Ever wonder why certain posts you share on facebook, instagram, youtube, etc. never get much attention? Or perhaps get deleted altogether?
With the rollout of these covid “vaccines”, the tech industries have been hard at work aiming to discredit and/or ban ANYONE who has announced a certain form of “hesitancy” or flat out refusal to be a part of the vaccine bandwagon.
And even if certain individuals DID take the vaccine, and only wanted to share their testimony on the side effects, or perhaps a statement of what happened to their friend or family member, Facebook has initiated a global ranking and employee driven effort to tag specific posts that cross a certain threshold of “vaccine hesitancy”.
Even if the data that is being shared is TRUE, and come from verifiable health/medical papers and documents, if the data veers more towards an unflattering light of the vaccines, it is being targeted and consequently censored from these huge tech platforms. Which obviously deters the truth about the covid vaccines from getting out.
Yesterday, May 24, 2021, Project Veritas uploaded a video and a post highlighting two Facebook employees that have come out against this egregious abuse of private companies’ being able to dictate what information is allowed to be seen and what should be hidden in order to support certain agendas. The aim to target the “vaccine hesitant” is just one of them.
Here is James O’Keefe discussing the leak with Fox’s Sean Hannity:
Source: odysee | Project Veritas | O’Keefe joins Hannity to discuss Veritas’ NEW BOMBSHELL Two-Whistleblower story from within Facebook
Sean Hannity: “Now let’s turn to a brand new investigative report from Project Veritas just uncovering an algorithm that reportedly could be used to target facebook’s political enemies. Now, Fox news, we’re just seeing this for the first time, but as always, we let you decide. Listen, to this.”
Whistleblower #1: “Facebook uses classifiers in their algorithms to determine certain content, to be what they call “vaccine hesitant”, or they call it “vaccine hesitancy”. And without the user’s knowledge, they assign a score to these comments that’s called the VH score, the “vaccine hesitancy” score. And then based on that score will demote or leave the comment alone depending on the content within the comment. And that narrative being, get the vaccine… the vaccine is good for you. Everyone should get it. And if you don’t, you will be singled out… as an enemy of society.
They want to build a community where everybody complies, not where people can have open discourse and dialogue about the most personal and private and intimate decisions that anybody could ever face in their life. The policy is going to keep expanding until anything can violate it.”
Sean Hannity: “Here now, is the founder and CEO, Project Veritas, James O’Keefe. Okay, there’s a lot of significance to this, and, facebook has responded. I’ll let you tell the story.”
James O’Keefe: “Thanks, Sean. We’ve had two whistleblowers within facebook, come to us and leak us these documents regarding “vaccine hesitancy”.
What does that mean? Essentially facebook has beta tested this, these algorithms, 1.5 percent of their almost 3 billion users are getting a tiered ranking system, something called “vaccine hesitancy” – tier 1 and tier 2. Tier 1 is alarmist and critical remarks about covid and the vaccine, and tier 2 is something called “indirect vaccine discouragement”.
Now what’s remarkable about these private documents that facebook has not wanted you to see, until tonight, is that tier 2 says that even if the facts are true, that you will be targeted and demoted. Your comments will be targeted and demoted, Sean. “Vaccine hesitancy” score tiering system at facebook – these whistleblowers have given Project Veritas these documents and spoken to us in the shadows. It’s a 20 minute long video online, the documents are on our website.
And Sean, after we publish this report, we reached out to facebook, they’ve actually given us a comment – I’m going to read it to you, it says, quote, facebook has responded to Project Veritas for the first time, quote, “We proactively announce this policy on our company blog and also updated our help center with this information.” So as, in response to us publishing this, they’re claiming to now make this public but we just checked, and they haven’t yet made most of these documents public, Sean.”
Sean: “Okay, do I, knowing your ammo, is there more to come in the days to come?”
James: “Yes, there’s more to come. What’s remarkable about it, is that this has been private, they don’t want you to know that they’re doing this, and this is the town square, as you all know. We’re trying to retake our town square. Governor deSantis just signed a bill in Florida; I’m in Florida today, I was with him when he did that.
But they’re (facebook) tiering users without them knowing that they’re doing it. They’re demoting your comments, deboosting you on facebook without you knowing that they’re doing that.
And they’re obviously terrified of this report because they’re actually responding to Project Veritas – before they would attack us, or ignore us. And they have this system, you can see the documents online. They clearly have a ranking system, a tiered system, Sean. The author of this report we’ve named him, Amit Bahl, is an employee at facebook, we have the document showing that he authored the report and the chain of command from him to Mark Zuckerberg.
So there’s more to come, another one tomorrow. Two whistleblowers, on the record with Project Veritas, current facebook insiders, leaking us these documents. We consider them brave heroes and we hope that there’s a legion of more insiders that follow their lead, coming public to firstname.lastname@example.org with this information.”
Sean: “James O’Keefe, thank you for sharing with us, we appreciate it, we’re going to follow closely.”
Here is the Project Veritas video that was uploaded yesterday featuring one of the whistleblowers who came forward to reveal facebook’s tiering system plan:
“I have to do something.”
“When it comes time to standing up for a world, I want my children to live in, I don’t want to leave them a world to where they don’t have these liberties.”
“People aren’t allowed to have voice and yet, facebook touts itself with promoting people’s opportunity to have voice.”
“They’re trying to control this content before it even makes it onto your page before you even see it.”
“If I lose my job, it’s like, what do I do? But that’s less of a concern to me.”
James O’Keefe (narrating): “We have just obtained multiple leaked documents from inside facebook, this time detailing a plan to curb, quote, “vaccine hesitancy” on a global scale. It was so concerning it brought us not one, but two whistleblowers from inside facebook who are ready to speak out on what this means for free speech and public discourse on their own platform.”
Interview with first whistleblower starts @1:00:
Whistleblower #1 (Data Center Technician):
Whistleblower #1: “Facebook uses classifiers in their algorithms to determine certain content, to be what they call “vaccine hesitant”, or they call it “vaccine hesitancy”. And without the user’s knowledge, they assign a score to these comments that’s called the VH score, the “vaccine hesitancy” score. And then based on that score will demote or leave the comment alone depending on the content within the comment.”
James O’Keefe (narrating): “Our first facebook insider is a data center technician who leaked us multiple internal documents detailing an algorithm test being run on 1.5 percent of facebook and instagram’s nearly 3.8 billion users worldwide.
The goal? To quote, “Drastically reduce user exposure to vaccine hesitancy (VH) in comments”.
Whistleblower #1: “And it’s the same thing. You’ll see a lot of this difference in their public policy verses the private policy where the public policy is very vague. It’s very ambiguous. It’s designed to be questioned because it’s designed to be able to easily defend. But then if look at the private policy, it’s much, much more clear, much more specific. I think that they’re trying to make it seem like they’re not doing as much or that they’re just kind of like generalizing it, like, “Oh, well we just have some robot that just tags your post. And then, you know, we look at it.” but I think they don’t want people to know, “Oh no, we actually have something that we made specifically for vaccine hesitancy.”
So there’s a main document along with all the, all the attachments and stuff that goes with it. So basically when they write this algorithm that goes through facebook content, and it looks for certain keywords that are related to vaccination, or, you know, not getting a vaccine and stuff like that. And it gives it a score. And the VH score means vaccine hesitancy, which is defined as being hesitant to get a vaccine, but not just like, “Well, I don’t know.” It’s even, “Well, I saw a study that said that someone died that got the vaccine.” That’s vaccine hesitancy.”
James O’Keefe: “So this is a beta test. This is all a beta test.”
Whistleblower #1: “Right, right.”
James: “And how big is this beta test?”
Whistleblower #1: “They refer to the test size as 1.5%. I’m not exactly sure which pool that pulls from, but I think it’s comments on authoritative health pages.”
James: “You seem to think that they’ve already ruled this out. Why do we believe they’ve already ruled this out?”
Whistleblower #1: “In one slideshow that they have, they call it their weekly progress tracker. They actually lay all this out in a chart and you can see it, you can look at the slides, they go by date. So we’ve got here – Covid-19 Vaccine Safety and Efficacy “Global”, “Currently Global” 13 languages, facebook plus instagram. All C-19 Vaccine [Global], “Currently Global” 66 languages. And the very first thing that brought me to the conclusion that they’re wanting to do this globally is they were developing it in like, you know, as many languages as they can get their hands on.”
James: “So this is like a product launch, almost?”
Whistleblower #1: “Yes. Yeah, in their last quarterly report, they reported 2.79 billion people on Earth use some kind of facebook app.”
James O’Keefe (narrating): “Who’s behind this new algorithm policy? Well, one thing is for sure, the authors of this experiment Joo Ho Yeo, Nick Gibian, Hendrick Townley, Amit Bahl, and Matt Gilles are not low-level employees. In fact, one of the internal documents Project Veritas obtained was a facebook flow chart that showed they’re only a few clicks away from Mark Zuckerberg, himself.”
James: “Who makes these decisions?”
Whistleblower #1: “These are teams at facebook and they call themselves, they work with what they call B2V “Barriers to Vaccination”. So that’s one of their core terms – is Barriers to Vaccination. And then the people on these teams, they call them Health Integrity Teams. So there’s a Health Integrity Team for messenger, there’s a Health Integrity Team for every system that facebook has.”
James: “An integrity team?”
Whistleblower #1: “Right.”
James: “Is it came about after March 2020 – covid?”
Whistleblower #1: “No.”
James: “This is something that’s existed?”
Whistleblower #1: “Yes. Yes.”
James: “So, the Health Integrity Teams, and Barrier to Vaccination Teams at facebook.”
Whistleblower #1: “So this here, Amit Bahl, he is a Research Scientist for the Core Data Science Team at facebook. He also works in Health Integrity. Everyone who works on this project works in Health Integrity. Hendrick Townley, this is the experiment launch post, as you can see, this is on April 16th. This is 2021. That why there’s no year there. Cause it’s this year. And Hendrick Townley is one of the Software Engineers that worked on this. There were – I think it was him and two other software engineers. And then Amit Bahl wrote the actual classifier itself. I don’t – I’m sure he had like a team of developers, but he is considered the one who wrote it. Amit Bahl, and then as you go up, it’s like his boss, boss’s boss. Boss’s boss’s boss.”
James: “So Amit Bahl works for Udi Weinsberg, who works for Nicolas Stier – do I have that correct?”
Whistleblower #1: “Yes.”
James: “And that person works for Danny Ferrante, and that person works for Javier Olivan, and Javier Olivan reports directly to Mark Zuckerberg.”
Whistleblower #1: “Yes.”
James: “So this is a chain that goes all the way down to Amit Bahl.”
James O’Keefe (narrating): “This kind of censorship sounds similar to shadowbanning – when users are unaware their posts can’t be seen. A term one of our own investigations coined when exposing twitter, just a few years ago. But this time, we’re exposing facebook and instagram’s methods to quash an entire side of a conversation. Arguably, one of the most pressing issues of the day.”
James: “According to these documents, facebook tiers users, 0 to 5, and a score of 0 to 1. Can you talk a little bit about this tier system?”
Whistleblower #1: “Oh yeah. So basically this is what they’re using to structure how, how they’re going to judge this content on, on a scale to how vaccine hesitant it actually is, or if it’s explicitly discouraging. In my opinion, the main reason why they built this as was for the human, what they call “raters” so that they can use this as a reference when they, so if the algorithm can’t make a decision on a certain post, it’ll send it to a human rater and then the human rater looks at it and they will make a decision on whether or not it’s vaccine hesitant or not.”
James: “So we have tier 2 – Indirect Discouragement. What happens when you are a tier 2?”
Whistleblower #1: “So basically your comment is going to be suppressed. As to the scale of that suppression, it’s hard to say, we would have to look at it like a case by case basis. But what they’re saying is it’s going to get, they call it a position change – on some of these comments, you can see, it’ll say position change: seven. And I’m not sure whether the seven refers to like a 7% or if it’s just like seven positions down in the comment chains.”
James: “So it’s suppressed?”
Whistleblower #1: “Yes.”
James: “But we don’t know the extent of this suppression?”
Whistleblower #1: “Right.”
James: “And we’ve heard “shadowban”, we’ve heard “deboost”, I have not heard “position change”.
James O’Keefe (narrating): “Facebook has not been shy about combating “vaccine hesitancy” as reported in their own press release stated May 11 of this year. However, what they say publicly in their own policy doesn’t scratch the surface of what is written in these internal leaked documents. By the facebook whistleblower.”
James: “If I read this correctly, facebook is saying it doesn’t matter if the story is true, so long as it doesn’t cause people to hesitate getting the vaccine? What’s your read on this?”
Whistleblower #1: ” ‘The Borderline Vaccine Framework – Shocking Stories: Potentially, or actually true events or facts that can raise safety concerns.’ “
James: “That post was done by a user. And they’ve taken a screenshot and observed it for the tier system.”
Whistleblower #1: “Right. Yeah.”
James: “What about this gives them alarm?”
Whistleblower #1: ” ‘How is this not scary?’ That would be considered indirect discouragement.”
James: “Indirect discouragement. Which would be considered tier 2.”
Whistleblower #1: “Right.”
James: “So this is an example of indirect discouragement of the vaccine.”
Whistleblower #1: “Yeah. Questioning the vaccine, questioning anything involving the vaccine.”
James: “And this was then demoted.”
Whistleblower #1: “Yeah.”
James: “So this is another example of tier 2 indirect discouragement – why don’t you tell us why this would be indirect discouragement, according to facebook.”
Whistleblower #1: “So this would be considered “vaccine hesitant” because they don’t want people to see someone had a bad effect. They’re not saying, “Don’t get the vaccine,” but they’re saying, “Look at all this negative stuff that happened after I got the vaccine.”
James: “Okay, they’re reporting facts, but truth doesn’t matter.”
Whistleblower #1: “No, because it doesn’t match the narrative. So, and the narrative being: Get the vaccine, the vaccine is good for you. Everyone should get it. And if you don’t, you will be singled out… as an enemy of society.
So the VAERS is a Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System. It looks like they’re measuring the comments where they’re mentioning, you know, that the patient died.”
James: “So is VAERS a CDC supported program?”
Whistleblower #1: “Yes, I think so. Really they support all of this because you know, they released the standards, the CDC themselves. And that’s really one of, one of the primary things that facebook is basing their policy off of is, well, if you looked at their public policy, it would be according to the authoritative health pages.”
James: “So they are open about the fact that they essentially coordinate with the CDC, here.”
Whistleblower #1: “Of course.”
James: “From the internal document, ‘Content pointing to the Vaccine Adverse Effects [Events] Reporting System data that suggest extreme risks without providing full context’ – full context… What do they mean by that?”
Whistleblower #1: “I think so, like in the previous comments, like she said, “Oh, during this study 653 people died” and then they don’t put the rest of the study in there. It’s like, okay, so you want me to write like a 10-page comment? What’s full context? Another ambiguous term. If they saw a study from someone they didn’t like, would they say, “Well, that’s not the full context because ABCDEFG.”
James: “Ultimately it seems like any facts that escape a particular narrative are omitted, demoted, deboosted, banned…”
Whistleblower #1: “Absolutely. Yes.”
James: “Considered dangerous to society.”
Whistleblower #1: “Suppressed in any way possible.”
James: “Where do you think this is headed? Does it get worse from here?”
Whistleblower #1: “Yes.”
James: “How so?”
Whistleblower #1: “I think people accept it and they see people like twitter, facebook, google, and stuff like that, they see that this is accepted by the public and then they go, that’s like a green light to be like, “Oh, well we can go ahead and do this more.” So not only are we going to start doing vaccines stuff, we’re going to spread it to everything. So we’re going to start saying, “Oh if you make a post that could put somebody in danger or it could compromise someone’s safety,” whatever that means, “then we’re going to go ahead and look at that and assign that a score of some unknown classifier.” Who knows what it could be. They’re trying to control this content before it even makes it onto your page before you even see it. And when you’re scrolling on your phone, I think they’re afraid of what people would conclude.”
James: “Tell me they don’t think about the underlying value.”
Whistleblower #1: “Yeah. Or what could, what it could turn into: the slippery slope.”
James: “They’re not even thinking about that.”
Whistleblower #1: “Nope.”
James: “And do you think there’s a lot of people inside facebook that agree with you or some percentage? What would you estimate that number of people to be?”
Whistleblower #1: “Yes. I would say at least 25%.”
James: “So you’re telling me, that 25% of the people there, agree that what they’re doing with this vaccine hesitancy coding and algorithms, is morally wrong?”
Whistleblower #1: “Yes. That would not surprise me at all. The policy is going to keep expanding until anything can violate it. What would happen if this was scaled larger and scaled to twitter and the internet as a whole is way worse than anything that could happen from me getting fired from my job. To me, that, it far outweighs that. Because it’s about more than me. It’s about really everyone in the world.”
James O’Keefe (narrating): “It’s clear this facebook insider is not alone in his concerns of facebook’s new policy that would promote discourse on vaccines in general. As a matter of fact, the next insider you’re about to meet, felt so compelled to come forward, he goes so far as to compare the new policy to an abusive relationship.”
Interviewer with second whistleblower starts @11:58:
Whistleblower #2 (Data Center Engineer):
James: “What do you do at facebook?”
Whistleblower #2: “I’m a data center engineer.
I’d say that in a sense it’s prohibiting people from being able to have an open dialogue about issues that affect their personal security. Some of these things, the questions, the comments that are being presented, you know, are from people that have concerns about their personal health or their personal security being affected. It’s kind of like having a relationship with somebody that’s controlling and abusive in a sense like an abusive partner, not allowing their spouse to speak out about the things that are going on in their marriage or their relationship and limiting their voice. It’s very damaging from that sense. You know, if you think about this logically, it just, you know, it’s very incriminating in my opinion.”
James O’Keefe (narrating): “Just months ago, the same insider leaked us a tape of Mark Zuckerberg privately speaking to his team last July, showcasing his own vaccine hesitancy when talking about covid.”
Inside clip of Mark Zuckerberg on July 16, 2020: “I just want to make sure that I share some caution on this because we just don’t know the long-term side effects of basically modifying people’s DNA and RNA.”
James O’Keefe (narrating): “Today, his own words would violate their new public policy.”
James: “You were the source who brought us the Mark Zuckerberg vaccine footage from July 2020, is that correct?”
Whistleblower #2: “That’s correct.”
James: “Zuckerberg seemed to change his mind – evolve on the issue of vaccine, and the facebook policy itself would have prevented Zuckerberg from saying what it is he had said just a few months ago. Pretty crazy!
What prompted you to give that footage to Project Veritas?”
Whistleblower #2: “Well, based on my own knowledge and research of, you know, the adverse effects and the potential side effects of vaccines of any medication really. So I think it’s important for people to be understanding of the – of those facts. We’re able to have these conversations at work with our, with our coworkers about our medical decisions. And we do. We have them, you know, frequently.
Why is it okay for us to have these conversations at work as adults and not have somebody step in and say, “Hey, you need to stop talking about that and you shouldn’t talk about that. You’re not allowed to talk about – that’s ‘fact-checked’. That’s false.”
Occasionally people do, in the conversation, but, but we’re allowed to have open dialogue. And, and here – “
James: “You’re saying that you can have these conversations at the water cooler and office – “
Whistleblower #2: “Absolutely. Even in the midst of the office.”
James: “In the midst of the office?”
Whistleblower #2: “Yes.”
James: “At facebook, the location, facebook, but you’re not allowed to go onto facebook and write this stuff.”
Whistleblower #2: “No.”
James: “That’s ironic.”
Whistleblower #2: “It is very ironic.”
James: “What is your message to Mr. CEO Mark Zuckerberg, who is certainly watching this video?”
Whistleblower #2: “I would ask, you said that you support freedom of expression. My question to you is, why, in a sense, you don’t support freedom of expression in the most basic sense, that’s available to all people everywhere: which is to exist as God created them – without any interference or intrusion by any corporation or government to exist as they are? And why push a narrative that it’s not okay for people to go ahead and exist to express themselves as God’s creation, without taking a vaccine? Why is there this push to suppress that ideology?”
James O’Keefe (narrating): “This insider’s biggest concern is facebook building a quote, “community of compliance”, unquote. And feels the topic may go beyond the authority of Zuckerberg himself.”
Whistleblower #2: “It’s the platform that they want to build. It’s the community that they want to build. They want to build a community where everybody complies, not where people can have open discourse and dialogue about the most personal and private and intimate decisions that anybody could ever face in their life, which regarding their own body, their own health.”
James: “And based upon your position, and what you’ve seen, and your role at facebook, why do they want people to comply? Why is that the culture at facebook?”
Whistleblower #2: “For the promotion of a society that is focused on medical progress in a sense or medical, you know, medical experimentation.”
James: “What is facebook doing to promote covid vaccines to its billions of users?”
Whistleblower #2: “Specifically encouraging people to post, you know, to take on the profile frame for showing that they’ve been vaccinated and to promote in a sense, solidarity amongst other people that have taken the vaccine and encourage users to also go and get the vaccine. It’s interesting that they would, you know, encourage one side, but not allow the other side to speak of, you know, why they wouldn’t be making the decision to get a vaccine. There’s no solidarity, there’s no opportunity to be united around that. It’s just basically: Get the vaccine or feel left out.
You know, people aren’t allowed to have voice and yet, you know, facebook touts itself with promoting people’s opportunity to have voice. And, you know, as stated before, you know, have a voice about the most important decisions anyone has to face in their life is pretty important and it’s shocking and disturbing really to see people that are willing to go to the lengths of limiting those discussions around the world, you know, for things that, that concern people’s own personal security.
I almost feel like there’s, there’s outside sources pressuring Mark, or could be, I’m not saying that’s a fact, but you know, it does make me concerned. And, and you look at the video with Fauci and, you know, Mark discussing it, Mark doesn’t seem too pleased with you know, the fact that he had to bring it up. It’s almost like he was, you know, he had to mention it.”
James O’Keefe (narrating): “These two brave insiders know, that they risk it all standing against facebook – one of the most powerful institutions of the day. Yet, they are still putting it all on the line in order to preserve our liberties.”
Whistleblower #2: “I think that’s also the main reason why people don’t want to come out with it, because what if I, you know, I have, I had two kids, I have my wife and if I lose my job, it’s like, what do I do? But that’s less of a concern to me.”
James: “And the people who may do what you did, next, but they’re not sure if they should do it, what’s your message to those people?”
Whistleblower #2: “I would say, go ahead and do it. And I – and then just think about what I said. There’s a lot of blowback to telling the truth. And that’s true, as far as human history is concerned. And yeah, you are going to receive blowback, but just weigh, weigh it out.
Can you live with yourself for the rest of your life if you work at facebook and you knew about this? Especially if it came out later and you’re like, “Man, I saw that so many times. I could have said something and I didn’t.” How are you going to feel about that? That’s my thing. My morality. I have to show somebody this because at least, even if nothing were to come of this, and for some reason everything was scrapped, I would still think that it, that it was worth it. Cause I’m like, well, at least I tried, I tried to show somebody this.”
James: “It’s almost like you’re saying that your desire to follow your conscience outweighs any potential risk there might be to you. Doing this.”
Whistleblower #2: “Yes. Yes.”
James: “What is your message to those people? That are watching this who agree with you inside facebook?”
Whistleblower #2: “I would say that you’re not alone. The biggest thing with social media, that we’ve seen throughout the years is that ranking people’s comments, their posts, even, even like news media, there’s this view that tries to make you think that you’re alone in this and that you’re not the majority. And even people that say that they agree with internally, they deal with struggles. Internally, they question things. It’s just that they’re not able to overcome that, that cognitive dissonance that sits in and they resort to what is safe. It’s easier to comply with things than it is to come forward and say, “This is wrong.” Or to really awaken to understanding that the way you’re being treated or the way other people are being treated is wrong.
And so that’s challenging, but know that you’re not alone. And that if you do come forward and you do speak up that you can live peacefully, knowing that you did the right thing, no matter what. And that’s encouraging, not just to other people, but it’s also encouraging to yourself. It’s an – and it won’t make you feel as alone anymore.”
James: “That’s very profound, I think.”
Whistleblower #2: “I’m a father. So, you know, obviously like I fear for my family, for my children’s safety. And, but I also understand that I have to, as I told, you know, my wife, I have to do something. You know, when it comes time to standing up for a world I want my children to live in, I don’t want to leave them a world to where they don’t have these liberties, these personal securities to where they can willingly make their own medical decisions between them, their doctor, and, those that are closest to them. That’s not something I can live in. That’s not something I could do. And it came down to the point where I had to make a decision to do what was right.”
After Project Veritas received the leaked documents, a team member from PV reached out to facebook for a response. Mario Balaban contacted a spokesperson to address a couple of questions about the “vaccine hesitancy” policy.
Rather than answering the questions, a facebook spokesperson responded with this line, “We proactively announced this policy on our company blog and also updated our help center with this information.”
As of this moment, there is no indication that they have updated their policies regarding this information, and they did not respond back when Project Veritas requested a follow-up to answer the questions directed to them from the original email.
For more information and images of the documents that were leaked from the insiders, please visit Project Veritas’s website at:
Thank you to James O’Keefe and the Project Veritas team for going to such incredible lengths to get the Truth out to the public. Your hard work and dedication to these efforts are sincerely appreciated!
And a HUGE thank you to the brave individuals who have spoken out against these oppressive establishments and who are helping to expose the corruption within. Your honesty and integrity is greatly needed in these uncertain times.
Fact checking is extremely important. I want to reiterate not to take everything at face value; no matter what you read, where you read it from, or who you hear it from. And to be clear, do not rely on “fact checking” websites to give you accurate information either. These are just as likely, (if not even more likely…), to feed false information and false debunking accounts to manipulate the reader. Please take everything into consideration before adhering to a certain narrative – and always keep your mind open to other possibilities.
Fair use disclaimer: Some of the links from this article are provided from different sources/sites to give the reader extra information and cite the sources, but does not necessarily mean that I endorse the contents of the site itself. Additionally, I have tried to provide links to the contents that I used from other sites as an educational and/or entertainment means only; if you feel that any information deserves further citation or request to be clarified, please let me know through the contact page.