Rose42

Conflict of interest? Maybe. Factcheck.org’s v*****e factchecking was started with a grant from the Johnson Robert Wood (past CEO of J&J) Foundation which has over 12 1/2 million shares in Johnson and Johnson valued at over 2 billion dollars.

Factcheck.org isn’t hiding where the grant came from but its worth noting

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

thom w Loc: San Jose, CA

I guess that would explain why the J&J v*****e is getting such a push. Oh, wait, it isn't is it? I'm sure the effect you have on my appetite isn't relevant to anything, so I won't mention it.

Rose42

Its a good thing you don’t have a dog. You’d kick it you poor miserable creature

Your incessant pettiness reveals more about you than anyone else

Alafoto Loc: Montgomery, AL

Don't hold back, say what you really feel.

DaveO Loc: Northeast CT

Rose42

Lol. Some people simply don’t want to think. Thom is just one of them.

soba1 Loc: Somewhere In So Ca

I didnt start this one

David Martin Loc: Cary, NC

Well, any fact-checker would deem this statement to be false.

Facebook's factcheck.org is partially funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, which was started by one of the Johnson brothers of Johnson & Johnson, and the Foundation therefore owns a ton of J&J stock. They donated $99,870 to Factcheck.org in fiscal 2021. Factcheck.org publishes their financial disclosure here: https://www.factcheck.org/our-funding/

However it is highly unlikely that the fact checkers themselves own $2B in J&J stock.

DaveO Loc: Northeast CT

You can always tell a trumpette, but you can't tell him much!

hondo812 Loc: Massachusetts

https://dearp******c.org/johnson-johnson-booster-and-delta/

Seems like the science is pushing it. Maybe you are just unaware?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Meanwhile, many countries including Canada and others in Europe are using a “mix-and-match” approach, pairing a first Astrazeneca (AZ) dose (a similar adenov***s technology to J&J) with a second m**A dose to increase flexibility due to concerns about v*****e-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT) with the AZ v*****e.

In fact Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and German Chancellor Angela Merkel both opted for a first dose of Astrazeneca and second dose of M*****a.

❓What do we know?

Several facts have raised the question of whether a booster for J&J might be desirable in the face of the rising Delta variant.

➡️ In the original trials, J&J’s shot was less effective than the m**A v*****es at preventing symptomatic infection (66% vs 95% efficacy), though it was highly effective at preventing hospitalization (93% after 14 days & 100% after 28 days).

➡️ Data from the U.K. show reduced protection from one dose of AZ or m**A v*****es against the Delta variant, while protection from two doses remains high. The drop in one dose protection was larger for the AZ v*****e.

➡️ Several new studies have shown that boosting adenov***s-based v*****e like AZ & J&J with an m**A version results in a strong immune response and may even have immune benefits compared to two doses of the same v*****e.

So what's your preference? Less likely to get sick or less likely to get hospitalized and die?

Go panic amongst yourselves....

hondo812 Loc: Massachusetts

https://www.thestreet.com/technology/facebook-whistleblower-latest-news

The goal of FB fact checkers is not to increase t***h but instead to increase profits.

Rose42

Except that isn’t what I said. I specifically said the “v*****e factchecking” was funded by the group, that they owned 2 billion in stocks and who was a former CEO. It was also mentioned there was no attempt to hide who gave the grant.

People should pay more attention to what they read.

David Martin Loc: Cary, NC

Of course I paid attention.
If you look carefully at my post, I was responding to the title of your post, which I presume you yourself wrote: "V*****e factcheckers for facebook have 2 billion worth of stock in Johnson and Johnson."

It was regarding that statement (the title, not what you said in the remainder of your post) that I suspected fact checkers would deem to be false.

People should pay more attention to the post to which they respond, before responding.

Rose42

Lol. You are indeed correct - my title was misleading and I had not meant it to be. Should have double checked it!

However, there is still a red f**g people should be aware of - a potential conflict of interest. Thats all I meant to point out.