By C. Stuart

Who would have thought that my morning cup of Joe would put me face to face with a stunning example of false fact-checking — from a respected Canadian conservative news source no less?! I was perturbed, annoyed even. But with that early morning frustration came an unexpected opportunity to follow up on a previous Druthers article.

On January 31, the National Post published a story about the trucker protest in Ottawa. The article was at its root a defense of the trucker’s right to protest in the capital.That was refreshing and encouraging to read in a national newspaper. However, as often happens these days with people who support those defending their fundamental rights, the author of the article took a few shots at the supposed conspiracy mindset of those protesting in Ottawa. It almost felt like the author believed that if he/she were going to defend the lawful and peaceful protest by these everyday Canadians, they should also undercut some of them for their “wrong thinking”, in order to maintain credibility in legacy news circles. The article’s author highlighted the supposed wrong thinking of some in the trucker crowd by referring to a sign allegedly carried by one protester. That protest sign read, “Unvaxxed sperm is the next Bitcoin.” In the author’s opinion the sign was a reference to a “discredited” theory that Covid vaccines negatively impact male fertility. It was here that a fact-checking opportunity presented itself. The author included a link to support the fact that the infertility theory has been debunked.

So, I clicked the link.

What I found did not surprise me. It told me loud and clear that it is not just at Yahoo! News and Politifact where authors and fact-checkers need to level up professional diligence.

The actual quote from the Post article was “One protest sign read: “Unvaxxed sperm is the next Bitcoin,” apparently referring to the discredited claim that vaccines cause sterilization. The link takes you to — wait for it — a National Post article from January 21, 2022! That article is (somewhat patronizingly) entitled “No, COVID vaccines won’t make you infertile: study.”

A read-through of that second NP article revealed interesting context. The article ended by summarizing the conclusions of the Boston University researchers who conducted the study. “The authors said that while they can’t draw conclusions about long-term effects of vaccination on fertility, the risk of severe vaccination-related complications drops dramatically after several weeks, and that ‘it is unlikely that adverse effects on fertility could arise many months after vaccination.’ “Wait a second,” I thought, “is that really the same as saying the claim about infertility is discredited by the study? Is that a fair synopsis of the researcher’s stated conclusion?” You decide.

Intrigued by what I view as a clear discrepancy, I decided to dig deeper into the research conducted by Boston University itself. The first thing I noted was that the study, while conducted by BU researchers, was funded by the U.S. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.

I figured a relevant question would be: where does the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development get its money? Turns out they are part of the US National Institute of Health, headed by Doctor Francis Collins, who is Dr. Anthony Fauci’s boss. Collins was implicated most recently through an email trail to the now-infamous attack, or “takedown,” of the authors of the Great Barrington Declaration, a document that argues against COVID-19 lockdowns released on Oct. 4, 2020. That information was released by The US House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis. But I digress. What’s important about NIH’s involvement in funding studies that purport to support vaccine efficacy is that it is rather a monumental conflict of interest. That’s because NIH is co-owner of the patent for Moderna’s Covid vaccine. The Washington Post reported on Moderna backing down in its patent dispute with NIH back in December 2021. Clearly then, NIH has a lucrative financial stake in the success of the vaccine’s rollout through potential licensing agreements on the patent. That qualifies as a conflict of interest. With a capital “C.”

So not only does the study out of Boston not say what the Post article claims it says about the vaccine and male infertility, the study itself was funded by an institute that is in fact part-owner of the vaccine, standing to profit materially from its wide distribution and general acceptance.

In an earlier article, I wrote that James Corbett, award-winning investigative journalist, believes very few people take the time to do the appropriate research into what they read online. The tactic of including embedded links in online reporting suggests to us as readers that the author is backing up their claims with solid proof. Many readers take that for granted and do not bother to investigate the link itself to see where it takes them and what proof is in fact being offered in support of a statement. Since writing that earlier article, I have been challenging myself to put my money where my mouth (or pen) is. I click those hyperlinks. The results have been, thus far, as disappointing as this example. I use this experience as another opportunity to promote and encourage. As consumers of information in the digital age, we must not underestimate the importance of taking seriously the responsibility to do our own research and never blindly trust what any media is serving us up. Sometimes a silver platter isn’t what it seems.