September 20, 2020
NewsGuard is “RATING” our C-VINE Website and They Previously Submitted a List of Questions and Concerns for US to Respond.
Below, is the C-VINE Response and Discovery Answers (In Maroon), to the NewsGuard Questions.
Since it has come to our attention that there is a great deal of concern about the legitimacy of Fact Checker and Rating Services… we at C-VINE have decided to make this RATING and Fact Checking process we have to go through, “PUBLIC” for our readers to watch. NewsGuard provides a “service” for We the People to warn and protect us from Fake News. They therefore should be open to scrutiny from the people they are serving.
Our members and volunteers are also investigating the history, background and track record of NewGuard. You may join in the investigation process by looking closely at their website. We will be publishing the findings from our licensed investigators and general public after we receive our RATING from NewsGuard and will be reporting it back to you. Please take the time to review the following to assist us in our future report…
- The Bio of the Analyst conducting the investigation, HERE
- The NewGuard Website HERE
- List of investors HERE
- List of Social Media Clients HERE
The Initial NewsGuard announcement to us, including the e-mail Request & Response is Linked Below at the Bottom.
Now let’s move onto this report of C-VINE being rated by NewsGuard….
NewsGuard Questions by:
- The story “CDC Quietly Lowers C-19 Death Count to 6%” (Aug. 31, 2020) states that “there were only 9,210 actual COVID deaths” because deaths were listed as COVID even in cases where patients had underlying conditions. The CDC’s public reporting on COVID-19 deaths does indicate that COVID-19 was the only cause of death listed for 6% of cases. However, numerous sources, including the CDC, news outlets like The Associated Press, and experts in the global health field, have confirmed that does not mean that people with underlying illnesses did not die from the disease. At present, the death count for COVID-19 in the U.S. stands at 192,000. There are also an untold amount of doctors and nurses who are active in practice, that vehemently disagree with that. We have our own government sources and research that agree with our findings. The death count continues to be adjusted because of continual errors found on how the numbers and percentages were determined. In addition, many of your “sources” for information are NewsGuard investors, or lobbyist as our investigations have found out, but that will be placed in our future report on NewsGuard. Therefore, NewsGuard Opinions are biased because you are paid by some of the people who make the assertions.
- Another story about COVID-19, “Does Dr. Fauci Have a Conflict of Interests?” (May 13, 2020), suggests that Dr. Fauci has financial ties to Gilead Sciences, a pharmaceutical company the article says Fauci is promoting. Fauci has promoted remdesivir (a Gilead product) as a potential drug for COVID-19, however he does not have any known links to Gilead Sciences and would not profit off of the drug, which is owned wholly by Gilead. Remdesivir has not been approved by the FDA for any indication, including COVID-19. C-VINE is in disagreement with your findings and we stand by the article being factual.
- The story “Does Director of National Institute of Health Accidentally Push Therapeutics”? (Aug. 14, 2020), states that Kamala Harris cannot become President of the United States because neither of her parents are natural-born citizens. This is a claim that has been debunked by numerous fact-checking organizations. Harris was born in Oakland, California, in 1964, meaning that she is a natural-born citizen, and the U.S. Constitution says that “no person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States…shall be eligible for the office of President.” The following answer comes from one of our investigative journalists (JoLynn Live) that I requested she answer your question directly….
“The first link below is the written article by Judicial Watch, addressing her run for VP. The second link is a video clip of the original. The third link is the Newsweek link referenced by Tom Fitton. This might be more than you asked for … but you know me… ‘Research, Joe!’ ~JoLynn
Judicial Watch article: (Aug. 25, 2020) : Kamala Harris’ Eligibility to Be Vice President?“Scrutinizing her record as the U.S. Senator from California and her eligibility to become vice president under the 14th amendment’s citizenship clause, Tom Fitton’s Judicial Watch is working to get you all of the facts on Senator Harris before you vote this November.”
Video Aug. 14, 2020 (Posted: Sept. 12, 2020)- Judicial Watch, “Is Kamala Harris Eligible to be Vice President?”
Newsweek article (Aug. 12, 2020) Tom Fitton referenced, By: John Eastman, “Some Questions For Kamala Harris About Eligibility”“Were Harris’ parents lawful permanent residents at the time of her birth? If so, then under the actual holding of Wong Kim Ark, she should be deemed a citizen at birth—that is, a natural-born citizen—and hence eligible. Or were they instead, as seems to be the case, merely temporary visitors, perhaps on student visas issued pursuant to Section 101(15)(F) of Title I of the 1952 Immigration Act? If the latter were indeed the case, then derivatively from her parents, Harris was not subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States at birth, but instead owed her allegiance to a foreign power or powers—Jamaica, in the case of her father, and India, in the case of her mother—and was therefore not entitled to birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment as originally understood.”
- The story “Has Madam Ghislane Maxwell Opened Pandora’s Box?” discussed the theory that Wayfair has been trafficking children through overpriced items on its website. This has also been debunked by a number of outlets, and Wayfair has issued a statement denying the allegations. In addition, two missing children identified as victims came forward to say that the claims were not true. The final determinations have not been found in a court of law. Two children suddenly showing up claiming the story isn’t true is not enough for the American people. The article was a report on observations made at the time. Discovery is on-going.
- The website discusses QAnon regularly, including in an undated story headlined “The Great Awakening Movement,” which explains QAnon. In May 2019, the FBI identified QAnon as a “fringe political” conspiracy group, and multiple news outlets have found no evidence to back the group’s claims. Until the claims you just mentioned are proven to be false… C-VINE has decided we will take the high road and no longer directly reference Q in future news stories. We are in the process of removing past “Q” content. I do need to address your reference about the FBI, who is currently under serious investigation for a number of situations of corruption. Therefore, C-VINE doesn’t consider that a viable source for reference at present. What we have considered is that President Trump has NO PROBLEM in warning We the People about corruption, fake news or otherwise questionable groups. He has never warned us away from Q. I also suspect that the “multiple news outlets” you mention are probably on Trump’s list of Fake News (MSM) and strongly leaning to the Left. Correct me if those suspicions are wrong. In fact… NewsGuard has “RATED” these MSM News Sources as accurate. Because if that is true, the assertion is very biased and has added to NewGuard’s lack of credibility.
Initial e-mail request (screenshot) from NewsGuard to C-VINE BELOW.
Linda Forsythe is a Volunteer Citizen Journalist. Patriot, Grandma, Reporter of the 9/11, KSM et al, Pre-trial Tribunals from GTMO and Founder of C-VINE.You May Join Lively Discussions with other Members on the C-VINE Website Forum or on the Facebook GROUP Page here… https://www.facebook.com/groups/CvineNewsTalk/
We would be grateful for one time donations at: https://c-vine.com/donate-now/ OR become a Member of C-VINE for a regular monthly donation at: https://c-vine.com/membership-donation/
What legally recognized authority is News Guard operating under? What authority or entity is directing News Guard to rate any website? Who is Financing News Guard and what business entity are they operating under? Is News Guard aware there is free speech in the constitution of the United States of America. That we as citizens not only have a right but a responsibility to scrutinize information presented to us. Just as News Guard is free to post to THEIR OWN website any information they want to. What authority is News Guard using to prevent & silence our free speech? Is New Guard an American owned company, or is News Guard based in a foreign country? Does News Guard have any registrations with the U.S Government giving them authority to scrutinize American citizens operating an American based website? Who is Funding New Guard. Who has given News Guard any authority to place warnings on content? If News Guard is in disagreement they are free to post that information just as we are free to post our disagreements.
“Do you consider the latter to be adequate disclosure that the article is opinion?” Question from New Guard ? This is not a real question. This is a judgment on News Guards OPINION of the previously stated information. News Guard should state real questions if they have them or state what their opinion really is and not some vailed insult. This question reveals more about News Guard than they realize. One they are not an authority of any kind. Two the real reason for the harassment is that they disagree with the information on this website. Which they are free to do. But should do so honestly. This is not an honest question and leads me to believe this is not an honest authority or business. Do they have any connections with the FCC? Are they backed by the FCC? Adding their caution to the information they disagree with and there for attempting to block the information is wrong. I would like to know what the FCC says about it. As I have said they have a right to disagree with the information and to post it on their own website but they do not have a right or authority to prevent us from expressing our free speech which if they choose to put a warning on information from this site they would be doing. Preventing our information from being seen and our voice from being freely expressed.
Comments are closed.