That’s true, the fact checkers can be biased and even dishonest.
Fauci and the CDC were against wearing masks for the general public, but they were always for wearing masks for front line workers.
They just lied to us about why. They were caught with their pants down. Nobody replenished the PPE stores after they were deplenished due to the 2009 swine flu under Obama.
Instead of admitting they were caught red handed and asking the public to save the masks for the front line workers, or even ordering retailers to only sell the masks to front line workers and medical facilites, they told us it was dangerous for us to wear a mask.
But the lie was obvious at the time. How could it be dangerous for us, but not for the front line workers? How much training is needed to wear a mask? Dr Chris Martenson called them out on the lie instantly. And said they were now going to have to get the public to unlearn that.
>> "AP’S ASSESSMENT: False. This study is not affiliated with Stanford University, nor does the author work for the Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Health Care System as he claims." <<
The AP makes the author appear to be a complete fraud. The "Medical Hypotheses" article makes no explicit claim, though, that the author Vainshelboim is currently working for the VA or that the study itself was done at Stanford. Under his name, though, I see "Cardiology Division, Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Health Care System/Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA, United States", put there either by him or the editors. My first assumption would be that he's currently associated with them, so I think that's misleading. I suppose they could be interpreted merely as past associations, but in my opinion they shouldn't be listed that way.
The AP article quotes a Stanford medical school spokesperson as saying, "Several years ago (2015), he was a visiting scholar at Stanford for a year, on matters unrelated to this paper." That's not an insignificant association. It shows that Stanford considered him worthy of that role at the time, and is the kind of thing people list on their credentials. Here's what Wikipedia says:
"In academia, a visiting scholar, visiting researcher, visiting fellow, visiting lecturer or visiting professor is a scholar from an institution who visits a host university to teach, lecture, or perform research on a topic the visitor is valued for."
So making an association with Stanford is not unjustified (e.g., saying something like "written by someone who was once a visiting scholar at Stanford"). The study (hypothesis, summary of evidence) itself was not done at Stanford, though, and no one currently at Stanford gave official approval to its conclusions. It shouldn't be called "a Stanford study". It's just Vainshelboim's opinion.