Real Not Rare - Bias and Credibility

QUESTIONABLE SOURCE

A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no sourcing to credible information, a complete lack of transparency, and/or is fake news. Fake News is the deliberate attempt to publish hoaxes and/or disinformation for profit or influence (Learn More). Sources listed in the Questionable Category may be very untrustworthy and should be fact-checked on a per-article basis. Please note sources on this list are not considered fake news unless specifically written in the reasoning section for that source. See all Questionable sources.

Overall, we rate Real Not Rare as right-biased and Questionable due to its promotion of unverified personal testimonies that cast doubt on vaccine safety without medical verification or evidence from credible sources. The site’s lack of transparency regarding ownership and funding, combined with its anecdotal approach, contributes to its questionable reliability.

Detailed Report

Questionable Reasoning: Lack of Transparency, Pseudoscience, Misinformation
Bias Rating: RIGHT
Factual Reporting: MIXED
Country: USA
MBFC’s Country Freedom Rating: MOSTLY FREE
Media Type: Website
Traffic/Popularity: Minimal Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: LOW CREDIBILITY

History

Real Not Rare is an anti-vaccine website that shares stories of individuals claiming adverse effects from the COVID-19 vaccine, arguing that mainstream media dismisses these experiences. Its mission is to raise awareness about vaccine-related injuries, particularly those linked to COVID-19. The site does not disclose its founding date, organizational structure, or any details about the volunteers or team members behind it. Additionally, it notes that all content is intended for educational and informational purposes only. The domain is registered in the United States.

Read our profile on the United States media and government.

Funded by / Ownership

Real Not Rare does not disclose clear ownership or funding details. The site claims to be grassroots and volunteer-run, but no specific individuals or financial sources are identified.

Analysis / Bias

The site emphasizes individual experiences over broader statistical data and scientific consensus, often omitting the benefits and safety data widely endorsed by major public health bodies like the CDC or WHO. Furthermore, while the Real Not Rare includes a disclaimer stating it does not offer medical advice and encourages readers to consult physicians, many stories convey distrust toward the medical community and public health authorities. This creates a contradiction between the disclaimer’s recommendation to seek medical advice and the content’s implication that doctors and authorities might not be trustworthy.

For example, the story of Danice Hertz, MD, describes adverse health effects after receiving the COVID-19 vaccine. While her medical background lends credibility to her experience, the story lacks corroborating evidence from medical studies or health authorities. Similarly, the story of Michael Locke details a series of debilitating symptoms post-vaccination, but it is presented without medical verification or links to broader studies that would contextualize such events within vaccine safety data. Given the nature of these personal stories and the lack of verification, many of the claims on the site would likely be considered anecdotal rather than evidence-based.

Failed Fact Checks

None by a third-party fact checker.

Overall, we rate Real Not Rare as right-biased and Questionable due to its promotion of unverified personal testimonies that cast doubt on vaccine safety without medical verification or evidence from credible sources. The lack of transparency regarding ownership and funding, combined with its anecdotal approach, contributes to the site’s questionable reliability. (M. Huitsing 10/23/2024)

Source: https://www.realnotrare.com/

Last Updated on October 23, 2024 by Media Bias Fact Check