02-15-2021, 03:20 PM
02-15-2021, 03:26 PM
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/global-research/
CONSPIRACY-PSEUDOSCIENCE
Overall, we rate GlobalResearch a Tin Foil Hat Conspiracy and Strong Pseudoscience website based on the promotion of unproven information such as the dangers of Vaccines and 9-11 as a false flag operation.
Globalresearch acts as both a fake news clearinghouse, and as a source for originally-written fake news as attributed to "Global Research News" or "Global Research". Globalresearch contributors are happy to source information from anyone who seems vaguely aligned with their ideology, even if said contributors are full of horseshit:
Despite presenting itself as a source of scholarly analysis, globalresearch.ca. mostly consists of polemics many of which accept (and use) conspiracy theories, pseudoscience and propaganda. Apparently, contributors to globalresearch.ca consider information sourced from.
Principal website of the Centre for Research on Globalization, which The Economist in April 2017 called "a hub for conspiracy theories and fake stories," and NATO information warfare specialists in November 2017 linked to a concerted effort to undermine the credibility of mainstream Western media.
And yet the site is still around, at globalresearch.ca, churning out stories. While it was once a joke, an example of Canada’s truther far left, the Centre for Research on Globalization has now gained new relevance, situated somewhere in the bizarre alt-right and fake-news ecosystem that has become relevant since President Donald Trump’s rise to power.
CONSPIRACY-PSEUDOSCIENCE
Overall, we rate GlobalResearch a Tin Foil Hat Conspiracy and Strong Pseudoscience website based on the promotion of unproven information such as the dangers of Vaccines and 9-11 as a false flag operation.
Globalresearch acts as both a fake news clearinghouse, and as a source for originally-written fake news as attributed to "Global Research News" or "Global Research". Globalresearch contributors are happy to source information from anyone who seems vaguely aligned with their ideology, even if said contributors are full of horseshit:
Despite presenting itself as a source of scholarly analysis, globalresearch.ca. mostly consists of polemics many of which accept (and use) conspiracy theories, pseudoscience and propaganda. Apparently, contributors to globalresearch.ca consider information sourced from.
Principal website of the Centre for Research on Globalization, which The Economist in April 2017 called "a hub for conspiracy theories and fake stories," and NATO information warfare specialists in November 2017 linked to a concerted effort to undermine the credibility of mainstream Western media.
And yet the site is still around, at globalresearch.ca, churning out stories. While it was once a joke, an example of Canada’s truther far left, the Centre for Research on Globalization has now gained new relevance, situated somewhere in the bizarre alt-right and fake-news ecosystem that has become relevant since President Donald Trump’s rise to power.
02-15-2021, 08:20 PM
Mr Dave Van Zandt
Media Bias/Fact Check
(mediabiasfactcheck.com)
Greensboro, NC
Editor@Mediabiasfactcheck.com
Dear Mr Dave Van Zandt,
[b]Re: Notice to Cease & Desist Libelous Conduct[/b]
Please accept this communication as a Cease and Desist Notice prior to legal action under 28 U.S. Code § 4101(1).
It has been drawn to our attention that your business, MEDIA BIAS FACT CHECK is libeling our business, Principia Scientific International(PSI) by posting the following (recorded on March 13, 2020)
On your site at: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/methodology/ you state:
“Conspiracy/Pseudoscience
The Conspiracy/Pseudoscience designation is reserved for sources that publish unverifiable information that relates to known conspiracies such as the New World Order, Illuminati, False Flags, Aliens, etc. Pseudoscience is determined by publishing unverified health and scientific claims. In order to be classified in this group the central theme of the source must revolve around conspiracies or pseudoscience.”
On the same webpage you add the following disclaimer:
[b]“Disclaimer:[/b] The methodology used by Media Bias Fact Check is our own. It is not a tested scientific method. It is meant as a simple guide for people to get an idea of a source’s bias. Media Bias Fact Check will always review and change any factual errors when brought to our attention. We make every effort to be as factual as possible. Our goal is to have MBFC rated as least biased by our own criteria.”
According to Merriam-Webster online dictionary the term ‘pseudoscience’ is defined as: “[b]a system of theories, assumptions, and methods erroneously regarded as scientific.”[/b]
You thus taint our scientific organisation as unscientific – a palpable lie provable in a court of law.
It is our belief you have made the above published statement with intention of causing damage to the reputation of our legally regulated UK non-profit scientific association which is scrupulously regulated under law as a [b]community interest company[/b] (CiC).
By law a CIC is prohibited from political bias i.e. it cannot advocate for any political point of view. To engage in such action would render us likely to be struck off the register or be prosecuted.
Contrary to the false impression you give your readers, we are an international body of 5,500+ members, many of whom are credentialed science professionals, engineers and STEM academics, including award-winning scientists, government experts, etc.
Our published work is not pseudoscience but premised on established scientific methods. A select list of some of our distinguished member is here: A Selection Of Member Biographies. [1]
In conclusion, not only do you admit your own methodology is unscientific, but because you also fail to cite which specific PSI posts are pseudoscience, you condemn all our members, which compounds your own bias.
As per 28 U.S. Code § 4101(1) we regard the words below civilly actionable and demand removal of them within 28 days:
[b] “CONSPIRACY-PSEUDOSCIENCE Sources in the Conspiracy-Pseudoscience category may publish unverifiable information that is not always supported by evidence. These […]”[/b]
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/?s=principia+scientific+international
If you persist in maintaining this false assertion against us to jeopardize our legal standing, I hereby require you to provide substantiation of your accusation. You may do so by providing us a selection of hyperlinks from published material on our website(s) which you claim are ‘conspiracy-pseudoscience.’
Such evidence may then be considered for submission to a court of law for adjudication of the veracity of your claims.
If you are unwilling/unable to provide us the evidence you rely on to make your claims then you are hereby required to remove your false statement.
[1] https://principia-scientific.org/why-psi-is-proposed-as-a-cic/
I await your reply.
Sincerely,
John O’Sullivan CEO
You wanna put the credibility, honesty, and intelligence of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. who has devoted his life to service and protection of children against some guy in N.C? Yer a damn fool.
Media Bias/Fact Check
(mediabiasfactcheck.com)
Greensboro, NC
Editor@Mediabiasfactcheck.com
Dear Mr Dave Van Zandt,
[b]Re: Notice to Cease & Desist Libelous Conduct[/b]
Please accept this communication as a Cease and Desist Notice prior to legal action under 28 U.S. Code § 4101(1).
It has been drawn to our attention that your business, MEDIA BIAS FACT CHECK is libeling our business, Principia Scientific International(PSI) by posting the following (recorded on March 13, 2020)
On your site at: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/methodology/ you state:
“Conspiracy/Pseudoscience
The Conspiracy/Pseudoscience designation is reserved for sources that publish unverifiable information that relates to known conspiracies such as the New World Order, Illuminati, False Flags, Aliens, etc. Pseudoscience is determined by publishing unverified health and scientific claims. In order to be classified in this group the central theme of the source must revolve around conspiracies or pseudoscience.”
On the same webpage you add the following disclaimer:
[b]“Disclaimer:[/b] The methodology used by Media Bias Fact Check is our own. It is not a tested scientific method. It is meant as a simple guide for people to get an idea of a source’s bias. Media Bias Fact Check will always review and change any factual errors when brought to our attention. We make every effort to be as factual as possible. Our goal is to have MBFC rated as least biased by our own criteria.”
According to Merriam-Webster online dictionary the term ‘pseudoscience’ is defined as: “[b]a system of theories, assumptions, and methods erroneously regarded as scientific.”[/b]
You thus taint our scientific organisation as unscientific – a palpable lie provable in a court of law.
It is our belief you have made the above published statement with intention of causing damage to the reputation of our legally regulated UK non-profit scientific association which is scrupulously regulated under law as a [b]community interest company[/b] (CiC).
By law a CIC is prohibited from political bias i.e. it cannot advocate for any political point of view. To engage in such action would render us likely to be struck off the register or be prosecuted.
Contrary to the false impression you give your readers, we are an international body of 5,500+ members, many of whom are credentialed science professionals, engineers and STEM academics, including award-winning scientists, government experts, etc.
Our published work is not pseudoscience but premised on established scientific methods. A select list of some of our distinguished member is here: A Selection Of Member Biographies. [1]
In conclusion, not only do you admit your own methodology is unscientific, but because you also fail to cite which specific PSI posts are pseudoscience, you condemn all our members, which compounds your own bias.
As per 28 U.S. Code § 4101(1) we regard the words below civilly actionable and demand removal of them within 28 days:
[b] “CONSPIRACY-PSEUDOSCIENCE Sources in the Conspiracy-Pseudoscience category may publish unverifiable information that is not always supported by evidence. These […]”[/b]
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/?s=principia+scientific+international
If you persist in maintaining this false assertion against us to jeopardize our legal standing, I hereby require you to provide substantiation of your accusation. You may do so by providing us a selection of hyperlinks from published material on our website(s) which you claim are ‘conspiracy-pseudoscience.’
Such evidence may then be considered for submission to a court of law for adjudication of the veracity of your claims.
If you are unwilling/unable to provide us the evidence you rely on to make your claims then you are hereby required to remove your false statement.
[1] https://principia-scientific.org/why-psi-is-proposed-as-a-cic/
I await your reply.
Sincerely,
John O’Sullivan CEO
You wanna put the credibility, honesty, and intelligence of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. who has devoted his life to service and protection of children against some guy in N.C? Yer a damn fool.
02-15-2021, 09:13 PM
It's the "Center of Research on Globalization" It says so it website. Tells you it's about conspiracy, not health.
https://www.globalresearch.ca/
It's claim is still up on Globalresearch.ca.
I provided a sampling from numerous sites
Principia Scientific International (PSI) is what you post was from. Also a Conspiracy site.
https://www.globalresearch.ca/
It's claim is still up on Globalresearch.ca.
I provided a sampling from numerous sites
Principia Scientific International (PSI) is what you post was from. Also a Conspiracy site.
02-15-2021, 10:18 PM
Try again dumb ass.
https://climatechangedispatch.com/media-...nd-desist/
https://climatechangedispatch.com/media-...nd-desist/
02-16-2021, 08:32 AM
(02-15-2021, 10:18 PM)k.d. Wrote: [ -> ]Try again dumb ass.
https://climatechangedispatch.com/media-...nd-desist/
Posting the same story twice doesn't make it more valid. But when you find out what happened to the cease and desist letter and the presumed lawsuit, let me know.
A year later and the rating is still there. What am I missing ?
More on Principia Scientific International
Principia claims the Coronavirus pandemic was pre-planned and with purpose; Fact Check | Digit Eye
02-16-2021, 09:38 AM
I'm tired of your fake bullshit. I have better things to do than respond to nonsense.
02-16-2021, 10:10 AM
Please don't respond then. Especially when you scour the web daily until you find a crank website that will to tell you that Gates eats children.