If you notice a running theme on this website, it’s probably that we should always look at everything with a critical eye. One of my mantras is that we should question every source we come across. No matter if it’s in the news, a friend’s story… heck, even your own experiences. It’s easy to become biased towards one way of thinking when we’re already conditioned to believe a certain thing.
(And, I should correct my own statement. “We should question every source we come across – no matter ESPECIALLY if it’s in the news.”)
Luckily, in some cases, the facts end up outing themselves. But the damage that can be caused in the meantime can be hard to repair.
Below are just a few examples (out of many) of why it’s so important not to automatically believe the information being reported.
For you to fully grasp everything in this article, it’s important for one to cast aside these biases, preconceived notions, beliefs, and look at everything with an open mind and fresh outlook.
That being said, let’s dive in.
1. Whistleblower exposes hospital that staged covid testing to make it appear busier before the news camera.
Source - Project Veritas
On May 1st, 2020, CBS This Morning aired a segment depicting Cherry Health Center and their struggles. The news crew appeared to be in the midst of a chaotic looking testing site. Lines of cars with patients to get tested filled the news screen. Rushed looking RN’s, hospital workers, testers all busily attended to their hectic work schedule.
The problem?
The majority of it was staged.
Whether CBS was aware of this embellishment or not, the fact that a NEWS station, with the purpose of reporting on up to date information regarding the events going on around us, was not knowledgeable of this, raises this very important question:
And that brings us to another problem. Originally the statements made by the Cherry Health were that NO ONE was involved in any staged event.
Then, it was changed, saying that at least one person may have been asked to get in the testing line. In addition, that the staffers took it upon themselves to make it look busier.
However, once again, the story was changed. The CEO stated this time that it was staged for the most part to depict what it would normally look like on a typical day. Apparently, some patients did not allow them to video record them in accordance with HIPAA regulations. So their final statement was that they were trying to protect patient confidentially…?
Why so many different stories? News is supposed to be presented with ONE thing only: the TRUTH.
And this could have easily been avoided by adding a disclaimer with the news media. But did this happen?
No. Instead, this ruse was perpetrated to the many unsuspecting viewers into believing this account was real.
Project Veritas
Project Veritas has provided us with an investigation and updates for this account. For more information, please follow the links below to see how this “story” unfolds:
- a truth seeking establishment, with the help of their own journalists and reporters, as well as the brave insiders with the integrity to do the right thing, have exposed numerous corruptions that are going on all around us.
a whistleblower went undercover to reveal that Cherry Health Center in Grand Rapids, Michigan told their own workers to get in their cars and drive up to a line designated for covid testing to make the line look busier for the news station to record. They were also encouraged to participate in "fake testing" while the camera was rolling.
James O'keefe reports on updated and conflicting statements made by CEO Tasha Blackmon and Cherry Health board president Scott Alfree.
Steve Johnson wrote a concerned letter to Michigan Governer Gretchen Whitmer calling on her to open a formal investigation into this matter. Quoted from the letter: "Cherry Health is a taxpayer funded entity and as such should receive proper oversight. Instances like this where taxpayer dollars are potentially being utilized for propaganda, not only lacks integrity but is also dishonest and disrespectful to our taxpayers. Taxpayers deserve to know that their dollars are being spent properly and in a principled manner."
2. CBS airs the wrong footage (the same exact one) - TWICE
No matter how you look at it, even if CBS News was uninvolved with the events going on at the Cherry Health Center, this one they had complete control over.
Before I begin with this report, I have to make one thing perfectly clear. I will just come right out and say it:
On a personal note, I highly suspect “snopes.com” of having a political agenda of their own, and perhaps, just speculation here… working with the media, instead of their claims that they are a “fact-checking” website.
There. I said it.
Now, with that being said, it’s sad that even they cannot deny what happened with the following “CBS This Morning” segment.
CBS aired a tape on March 25, 2020 of a panicked looking New York City hospital.
Or so we thought.
Source - snopes.com
Screenshot taken on 9/22/20
Take a look at the photos below and see if you notice some similarities:
Source - youtube.com
This footage was originally shown on March 19, 2020 from SkyNews of a hospital in Bergamo, Italy.
Source - gatewaypundit.com
Then, on March 25, 2020, CBS This Morning aired this footage while a narrator describes the situation in New York City and shows Governor Cuomo demanding more ventilators.
Source - dailycaller.com
It’s also fascinating that the huge push was a demand for more ventilators. Yet there has been such controversy around whether the ventilators were causing more harm than good. In April, the estimated deaths of patients that were put on ventilators in New York City ranged from 80-90% (other countries shared similar numbers). It was so bad that even doctors were admitting that they tried NOT to put patients on ventilators and even questioned the construction of their build:
Not to mention the doctors and nurses that were trying to reveal what was going on behind the scenes that multiple media sources tried to immediately ban, labeling it as “fake news” or “misinformation”. Here are a couple of sources for reference:
So what can we conclude from this?
It seems as if certain news media have no qualms using incorrect footage to describe an account being told. This, in turn, misleads the viewer into believing that what they are depicting is the truth. And apparently, even after being called out for using the wrong footage, they unabashedly use the very same footage AGAIN for a different state.
I think another subject that is important to address is this: were these highly sought after ventilators vetted for their quality and effectiveness? Or did the push for demand override any of the testing procedures that a medical equipment should be adhered to?
Why was CBS News so adamant in using a busy looking hospital environment to push this agenda? Why, even after getting caught, did they use the same exact footage again for a different state? How many times is this happening that is not being caught?
3. ABC Puts Guiffre/Epstein Case Under the Radar
Sometimes it’s not about what you say, it’s about what you DON’T say.
Project Veritas hits again as a leaked footage reveals ABC news anchor Amy Robach lamenting her efforts to get the Guiffre/Epstein/Maxwell case out on the air. Despite having photos, witnesses, names, interviews – the story was shelved, with the head(s) of ABC questioning who Epstein even was.
During the leaked video, Amy Robach even mentions the threats the station received. One prominent threat came from the royal family since Prince Andrew was indicated. “Then the palace found out that we had her whole allegations about Prince Andrew and threatened us a million different ways.” – Amy Robach
Source -Project Veritas
During what was a conversation between Amy Robach, expressing her frustrations at having “everything” but forced to stay silent, and an unnamed coworker, a secret recording from an ABC insider was in progress that revealed the details of their discussion. Project Veritas then ran this report, exposing what is presumed to be an attempted coverup by the ABC news station.
ABC, however, stated in their defense that they believed that Amy Robach did not have enough evidence to go forward with the story on-air. And Amy Robach, perhaps in an attempt to diffuse the situation, stated that they did not tell her to end the investigation into the case.
On the other hand, it has been reported that Alan Dershowitz pressured ABC not to publish the interview.
Alan Dershowitz is a very influential lawyer in the world of celebrities and politicians. Some legal cases he has been involved with include O.J. Simpson, Mike Tyson, Harvey Weinstein and Donald Trump. And of course, Jeffrey Epstein. It makes one wonder, 'how did his reach get so high'? Is it really because he's such an outstanding lawyer? Or could there be something else at play?
Guiffre also expressed her confusion and disappointment that the segment didn't run in 2015 like it was scheduled to.
Quoted From Various Sources:
"In an interview with NPR in August, Giuffre said she was confused about why her 2015 interview with ABC was not broadcast. “I viewed the ABC interview as a potential game-changer,” she said. “Appearing on ABC with its wide viewership would have been the first time for me to speak out against the government for basically looking the other way and to describe the anger and betrayal victims felt.” - pagesix.com
“Giuffre sued Dershowitz in April 2019 after Dershowitz accused her of lying about his alleged abuse and, according to NPR, it was a call from Dershowitz that allegedly may have led to ABC News quashing the story.” - vox.com
"Dershowitz told NPR in August that he had called ABC News in 2015 just before the interview was supposed to have been broadcast to dissuade the network from airing Giuffre's allegations." - npr.org
Some questions we can ask ourselves:
– Why? Why scrap this story?
– What’s the reason?
– Who’s idea was it to shelve this story? Or any story, for that matter? Who has the final say?
– Where is all the footage/interviews, etc. that were taped? Where are the orders to decide what to run and not coming from?
– When was the decision to scrap this made?
– How did suppressing this news help/benefit anyone? How did it hurt anyone?
So perhaps this story was shelved due to several reasons; maybe even all of the above. It’s interesting, however, that the news station did not want to air the segment due to “not enough evidence” and/or “who cares about Jeffrey Epstein?” – although the names involved were well known and high profile figures (Bill Clinton, Prince Andrew, Alan Dershowitz).
Yet news channels have no problem airing footage from a completely different country and passing it off as certain states. Or airing footage of a Kentucky gun range and implicating it as a Syria bombing site, for example… (ABC News ‘slaughter in Syria’ footage appears to come from a Kentucky gun range). Even staging events to embellish their reporting, thus misleading countless viewers into believing a certain narrative to fit whatever agenda they have in mind.
Not Enough Evidence?
And for not having enough evidence, such as Ronan Farrow’s battle with NBC and their attempt to get him to desist his investigation into Harvey Weinstein, it sure didn’t stop him from winning a Pulitzer Prize with his reporting into the Weinstein scandal with The New Yorker. Or stop him from writing a bestselling book “Catch and Kill: Lies, Spies, and a Conspiracy to Protect Predators”.
His journalism is a very frank and harsh look into this reality. An honest to goodness web of deceit, lies, coverups… Perfect fodder for any Hollywood movie, of which Harvey Weinstein is most likely well-acquainted with.
One could argue, as NBC did, that he simply didn’t have enough evidence at the time. But others could argue that perhaps that was just a cover for something… more sinister.
A bribery? A coverup scheme, such as the Vatican’s treacherous betrayal? Perhaps a power play in action?
Whatever the case, with all the “evidence” for us viewers/readers, the results are pretty clear. The evidence that the truth is being either distorted, flat out fabricated, or withheld.
Putting all that into perspective, I do want to remind everyone to always double check sources for themselves. I present information, and yes, might express some opinionated pieces and inquiries in there, but I will also encourage everyone to do their own research and come to their own conclusions.
There is much more to this saga, but I will leave it at 3, for now. Until next time:
Original image by Gordon Johnson from Pixabay
Image has been slightly altered.
Featured image by S. Hermann & F. Richter from Pixabay
Fair Use Disclaimer: Some of the links from this article are provided from different sources/sites to give the reader additional information and 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.
Get an Earful
A Fundamental Requirement of a Memorable Super Bowl Performer - Is apparently to have an alter ego. (Illuminati symbolism is a plus.)
What Real News/Journalism Looks Like - Researching is important. But what if the material are all lies?
The Hypocrisy of “Authority Figures”: Starring Nancy Pelosi - Are government officials above the law?
The Questionable Actions of Rachel Levine – Joe Biden’s Pick for Assistant Secretary of Health - Who's REALLY in control, here?
10 Legitimate Reasons People are Concerned About Getting the Vaccine Shot - Several Reasons Why People May Fear the Vaccine
Blatant Censorship Rules the Internet - In some cases, it's needed. But in others, it is merely an excuse.