11:46.920 --> 11:52.080]  Can you rule out that Bob was infected from surface contact transmission?
[11:52.080 --> 11:54.760]  No, I can't.
[11:54.760 --> 11:55.880]  Hmm.
[11:55.880 --> 12:00.520]  If Bob was having intimate relations with someone who was asymptomatic, is it possible
[12:00.520 --> 12:04.080]  he could have been infected by that person?
[12:04.800 --> 12:05.800]  Yes.
[12:05.800 --> 12:06.800]  Hmm.
[12:06.800 --> 12:10.520]  So, as an example, if Bob was having an affair with someone and wanted to keep that private,
[12:10.520 --> 12:14.200]  you wouldn't be able to factor that in, factor in that vector, correct?
[12:14.200 --> 12:16.080]  Yes, that's correct.
[12:16.080 --> 12:21.040]  Okay, let's get back to the nine people you feel are the strongest candidates.
[12:21.040 --> 12:26.320]  Can you tell me which one of the nine, specifically which one, infected Bob?
[12:26.320 --> 12:28.560]  No, I can't.
[12:29.040 --> 12:34.720]  Okay, if in the 10 days before Bob tested positive, he had spent time with only one
[12:34.720 --> 12:45.360]  person in the 10 days before he tested positive, is there a scientific method that can prove
[12:45.360 --> 12:48.760]  he became infected from that person?
[12:48.760 --> 12:52.720]  No, there is not, Chris responds.
[12:52.880 --> 12:59.040]  Ah, so even in a one-on-one setting, you are presuming where the infection came from because
[12:59.040 --> 13:04.360]  no science exists to prove your presumption correct.
[13:04.360 --> 13:05.600]  Is that accurate?
[13:05.600 --> 13:07.920]  Yes, that's accurate.
[13:07.920 --> 13:15.640]  Okay, if you can't prove who actually infected Bob, even in a one-on-one setting, how can
[13:15.640 --> 13:22.200]  you then claim to say you know the source of 266,000 infections, or phrased another
[13:22.200 --> 13:27.880]  way, Chris, if you cannot scientifically substantiate even one transmission, how could
[13:27.880 --> 13:33.240]  you claim to have substantiated 266,000 transmissions?
[13:33.240 --> 13:34.240]  End of interview.
[13:34.240 --> 13:37.200]  Now, of course, that's not really the end of the interview.
[13:37.200 --> 13:43.800]  In real life, Chris would have gotten up and unhooked his or her mic and walked away probably
[13:43.800 --> 13:48.520]  a third of the way in because he or she would have been very, very clear where this was
[13:48.520 --> 13:49.520]  going.
[13:49.600 --> 13:50.600]  And I want to be clear.
[13:50.600 --> 13:55.320]  In that questioning, my questions, my comments about science, the conclusions that this mythical
[13:55.320 --> 13:59.840]  Chris answered to are factual.
[13:59.840 --> 14:02.000]  That's the way virology works.
[14:02.000 --> 14:05.200]  That's the way communicable disease science works.
[14:05.200 --> 14:12.320]  I did it in sort of a Q&A method here just for entertainment's sake, but all of that
[14:12.320 --> 14:13.760]  is factual.
[14:13.760 --> 14:17.200]  If you need to, go back and listen again to the Q&A.
[14:17.520 --> 14:23.640]  Remember, in this Q&A, the person that I'm asking questions of is supposed to be one
[14:23.640 --> 14:29.800]  of the study authors of the San Diego University study claiming that Sturgis was a super spreader
[14:29.800 --> 14:34.840]  event and created 266,000 infections across the United States.
[14:34.840 --> 14:42.720]  Yet, Chris had to admit, in the end, no science exists that can prove that no science, that's
[14:42.800 --> 14:50.080]  really important, no science exists which can prove even in a one-on-one setting from
[14:50.080 --> 14:55.480]  where a person who tested positive actually got the virus.
[14:55.480 --> 14:58.560]  And that's really critical if we go back to the very outset of this presentation, which
[14:58.560 --> 15:07.120]  I explained that these studies exist to, I don't want to say fool fact checkers, but
[15:07.120 --> 15:10.960]  yeah, I guess sort of ultimately that's what it's for.
[15:10.960 --> 15:15.880]  Since fact checkers are not too bright, they aren't highly educated, they have no subject
[15:15.880 --> 15:23.360]  matter specific knowledge, it would never occur to one of these a-hole fact checkers
[15:23.360 --> 15:29.840]  to go down and interview and ask questions such as I have to show that the authors of
[15:29.840 --> 15:36.440]  the San Diego University study would finally, in the end, have to admit it's all guesswork
[15:36.520 --> 15:43.440]  because the science doesn't exist to prove even a one-on-one transmission, no less where
[15:43.440 --> 15:48.360]  266,000 people became infected.
[15:48.360 --> 15:50.840]  The science just doesn't exist.
[15:50.840 --> 15:59.120]  But the idiotic fact checkers will never ask the questions that reveal bogus research and
[15:59.120 --> 16:01.560]  nonsense studies.
[16:01.560 --> 16:07.760]  So back to the main theme, these studies exist for no better reason than that fact checking
[16:07.760 --> 16:14.840]  idiots can go to an established sanction source such as the San Diego University report and
[16:14.840 --> 16:20.400]  then claim everyone who says anything that contradicts that conclusion is full of shit,
[16:20.400 --> 16:24.440]  they're spreading lies, they're promoting misleading information and they can take the
[16:24.440 --> 16:27.480]  information down or they can deplatform the person.
[16:27.520 --> 16:34.040]  Do you understand the scam that's been played on you, you being the public, you being anyone
[16:34.040 --> 16:38.200]  who's on dominant mainstream social media sites?
[16:38.200 --> 16:43.040]  I mentioned at the outset that I don't want anybody else telling me what is so.
[16:43.040 --> 16:46.720]  I don't want to have somebody say, well, you can see this information.
[16:46.720 --> 16:51.000]  Oh, but you cannot be exposed to that information.
[16:51.000 --> 16:55.160]  And of course, I think it's very clear from the information we've discussed today that
[16:55.160 --> 17:01.400]  it's part of a plan to silence any narrative that the establishment doesn't want to have
[17:01.400 --> 17:04.120]  gain traction in the society.
[17:04.120 --> 17:09.360]  If you're like me and you want to know the real deal and you want to make up your own
[17:09.360 --> 17:15.200]  mind and you don't want to be censored, you want to see the real deal and decide for yourself
[17:15.200 --> 17:20.920]  if it is in fact the real deal, I want to encourage you to go to DrReality.News.
[17:20.920 --> 17:25.680]  Do yourself a huge favor in two regards, the great information you're going to get and
[17:25.680 --> 17:27.680]  also it helps me stay here for you.
[17:27.680 --> 17:33.480]  Go there and get a copy of Body Science, get a copy of Income Tax Shattering the Mist,
[17:33.480 --> 17:38.760]  get a payroll withholding guide, get a 1099W9 handbook.
[17:38.760 --> 17:42.520]  No matter what you get, I guarantee you, you're going to crack it open, you're going to read
[17:42.520 --> 17:46.920]  it, you're going to say, now this is the real deal.