According to snopes the claim is "MOSTLY FALSE" because the word "experiment" never appears in the executive order. The wording is actually "behavioral research insights".
Clear cut snopes manipulates public opinion with bullshit. Really. ^ Mostly False.
Uhhhh... what do you think Snopes is wrong about? Those clickbait headlines were purposely distorting what the executive order was about in order to generate outrage and web traffic. Did you read the executive order?
Insights or Experiments? Oh dear, such wording confuses the mind.
They didnt need a EO for "Insights" or just analyzing existing data. They already do that on a massive scale without warrant and without judicial oversight. Why would they need an executive order for something they have been doing for years? Riddle me that.
Just watch the wording. The only thing backing up your beloved SNOPES is one word. Experiment or Insight? You dont need an executive order for "Insights". This executive order is nothing short of hiring scientist to optimize government propaganda campaigns.
A growing body of evidence demonstrates that behavioral science insights -- research findings from fields such as behavioral economics and psychology about how people make decisions and act on them -- can be used to design government policies to better serve the American people.
Where Federal policies have been designed to reflect behavioral science insights, they have substantially improved outcomes for the individuals, families, communities, and businesses those policies serve. For example, automatic enrollment and automatic escalation in retirement savings plans have made it easier to save for the future, and have helped Americans accumulate billions of dollars in additional retirement savings. Similarly, streamlining the application process for Federal financial aid has made college more financially accessible for millions of students.
To more fully realize the benefits of behavioral insights and deliver better results at a lower cost for the American people, the Federal Government should design its policies and programs to reflect our best understanding of how people engage with, participate in, use, and respond to those policies and programs. By improving the effectiveness and efficiency of Government, behavioral science insights can support a range of national priorities, including helping workers to find better jobs; enabling Americans to lead longer, healthier lives; improving access to educational opportunities and support for success in school; and accelerating the transition to a low-carbon economy.
NOW, THEREFORE, by the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, I hereby direct the following:
(a) Executive departments and agencies (agencies) are encouraged to:
(i) identify policies, programs, and operations where applying behavioral science insights may yield substantial improvements in public welfare, program outcomes, and program cost effectiveness;
(ii) develop strategies for applying behavioral science insights to programs and, where possible, rigorously test and evaluate the impact of these insights;
(iii) recruit behavioral science experts to join the Federal Government as necessary to achieve the goals of this directive; and
(iv) strengthen agency relationships with the research community to better use empirical findings from the behavioral sciences.
(b) In implementing the policy directives in section (a), agencies shall:
(i) identify opportunities to help qualifying individuals, families, communities, and businesses access public programs and benefits by, as appropriate, streamlining processes that may otherwise limit or delay participation -- for example, removing administrative hurdles, shortening wait times, and simplifying forms;
(ii) improve how information is presented to consumers, borrowers, program beneficiaries, and other individuals, whether as directly conveyed by the agency, or in setting standards for the presentation of information, by considering how the content, format, timing, and medium by which information is conveyed affects comprehension and action by individuals, as appropriate;
(iii) identify programs that offer choices and carefully consider how the presentation and structure of those choices, including the order, number, and arrangement of options, can most effectively promote public welfare, as appropriate, giving particular consideration to the selection and setting of default options; and
(iv) review elements of their policies and programs that are designed to encourage or make it easier for Americans to take specific actions, such as saving for retirement or completing education programs. In doing so, agencies shall consider how the timing, frequency, presentation, and labeling of benefits, taxes, subsidies, and other incentives can more effectively and efficiently promote those actions, as appropriate. Particular attention should be paid to opportunities to use nonfinancial incentives.
(c) For policies with a regulatory component, agencies are encouraged to combine this behavioral science insights policy directive with their ongoing review of existing significant regulations to identify and reduce regulatory burdens, as appropriate and consistent with Executive Order 13563 of January 18, 2011 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review), and Executive Order 13610 of May 10, 2012 (Identifying and Reducing Regulatory Burdens).
Sec. 2. Implementation of the Behavioral Science Insights Policy Directive. (a) The Social and Behavioral Sciences Team (SBST), under the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC) and chaired by the Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, shall provide agencies with advice and policy guidance to help them execute the policy objectives outlined in section 1 of this order, as appropriate.
(b) The NSTC shall release a yearly report summarizing agency implementation of section 1 of this order each year until 2019. Member agencies of the SBST are expected to contribute to this report.
(c) To help execute the policy directive set forth in section 1 of this order, the Chair of the SBST shall, within 45 days of the date of this order and thereafter as necessary, issue guidance to assist agencies in implementing this order.
Sec. 3. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
(i) the authority granted by law to a department or agency, or the head thereof; or
(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) Independent agencies are strongly encouraged to comply with the requirements of this order.
(d) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
BARACK OBAMA
THE WHITE HOUSE,
September 15, 2015.
So uh ya. Its all in the wording.
The initiative draws on research from University of Chicago economist Richard Thaler and Harvard law school professor Cass Sunstein, who was also dubbed Obama’s regulatory czar. The two behavioral scientists argued in their 2008 book “Nudge” that government policies can be designed in a way that “nudges” citizens towards certain behaviors and choices.
The desired choices almost always advance the goals of the federal government, though they are often couched as ways to cut overall program spending.
In its 2013 memo, which was reported by Fox News at the time, the White House openly admitted that the initiative involved behavioral experimentation.
“The federal government is currently creating a new team that will help build federal capacity to experiment with these approaches, and to scale behavioral interventions that have been rigorously evaluated, using, where possible, randomized controlled trials,” the memo read.
Here's a couple of good reads. Obama is modeling his ministry of propaganda after the UKs BIT and Nudge unit after they showed a massive increase in the effectiveness of their propaganda.
Sorry I didn't get back to you earlier. I was busy at work.
I did read it. But I'm not sure you have. If you have, tell me what new authority you think has been given to government agencies. There is none.
You ask "Why would they need an executive order for something they have been doing for years?" They don't need an executive order. Most executive orders are directives to agencies on how to do their jobs and what problems to concentrate on. Obama has issued an executive order on average every 11 days. You seem to think that an executive order is some kind of nefarious thing.
If "it's all in the wording", tell me what words you objects to.
Do you think that government agencies should ignore the results of research on human behavior? Do you think that government agencies should be forbidden from hiring consultants who can help them design better programs? Do you think that government agencies should stick with ineffective programs and not try to change their programs to make them better?
Oh maybe crowdsource was a bad choice of words. What I had meant is that the couple mostly just compile info from other sources, I dont think they do too deep of original investigation
I switched to my work account to comment, but just so you know, Snopes isn't just two people. I work there. You can check that, and we have other writers. A lot of these ideas of the site being "just a married couple" are based on an outdated premise.
For all the objections continuously raised about whether Snopes is the barometer of truth, this never is articulated:
Anyone is free to double-check anything on the site and propose corrections. It isn't like people can't double check any page and share their objection with us and/or the internet at large. Please do this. Accuracy is important.
The way people go on, you'd think that there is just no possible way to double check anything we've written. People may disagree with particular conclusions, but we include any relevant sources and citations on any page to enable readers to verify a page's conclusions for themselves. And if new information comes to light that changes the status of a page, we add it. They're reference pages, constantly updated as needs be.
Basically, please bear in mind that any information we publish is held to the highest scrutiny by readers. It is is simply impossible for an outdated or inaccurate bit of information to survive long on the site (and sometimes information becomes outdated, we have a status for that).
Of course, some pages are perpetually contested. The Thompson/CDC page is the perfect example of that. But no additional data aside from the study in question supported that claim; we simply did not have any additional information (or the weight of scientific evidence) to further entertain it.
By and large, the majority of Snopes pages are not heavily disputed. As for seeking to "influence the internet," that's not at all the site's purpose. The site exists simply to catalogue folklore and urban legends, a task that has since evolved to become more current and immediate. No page begins with a conclusion- we start with a blank slate based upon the emails, Facebook messages, and message board posts we receive asking whether something is true or false. We base that conclusion (where applicable) on what we find in research and I've never been asked to change any of the hundreds of pages I've written to suit any agenda or predetermined outcome. I've also known Snopes since 2000, and I've never known him to be heavily invested in any philosophy or belief. Folklorists require an open mind.
I'll answer any reasonable questions if you have any :) If I can't, I'll explain why.
And if new information comes to light that changes the status of a page, we add it.... But no additional data aside from the study in question supported that claim; we simply did not have any additional information (or the weight of scientific evidence) to further entertain it.
As I'm sure you're aware, third party repetition of a claim does not equate to corroboration of that claim. Plenty of lawmakers repeat information they've received from constituents, but that in no way provides evidence the repeated claim is true.
Will Snopes be incorporation this new info or is everything you just wrote PR?
We reviewed it when it was current, but it did not provide any further support for the original assertion.
Every page has a huge bullet point at the top that says either FALSE, TRUE, or MIXED.... ????
The writing of the page does not begin with a conclusion. The formulation of a truth status is generally something that occurs once the information is reviewed and the page is written. We don't start out by trying to prove or disprove anything. The truth status occurs AFTER the information is reviewed (not before).
The only source of revenue is ads. The number of employees is more than two and less than ten, inclusive of people who work in different capacities than me. The only people with whom I am in contact are the other writers and the assistant, because many functions aren't stuff I deal with (like design). I couldn't say for sure precisely how many people that is, because things like site design don't involve me. (I also don't know if those people work incrementally or continually.)
There are three other full-time employees with whom I regularly and directly work on the site's day-to-day operations. We're geographically distant from one another (New York, LA, Chicago, and Boston respectively), so it's not like people are coming into the office. Does that make sense?
Why is their "family history" relevant? The question should be, how accurate is the content on their site. And despite a great deal of shrieking to the contrary on this subreddit, I have yet to be given a confirmed case of Snopes.com providing inaccurate information.
Truth is, they seem a good deal more accurate and well-researched than most of the conspiracy sites. They certainly are a good deal less gullible, putting the legwork in to research and discredit some of the more dubious claims out there. Any genuine "truth seekers" should applaud their efforts, because it's a damn sight more effort than many people make.
You have yet to be given a confirmed case of Snopes.com providing inaccurate information?
Get ready then!
Go look up Snopes.com's snarky article "Flight of Fancy" in which they claimed to have "debunked" Michael Moore's reporting that the Bin Laden family were flown out of the US after 9/11. Snopes believed a Pentagon press release over the investigative journalist (falling for propaganda over fact-checking) and got burned. They later had to apologize to Moore and concede that he was right and they were wrong.
Google it.
So your claim that Snopes hasn't been busted for peddling misinformation just got debunked.
There are numerous other cases, too.
But for starters, go Google "Flight of Fancy" and use the key phrases "Snopes retracts" and "apologizes". The embarrassing thing for Snopes wasn't just that they were wrong. What was cringe-worthy about it is how arrogant and contemptuous they were of Moore. How they made every effort to belittle him . . . and then had to backtrack with egg on their face. It was pathetic.
(Odd how an investigative journalist with decades of experience was right, and non-professional arm-chair pseudo-detectives were wrong. Funny how that works!) Moral of the story: Don't get your medical advice from bus drivers. Don't get your legal counsel from a hotdog vendor. And don't get your fact-checking from people with no professional background in investigation, detective work, or research analytics.
Go look up Snopes.com's snarky article "Flight of Fancy" in which they claimed to have "debunked" Michael Moore's reporting that the Bin Laden family were flown out of the US after 9/11.
I'm looking at it right now. Looks solid to me. Where is this "misinformation" of which you speak?
Please note, I used the present tense in my comment. Let me repeat the relevant sections, with emphasis added, since you apparently misunderstood:
how accurate is the content on their site
I have yet to be given a confirmed case of Snopes.com providing inaccurate information.
Those are current tenses. An example from 12 years ago, of a piece which was then corrected, simply doesn't qualify. Your statement:
Your claim that Snopes hasn't been busted for peddling misinformation just got debunked.
Is thus rated FALSE. :)
I don't demand or expect 100%, permanent accuracy from any source, as long as when new evidence is brought to light, they update their stance as appropriate. If only certain conspiracy theorist sources were as willing to change their positions in light of facts.
(Odd how an investigative journalist with decades of experience was right, and non-professional arm-chair pseudo-detectives were wrong. Funny how that works!)
You really think Michael Moore is some kind of bastion of truth and accuracy? LOL. There have been entire websites (the currently down moorelies.com) devoted to pointing out the lies, distortions and factual inaccuracies peddled in his pseudo-documentaries. Have a few mere web-pages, from sources both mainstream and alternative.
So I guess being "an investigative journalist with decades of experience" isn't any better. What are Moore's credentials? As far as I can tell, he dropped out of university after a single year, so has no professional qualifications either. All he actually has is his "decades of experience" - in other words, the same as the Mikkelsons! LOL once again.
Really, if you wanted an example of an investigative journalist dedicated to the truth, he is about the last example you should be holding up. I'll believe the Mikkelsons over Moore every day and twice on Sundays.
Check their actual credentials (which include prior job history, education, etc). Neither of them has credentials in investigation or research. If memory serves, one was a computer programmer and the other was a housewife.
I love, though, how they're claiming their website is their "professional experience," lol. Frauds.
That's like me inventing a diploma mill called "Reddit University" and someone saying, "Hey, he has no credentials to run an institution of higher learning!" and me saying, "Not true! I have a PhD from Reddit University . . . the very institution I own and run."
Never go to a surgeon whose medical degree came from a diploma mill. And never accept the credentials of "professional fact-checkers," whose only "professional" credential is their own website.
Check their actual credentials (which include prior job history, education, etc). Neither of them has credentials in investigation or research.
I trust you apply these same, rigorous standards to all sources... But, it appears, you don't, going by your fawning love of Michael Moore, who seems to have obtained no credentials in investigation or research either.
Snopes dismisses the claims of CDC Whistleblower William Thompson (who said he participated in fraud at the CDC). Thompson proved with documentation that he committed fraud while part of the CDC. How does Snopes debunk him? By citing the EXACT STUDIES he has his name on and he says were done fraudulently.
Here's another one: http://www.snopes.com/rumors/putcall.asp During 911, there were giant put calls made on the airlines stock price tanking days before 911. This obviously points to insider trading. How does Snopes debunk this? By citing a news article that cites the 911 Commission report which simply says "nothing to see here."
You're a complete retard if you can't tell when Snopes is serving you bullshit.
Nope. The claim being investigated is NOT Thompson's fraud allegations. It's stated, right at the top: "Data suppressed by the CDC proved that the MMR vaccine produces a 340% increased risk of autism in African-American boys." Snopes does conclude, "What got lost in the brouhaha over Dr. Thompson's "confession," allegations about a "cover-up" at the CDC, and threats of whistleblower lawsuits was what should have been the main point: Did collected data actually prove that the MMR vaccine produces a 340% increased risk of autism in African-American boys? The answer is no, it did not."
During 911, there were giant put calls made on the airlines stock price tanking days before 911. This obviously points to insider trading.
Not if there are "giant put calls" being made on all manner of stocks, all the time. Which there actually are.
that cites the 911 Commission report which simply says "nothing to see here."
It doesn't say anything of the kind, being a lot more detailed: "A single U.S.-based institutional investor with no conceivable ties to al Qaeda purchased 95 percent of the UAL puts on September 6 as part of a trading strategy that also included buying 115,000 shares of American on September 10. Similarly, much of the seemingly suspicious trading in American on September 10 was traced to a specific U.S.-based options trading newsletter, faxed to its subscribers on Sunday, September 9, which recommended these trades."
Your counter-evidence is that it "obviously" was insider trading. Yeah, I'm going with Snopes here. You're 0-for-2.
The journal which published Hooker's claim later retracted the article, stating "undeclared competing interests" and "concerns about the validity of the methods and statistical analysis", concluding they "no longer have confidence in the soundness of the findings." What is circular about that?
Its circular because the ones that are accusing hooker and Thompson of fraud, are the ones who committed the fraud in the first place. A senior CDC scientist (who is STILL EMPLOYED there) comes out and says "I participated in fraud. Here are the fake studies and here's the original data that proves what im saying". The media is dead silent and the journal (which published the fraudulent paper to begin with) says "Nope. What he's saying is false." And how do they prove it? By pointing to the study with his name on it.
Ask yourself this, if at your job you lied and told everyone your company was committing fraud, how long would you remain employed there? Id be fired from my job yesterday if I ever did that. Now why do you think William Thompson is still employed by the CDC if what Snopes says is true and he's lying?
Ask yourself this, if at your job you lied and told everyone your company was committing fraud, how long would you remain employed there? Id be fired from my job yesterday if I ever did that. Now why do you think William Thompson is still employed by the CDC if what Snopes says is true and he's lying?
Conversely, if at your job you TOLD THE TRUTH and told everyone your company was committing fraud, how long would you remain employed there?
Rather than making any effort to follow up on his accusations, Thompson has said nothing of note or relevance for more than a year. Not even a rebuttal of the independent decision for his paper getting pulled. Hardly what you'd expect from a true "whistleblower", eh?
Again, "Did collected data actually prove that the MMR vaccine produces a 340% increased risk of autism in African-American boys? The answer is no, it did not." The only evidence submitted to that end, has now been withdrawn by the journal that published it, with severe doubts regarding its validity. So the bottom line is, Snopes are right.
Again, "Did collected data actually prove that the MMR vaccine produces a 340% increased risk of autism in African-American boys? The answer is no, it did not."
Once again, all you are doing is quoting the people who committed the fraud...
The Editor and Publisher regretfully retract the article as there were undeclared competing interests on the part of the author which compromised the peer review process. Furthermore, post-publication peer review raised concerns about the validity of the methods and statistical analysis, therefore the Editors no longer have confidence in the soundness of the findings.
So, in your mind, the whole CDC whistleblower saga can be chalked up to one scientist coming out and lying? And then retaining his job after the defamatory claim that the CDC are hiding the link between Mercury and autism?
I'm not going to engage in baseless speculation. The bottom line is, the evidence does not support his claim of a link between vaccines and autism. The journal doesn't think it does and, going by his silence and lack of any rebuttal, neither does the author.
With that apparently gone, what exactly is it that the CDC are supposed to be covering up?
With that apparently gone, what exactly is it that the CDC are supposed to be covering up?
Following on from that, how has this localized coverup managed to suppress any supporting science from researchers and doctors anywhere else in the world? Science isn't based on the word or interpretation of one man, it's why we have peer review and replicate findings.
What do you mean "baseless"? It's a fact that a CDC whistleblower came out. Either he's lying or he's telling the truth. Since you believe he's lying, I am asking you why then do you think he's still employed?
If he's telling the truth, why is he still working there? Why hasn't he quit? It'd be like Edward Snowden still working for the NSA. That's an equally legitimate question.
I'd say, to keep collecting a paycheck, to continue his career, to feed his family, etc.
Makes every bit as much sense. But again, you are ignoring the important fact. How does his continued employment prove a conspiracy? It doesn't. *Snopes are right *. There is no credible evidence for a cover up.
I'd say, to keep collecting a paycheck, to continue his career, to feed his family, etc.
So the CDC is keeping him employed after he lied to "Keep collecting a paycheck, to continue his career, to feed his family, etc." Are you retarded? This doesn't even make sense.
Makes every bit as much sense.
No. No it doesn't. Not at all.
How does his continued employment prove a conspiracy?
It proves that he has legal leverage to sue if he was terminated. If they did terminate for revealing the truth, he could sue them and then things would get deeper. The motivation not to fire him is legal.
Nor does the idea he would blow the whistle,and choose to stay at such an allegedly corrupt establishment.
There's 100,000 pages of scientific data
Not one paragraph of which has been released in over a year since that statement. Claiming it as "evidence" for anything seems premature, to put it mildly.
Here is Congressman Posey presenting all the information and evidence
LOL. That's all the information? He's basically doing nothing except reading Thomson's statement. Nothing from the 100,000 pages at all. Funny that: he's had them for a year, and still has found nothing of interest or relevance?
Until those documents are ACTUALLY released - and perhaps Thompson ceases his inexplicable, apparently happy continued employment at de ebil CDC - you've got nothing. I'm sure if something comes out, Snopes will update the page, as they've done on other topics. But right now, there is just no such credible evidence.
Also known as a continuing misrepresentation, a lie by omission occurs when an important fact is left out in order to foster a misconception. Lying by omission includes failures to correct pre-existing misconceptions.
Take their debunking of Sandy Hook. Not one mention of Google and Bing caching United Way donation pages 3 days early.
That's because that isn't how google and bing caching works:
Sandy Hook Fundraising Relief Page Created 3 Days Before Shooting (Updated)
NaturalNews.com
AUTHOR Mike Adams
ARTICLE UPDATE:
FreedomBrief.com readers have uncovered information that debunks the theories introduced by NaturalNews.com in this article. Google scans the web pages looking for dates and then applies anything it finds to the search results. Our own article appears to have the date ‘December 11, 2012′ in the search results, although it was published on ‘January 11, 2013,’ this is because the date ‘December 11, 2012′ is listed in the article. Although we have not been able to confirm this with Google, it appears to be accurate. Please keep this in mind as you read this article. Thank you.
Never mind there was never a history of this page at the internet archive until the 15th. If crawlers would get to it like they did
I was unaware of the health rangers involvement.
Google admins called it a glitch. So the information being presented by freedom briefs has some skid marks in it.
I know, right? It's a just a fucking website. I love how the people in this subreddit try and find flaws with every little thing that they come across and point to it as "conspiracy".
I was unaware of the health rangers involvement.
Google admins called it a glitch. So the information being presented by freedom briefs has some skid marks in it.
Ask yourself this, if at your job you lied and told everyone your company was committing fraud, how long would you remain employed there? Id be fired from my job yesterday if I ever did that. Now why do you think William Thompson is still employed by the CDC if what Snopes says is true and he's lying?
Conversely, if at your job you TOLD THE TRUTH and told everyone your company was committing fraud, how long would you remain employed there?
Rather than making any effort to follow up on his accusations, Thompson has said nothing of note or relevance for more than a year. Not even a rebuttal of the independent decision for his paper getting pulled. Hardly what you'd expect from a true "whistleblower", eh?
Again, "Did collected data actually prove that the MMR vaccine produces a 340% increased risk of autism in African-American boys? The answer is no, it did not." The only evidence submitted to that end, has now been withdrawn by the journal that published it, with severe doubts regarding its validity. So the bottom line is, Snopes are right.
49 comments
12 TR0LL_T0LL 2015-09-30
snopes is bullshit
their "debunking" of 9/11 conspiracy theories is laughable
6 facereplacer3 2015-09-30
Yep. They cite sources that are provably wrong (Popular Mechanics).
12 ASaDouche 2015-09-30
I posted about snopes the other day in a thread just to point out how much bullshit snopes is.
Clear cut snopes manipulates public opinion with bullshit. Really. ^ Mostly False.
-7 twsmith 2015-09-30
Uhhhh... what do you think Snopes is wrong about? Those clickbait headlines were purposely distorting what the executive order was about in order to generate outrage and web traffic. Did you read the executive order?
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/09/15/executive-order-using-behavioral-science-insights-better-serve-american
10 ASaDouche 2015-09-30
The real question is DID YOU READ IT? lmfao.
Insights or Experiments? Oh dear, such wording confuses the mind.
They didnt need a EO for "Insights" or just analyzing existing data. They already do that on a massive scale without warrant and without judicial oversight. Why would they need an executive order for something they have been doing for years? Riddle me that.
Just watch the wording. The only thing backing up your beloved SNOPES is one word. Experiment or Insight? You dont need an executive order for "Insights". This executive order is nothing short of hiring scientist to optimize government propaganda campaigns.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/09/15/executive-order-using-behavioral-science-insights-better-serve-american
So uh ya. Its all in the wording.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interactive/2013/07/30/behavioral-insights-team-document/
Here's a couple of good reads. Obama is modeling his ministry of propaganda after the UKs BIT and Nudge unit after they showed a massive increase in the effectiveness of their propaganda.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9853384/Inside-the-Coalitions-controversial-Nudge-Unit.html
http://www.theguardian.com/public-leaders-network/2015/jul/23/rise-nudge-unit-politicians-human-behaviour
http://home.uchicago.edu/davetannenbaum/documents/partisan%20nudge%20bias.pdf
If you want to come at me with some bullshit you better bring your A game because I love tearing idiots illogical uneducated opinions to shreds.
1 twsmith 2015-09-30
Sorry I didn't get back to you earlier. I was busy at work.
I did read it. But I'm not sure you have. If you have, tell me what new authority you think has been given to government agencies. There is none.
You ask "Why would they need an executive order for something they have been doing for years?" They don't need an executive order. Most executive orders are directives to agencies on how to do their jobs and what problems to concentrate on. Obama has issued an executive order on average every 11 days. You seem to think that an executive order is some kind of nefarious thing.
If "it's all in the wording", tell me what words you objects to.
Do you think that government agencies should ignore the results of research on human behavior? Do you think that government agencies should be forbidden from hiring consultants who can help them design better programs? Do you think that government agencies should stick with ineffective programs and not try to change their programs to make them better?
10 [deleted] 2015-09-30
[deleted]
8 qaaqa 2015-09-30
This is why i always laugh when people quote snopes.com
They imagine there is some FBI field office of fact checkers.
No.
Same with polifact
1 Heroic-Dose 2015-09-30
Maybe if they're morons. Snopes factchecking is crowdsourced
8 qaaqa 2015-09-30
So its as reliable as reddit crowdsourced facts with two people (mods) choosing the final results they think are right.
Thanks. Sort of what i figured.
2 Heroic-Dose 2015-09-30
Oh maybe crowdsource was a bad choice of words. What I had meant is that the couple mostly just compile info from other sources, I dont think they do too deep of original investigation
-1 qaaqa 2015-09-30
But it gave me a great assist to do the snarky reddit comment!
Ha ha.
6 burningempires 2015-09-30
With that level of research, you're not going to find much. Two minutes of Google found rather more - have these two for starters:
2 KLaCapria 2015-09-30
I switched to my work account to comment, but just so you know, Snopes isn't just two people. I work there. You can check that, and we have other writers. A lot of these ideas of the site being "just a married couple" are based on an outdated premise.
For all the objections continuously raised about whether Snopes is the barometer of truth, this never is articulated:
Anyone is free to double-check anything on the site and propose corrections. It isn't like people can't double check any page and share their objection with us and/or the internet at large. Please do this. Accuracy is important.
The way people go on, you'd think that there is just no possible way to double check anything we've written. People may disagree with particular conclusions, but we include any relevant sources and citations on any page to enable readers to verify a page's conclusions for themselves. And if new information comes to light that changes the status of a page, we add it. They're reference pages, constantly updated as needs be.
Basically, please bear in mind that any information we publish is held to the highest scrutiny by readers. It is is simply impossible for an outdated or inaccurate bit of information to survive long on the site (and sometimes information becomes outdated, we have a status for that).
Of course, some pages are perpetually contested. The Thompson/CDC page is the perfect example of that. But no additional data aside from the study in question supported that claim; we simply did not have any additional information (or the weight of scientific evidence) to further entertain it.
By and large, the majority of Snopes pages are not heavily disputed. As for seeking to "influence the internet," that's not at all the site's purpose. The site exists simply to catalogue folklore and urban legends, a task that has since evolved to become more current and immediate. No page begins with a conclusion- we start with a blank slate based upon the emails, Facebook messages, and message board posts we receive asking whether something is true or false. We base that conclusion (where applicable) on what we find in research and I've never been asked to change any of the hundreds of pages I've written to suit any agenda or predetermined outcome. I've also known Snopes since 2000, and I've never known him to be heavily invested in any philosophy or belief. Folklorists require an open mind.
I'll answer any reasonable questions if you have any :) If I can't, I'll explain why.
0 TTT_33333 2015-09-30
I guess you're not aware that his data was released to Congressman Bill Posey then? This is the Snopes entry on the CDC whistleblower: http://www.snopes.com/medical/disease/cdcwhistleblower.asp
It was written before Thompson released the data and evidence to prove what he is saying is true. On July 29, 2015 Congressman Posey presented this information on the floor of the House: http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4546421/rep-bill-posey-calling-investigation-cdcs-mmr-reasearch-fraud
Will Snopes be incorporation this new info or is everything you just wrote PR?
Every page has a huge bullet point at the top that says either FALSE, TRUE, or MIXED.... ????
1 KLaCapria 2015-09-30
As I'm sure you're aware, third party repetition of a claim does not equate to corroboration of that claim. Plenty of lawmakers repeat information they've received from constituents, but that in no way provides evidence the repeated claim is true.
We reviewed it when it was current, but it did not provide any further support for the original assertion.
The writing of the page does not begin with a conclusion. The formulation of a truth status is generally something that occurs once the information is reviewed and the page is written. We don't start out by trying to prove or disprove anything. The truth status occurs AFTER the information is reviewed (not before).
1 TTT_33333 2015-09-30
It's presented before the article starts though...
1 KLaCapria 2015-09-30
You are correct. My point was that we fully review everything we include before it is appended.
1 TTT_33333 2015-09-30
How many people work at Snopes? Is Snopes' main source of revenue from internet ads?
1 KLaCapria 2015-09-30
The only source of revenue is ads. The number of employees is more than two and less than ten, inclusive of people who work in different capacities than me. The only people with whom I am in contact are the other writers and the assistant, because many functions aren't stuff I deal with (like design). I couldn't say for sure precisely how many people that is, because things like site design don't involve me. (I also don't know if those people work incrementally or continually.)
There are three other full-time employees with whom I regularly and directly work on the site's day-to-day operations. We're geographically distant from one another (New York, LA, Chicago, and Boston respectively), so it's not like people are coming into the office. Does that make sense?
-5 burningempires 2015-09-30
Why is their "family history" relevant? The question should be, how accurate is the content on their site. And despite a great deal of shrieking to the contrary on this subreddit, I have yet to be given a confirmed case of Snopes.com providing inaccurate information.
Truth is, they seem a good deal more accurate and well-researched than most of the conspiracy sites. They certainly are a good deal less gullible, putting the legwork in to research and discredit some of the more dubious claims out there. Any genuine "truth seekers" should applaud their efforts, because it's a damn sight more effort than many people make.
11 Drooperdoo 2015-09-30
You have yet to be given a confirmed case of Snopes.com providing inaccurate information?
Get ready then!
Go look up Snopes.com's snarky article "Flight of Fancy" in which they claimed to have "debunked" Michael Moore's reporting that the Bin Laden family were flown out of the US after 9/11. Snopes believed a Pentagon press release over the investigative journalist (falling for propaganda over fact-checking) and got burned. They later had to apologize to Moore and concede that he was right and they were wrong.
Google it.
So your claim that Snopes hasn't been busted for peddling misinformation just got debunked.
There are numerous other cases, too.
But for starters, go Google "Flight of Fancy" and use the key phrases "Snopes retracts" and "apologizes". The embarrassing thing for Snopes wasn't just that they were wrong. What was cringe-worthy about it is how arrogant and contemptuous they were of Moore. How they made every effort to belittle him . . . and then had to backtrack with egg on their face. It was pathetic.
(Odd how an investigative journalist with decades of experience was right, and non-professional arm-chair pseudo-detectives were wrong. Funny how that works!) Moral of the story: Don't get your medical advice from bus drivers. Don't get your legal counsel from a hotdog vendor. And don't get your fact-checking from people with no professional background in investigation, detective work, or research analytics.
6 ClavicepsTex 2015-09-30
Don't expect a response from OP, but good show!
0 burningempires 2015-09-30
Sorry to disappoint. Got anything constructive to add?
2 burningempires 2015-09-30
I'm looking at it right now. Looks solid to me. Where is this "misinformation" of which you speak?
Please note, I used the present tense in my comment. Let me repeat the relevant sections, with emphasis added, since you apparently misunderstood:
Those are current tenses. An example from 12 years ago, of a piece which was then corrected, simply doesn't qualify. Your statement:
Is thus rated FALSE. :)
I don't demand or expect 100%, permanent accuracy from any source, as long as when new evidence is brought to light, they update their stance as appropriate. If only certain conspiracy theorist sources were as willing to change their positions in light of facts.
You really think Michael Moore is some kind of bastion of truth and accuracy? LOL. There have been entire websites (the currently down moorelies.com) devoted to pointing out the lies, distortions and factual inaccuracies peddled in his pseudo-documentaries. Have a few mere web-pages, from sources both mainstream and alternative.
So I guess being "an investigative journalist with decades of experience" isn't any better. What are Moore's credentials? As far as I can tell, he dropped out of university after a single year, so has no professional qualifications either. All he actually has is his "decades of experience" - in other words, the same as the Mikkelsons! LOL once again.
Really, if you wanted an example of an investigative journalist dedicated to the truth, he is about the last example you should be holding up. I'll believe the Mikkelsons over Moore every day and twice on Sundays.
0 Tuskinton 2015-09-30
According to their own about page, they have 15 years of professional experience with investigation and research.
If they apologized and presumably retracted their statements, then that makes it seem like they don't have an agenda, but simply made a mistake.
5 Drooperdoo 2015-09-30
No, they have fifteen years of running a website.
Check their actual credentials (which include prior job history, education, etc). Neither of them has credentials in investigation or research. If memory serves, one was a computer programmer and the other was a housewife.
I love, though, how they're claiming their website is their "professional experience," lol. Frauds.
That's like me inventing a diploma mill called "Reddit University" and someone saying, "Hey, he has no credentials to run an institution of higher learning!" and me saying, "Not true! I have a PhD from Reddit University . . . the very institution I own and run."
Never go to a surgeon whose medical degree came from a diploma mill. And never accept the credentials of "professional fact-checkers," whose only "professional" credential is their own website.
0 burningempires 2015-09-30
I trust you apply these same, rigorous standards to all sources... But, it appears, you don't, going by your fawning love of Michael Moore, who seems to have obtained no credentials in investigation or research either.
6 TTT_33333 2015-09-30
Here's one right here: http://www.snopes.com/medical/disease/cdcwhistleblower.asp
Snopes dismisses the claims of CDC Whistleblower William Thompson (who said he participated in fraud at the CDC). Thompson proved with documentation that he committed fraud while part of the CDC. How does Snopes debunk him? By citing the EXACT STUDIES he has his name on and he says were done fraudulently.
Here's another one: http://www.snopes.com/rumors/putcall.asp During 911, there were giant put calls made on the airlines stock price tanking days before 911. This obviously points to insider trading. How does Snopes debunk this? By citing a news article that cites the 911 Commission report which simply says "nothing to see here."
You're a complete retard if you can't tell when Snopes is serving you bullshit.
3 burningempires 2015-09-30
Nope. The claim being investigated is NOT Thompson's fraud allegations. It's stated, right at the top: "Data suppressed by the CDC proved that the MMR vaccine produces a 340% increased risk of autism in African-American boys." Snopes does conclude, "What got lost in the brouhaha over Dr. Thompson's "confession," allegations about a "cover-up" at the CDC, and threats of whistleblower lawsuits was what should have been the main point: Did collected data actually prove that the MMR vaccine produces a 340% increased risk of autism in African-American boys? The answer is no, it did not."
Not if there are "giant put calls" being made on all manner of stocks, all the time. Which there actually are.
It doesn't say anything of the kind, being a lot more detailed: "A single U.S.-based institutional investor with no conceivable ties to al Qaeda purchased 95 percent of the UAL puts on September 6 as part of a trading strategy that also included buying 115,000 shares of American on September 10. Similarly, much of the seemingly suspicious trading in American on September 10 was traced to a specific U.S.-based options trading newsletter, faxed to its subscribers on Sunday, September 9, which recommended these trades."
Your counter-evidence is that it "obviously" was insider trading. Yeah, I'm going with Snopes here. You're 0-for-2.
0 TTT_33333 2015-09-30
Because its fraudulent data. And the guy who manipulated it has come forward to say he did so. Do you see how the Snopes argument is circular?
3 burningempires 2015-09-30
The journal which published Hooker's claim later retracted the article, stating "undeclared competing interests" and "concerns about the validity of the methods and statistical analysis", concluding they "no longer have confidence in the soundness of the findings." What is circular about that?
0 TTT_33333 2015-09-30
Its circular because the ones that are accusing hooker and Thompson of fraud, are the ones who committed the fraud in the first place. A senior CDC scientist (who is STILL EMPLOYED there) comes out and says "I participated in fraud. Here are the fake studies and here's the original data that proves what im saying". The media is dead silent and the journal (which published the fraudulent paper to begin with) says "Nope. What he's saying is false." And how do they prove it? By pointing to the study with his name on it.
Ask yourself this, if at your job you lied and told everyone your company was committing fraud, how long would you remain employed there? Id be fired from my job yesterday if I ever did that. Now why do you think William Thompson is still employed by the CDC if what Snopes says is true and he's lying?
3 burningempires 2015-09-30
Conversely, if at your job you TOLD THE TRUTH and told everyone your company was committing fraud, how long would you remain employed there?
Rather than making any effort to follow up on his accusations, Thompson has said nothing of note or relevance for more than a year. Not even a rebuttal of the independent decision for his paper getting pulled. Hardly what you'd expect from a true "whistleblower", eh?
Again, "Did collected data actually prove that the MMR vaccine produces a 340% increased risk of autism in African-American boys? The answer is no, it did not." The only evidence submitted to that end, has now been withdrawn by the journal that published it, with severe doubts regarding its validity. So the bottom line is, Snopes are right.
0 TTT_33333 2015-09-30
Once again, all you are doing is quoting the people who committed the fraud...
3 burningempires 2015-09-30
No, this was from the people who published Hooker's paper, not the CDC.
0 TTT_33333 2015-09-30
So, in your mind, the whole CDC whistleblower saga can be chalked up to one scientist coming out and lying? And then retaining his job after the defamatory claim that the CDC are hiding the link between Mercury and autism?
3 burningempires 2015-09-30
I'm not going to engage in baseless speculation. The bottom line is, the evidence does not support his claim of a link between vaccines and autism. The journal doesn't think it does and, going by his silence and lack of any rebuttal, neither does the author.
With that apparently gone, what exactly is it that the CDC are supposed to be covering up?
1 KLaCapria 2015-09-30
Following on from that, how has this localized coverup managed to suppress any supporting science from researchers and doctors anywhere else in the world? Science isn't based on the word or interpretation of one man, it's why we have peer review and replicate findings.
That's just not how scientific evidence works.
0 TTT_33333 2015-09-30
What do you mean "baseless"? It's a fact that a CDC whistleblower came out. Either he's lying or he's telling the truth. Since you believe he's lying, I am asking you why then do you think he's still employed?
2 burningempires 2015-09-30
If he's telling the truth, why is he still working there? Why hasn't he quit? It'd be like Edward Snowden still working for the NSA. That's an equally legitimate question.
0 TTT_33333 2015-09-30
To keep collecting a paycheck, to continue his career, to feed his family, etc.
I answered, now are you going to?
2 burningempires 2015-09-30
I'd say, to keep collecting a paycheck, to continue his career, to feed his family, etc.
Makes every bit as much sense. But again, you are ignoring the important fact. How does his continued employment prove a conspiracy? It doesn't. *Snopes are right *. There is no credible evidence for a cover up.
0 TTT_33333 2015-09-30
So the CDC is keeping him employed after he lied to "Keep collecting a paycheck, to continue his career, to feed his family, etc." Are you retarded? This doesn't even make sense.
No. No it doesn't. Not at all.
It proves that he has legal leverage to sue if he was terminated. If they did terminate for revealing the truth, he could sue them and then things would get deeper. The motivation not to fire him is legal.
No evidence? LOL. There's 100,000 pages of scientific data: http://truthinmedia.com/update-congressmans-office-in-possession-of-100000-cdc-whistleblower-documents/
2 burningempires 2015-09-30
Nor does the idea he would blow the whistle,and choose to stay at such an allegedly corrupt establishment.
Not one paragraph of which has been released in over a year since that statement. Claiming it as "evidence" for anything seems premature, to put it mildly.
0 TTT_33333 2015-09-30
You are a retard. Here is Congressman Posey presenting all the information and evidence on the House Floor of Congress on July 29, 2015: http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4546421/rep-bill-posey-calling-investigation-cdcs-mmr-reasearch-fraud
2 burningempires 2015-09-30
LOL. That's all the information? He's basically doing nothing except reading Thomson's statement. Nothing from the 100,000 pages at all. Funny that: he's had them for a year, and still has found nothing of interest or relevance?
Until those documents are ACTUALLY released - and perhaps Thompson ceases his inexplicable, apparently happy continued employment at de ebil CDC - you've got nothing. I'm sure if something comes out, Snopes will update the page, as they've done on other topics. But right now, there is just no such credible evidence.
4 monkey-see-doggy-do 2015-09-30
Also known as a continuing misrepresentation, a lie by omission occurs when an important fact is left out in order to foster a misconception. Lying by omission includes failures to correct pre-existing misconceptions.
Take their debunking of Sandy Hook. Not one mention of Google and Bing caching United Way donation pages 3 days early.
3 eqleriq 2015-09-30
That's because that isn't how google and bing caching works:
Sandy Hook Fundraising Relief Page Created 3 Days Before Shooting (Updated) NaturalNews.com
AUTHOR Mike Adams
ARTICLE UPDATE:
FreedomBrief.com readers have uncovered information that debunks the theories introduced by NaturalNews.com in this article. Google scans the web pages looking for dates and then applies anything it finds to the search results. Our own article appears to have the date ‘December 11, 2012′ in the search results, although it was published on ‘January 11, 2013,’ this is because the date ‘December 11, 2012′ is listed in the article. Although we have not been able to confirm this with Google, it appears to be accurate. Please keep this in mind as you read this article. Thank you.
Never mind there was never a history of this page at the internet archive until the 15th. If crawlers would get to it like they did
https://web.archive.org/web/20120601000000*/https://newtown.uwwesternct.org/
Just nah.
0 monkey-see-doggy-do 2015-09-30
I was unaware of the health rangers involvement. Google admins called it a glitch. So the information being presented by freedom briefs has some skid marks in it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4ttv4XFAbw&list=PLn75NR7aQMZdCt5zlqtI_CgjTNWY9sOHn&index=10
0 lloydbennett1 2015-09-30
That's a strange statement when you think about it.
-5 iamstephen 2015-09-30
I know, right? It's a just a fucking website. I love how the people in this subreddit try and find flaws with every little thing that they come across and point to it as "conspiracy".
-1 qaaqa 2015-09-30
But it gave me a great assist to do the snarky reddit comment!
Ha ha.
0 monkey-see-doggy-do 2015-09-30
I was unaware of the health rangers involvement. Google admins called it a glitch. So the information being presented by freedom briefs has some skid marks in it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4ttv4XFAbw&list=PLn75NR7aQMZdCt5zlqtI_CgjTNWY9sOHn&index=10
3 burningempires 2015-09-30
Conversely, if at your job you TOLD THE TRUTH and told everyone your company was committing fraud, how long would you remain employed there?
Rather than making any effort to follow up on his accusations, Thompson has said nothing of note or relevance for more than a year. Not even a rebuttal of the independent decision for his paper getting pulled. Hardly what you'd expect from a true "whistleblower", eh?
Again, "Did collected data actually prove that the MMR vaccine produces a 340% increased risk of autism in African-American boys? The answer is no, it did not." The only evidence submitted to that end, has now been withdrawn by the journal that published it, with severe doubts regarding its validity. So the bottom line is, Snopes are right.
0 TTT_33333 2015-09-30
You are a retard. Here is Congressman Posey presenting all the information and evidence on the House Floor of Congress on July 29, 2015: http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4546421/rep-bill-posey-calling-investigation-cdcs-mmr-reasearch-fraud