Fact Check: Did the Goverment Censor Facebook for Profit?

You should know that the CEO of Meta/Facebook has stated that he was pressured by the government to remove things that were true from his platform, such as real side-effects regarding the COVID vaccines. If you still doubt that this real censorship equates to your friends and family believing untrue things, then you may want to reconsider how information is filtered and presented to you on social media platforms.

Was Another Reuters Fact-Check Wrong?

The controversy surrounding COVID-19 vaccine information and censorship has continued to evolve. A Zero Hedge article authored by Paul Thacker[29] pointed out the following:

Reuters Fact Check falsely asserted, “The mRNA instructs cells to make the [spike] protein and is broken down by the body shortly thereafter” although the new study found “spike in circulation up to 709 days after vaccination.” When does Reuters Fact Check plan to correct this falsehood in accordance with what is reported in this new study?

Clearly, “709 days” after vaccination is not “shortly thereafter” so Reuters has been caught in a fact checking lie and they still refuse to address this key fact. Given that the spike protein itself has been shown as a causative agent in COVID symptoms, this is even more important. (See the Spike Protein Debates).

Recent developments have added new layers:

1. Mark Zuckerberg’s revelations: In a 2025 interview with Joe Rogan, Mark Zuckerberg, the CEO of Meta/Facebook, claimed that the Biden administration pressured Meta to remove content about vaccine side effects, even when the information was factual. He described intense pressure, including yelling, cursing and threats of repercussions if certain content wasn’t taken down.

2. Meta’s fact-checking partnerships: In January 2025, Zuckerberg announced that Meta had cut ties with Reuters Fact Check and about two-thirds of its fact-checking partners, citing concerns about political bias.

3. Reuters Fact Check controversy: A fact-showing article on Zero Hedge criticizes Reuters Fact Check for allegedly misrepresenting scientific findings and failing to correct previous fact-checks contradicted by new research.

4. Vaccine injury discussions: The article highlights ongoing debates about the recognition and diagnosis of vaccine injuries, including potential misdiagnosis as Long COVID.

5. Censorship concerns: The article suggests a pattern of fact-checks favoring pharmaceutical industry narratives and potentially suppressing discussions about vaccine side effects.

Proof of Government Censorship via Social Media

This is evidence of a crime of censorship for profit.

Mark Zuckerberg revealed that the Biden administration pressured Meta to censor COVID-19 vaccine-related content, including factual information about side effects. In a Joe Rogan podcast interview, Zuckerberg stated:

“They pushed us super hard to take down things that were honestly true. I mean, they basically pushed us and said, ‘You know anything that says that vaccines might have side effects, you need to take down'”[9][11].

Zuckerberg described the pressure as intense, with Biden administration officials reportedly yelling, cursing, and threatening repercussions if certain content wasn’t removed[15]. He emphasized that while he generally supports vaccine programs, he disagreed with the administration’s attempts to censor opposing viewpoints or factual information about side effects[9][11].

This revelation has sparked renewed debate about social media censorship and government influence over tech platforms. Zuckerberg expressed regret for not being more outspoken against this pressure at the time and stated that Meta would be ready to push back if similar situations occur in the future[17]

Who in the Biden Administration Stood to Profit?

Based on the search results, several Biden administration officials had prior connections to pharmaceutical companies and ridesharing companies that could potentially benefit from government policies and partnerships:

1. Jake Sullivan (National Security Adviser): Previously worked as a consultant for Uber, involved in negotiating labor disputes on behalf of ridesharing apps in California[19].

2. Seth Harris (Top Labor Adviser): Authored a policy paper used by Uber and Lyft to classify drivers as “independent workers” rather than employees[19].

3. Antony Blinken (Secretary of State): Before his appointment, he co-founded WestExec Advisors, which had Gilead Sciences (manufacturer of COVID-19 treatment remdesivir) as a client[20].

4. Janet Woodcock (Acting FDA Commissioner): Involved in the rushed approval process for the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine BLA, which some argue was done to enable vaccine mandates[21].

It’s important to note that while these connections exist, the search results do not provide direct evidence of these individuals personally profiting from specific administration decisions. The White House has stated that officials with past connections to relevant companies did not participate in discussions about related initiatives, such as the vaccine transportation partnership with Uber and Lyft[19].

How Do Ride Sharing Companies Figure In?

Ride-sharing companies like Uber and Lyft played a significant role in the Biden administration’s COVID-19 vaccination efforts by offering free rides to vaccination sites. This partnership was framed as a way to address transportation barriers and boost vaccine accessibility, particularly in underserved communities. However, the initiative has raised questions about potential conflicts of interest and the broader motivations behind these collaborations. Uber and Lyft partnered with the Biden administration to provide free rides to vaccination sites from May 24 to July 4, 2021. The companies promoted this initiative through their apps, allowing users to book rides directly to nearby vaccination locations using codes covering up to $15 per trip. The partnership was part of President Biden’s push to have 70% of American adults receive at least one vaccine dose by July 4, 2021. The administration highlighted this collaboration as a way to overcome logistical challenges and ensure equitable vaccine access.

Biden Admin Ties to Pharma

The Biden administration had significant ties to the pharmaceutical industry, with several key officials having prior connections. Secretary of State Antony Blinken’s former consulting firm, WestExec Advisors, had Gilead Sciences (manufacturer of COVID-19 treatment remdesivir) as a client. UN Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield previously worked for Albright Stonebridge Group, which has represented Pfizer. Biden himself has a history of supporting pharmaceutical industry interests, including voting against measures to control drug pricing and pressuring other countries to maintain strong patent protections beneficial to drug companies.

Pharmaceutical and health product companies spent over $372 million on federal lobbying in 2022, outspending every other industry[27]. More than 500 lobbyists were hired to influence the TRIPS waiver decision between 2021 and 2024, with nearly 90% hired by entities opposed to the waiver, primarily pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies[28].

Conclusion

The debate around transparency, censorship, and the handling of vaccine-related information continues to evolve. As of March 2025, there is ongoing research and discussion about the long-term effects of COVID-19 vaccines and the nature of Long COVID. The scientific community continues to investigate these issues, and our understanding may change as new evidence emerges.

Welcome Newsi8, a Decades Long Web Project to Save the Humans

The Spike Protein Debates, Virus Information Revisited