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 Stand for Health Freedom (SHF) as right-biased due to its focus on individual liberties and opposition to government health mandates. We also rate it as questionable due to its use of selective data, omission of mainstream scientific perspectives, and lack of transparency, which contribute to a mixed rating for factual accuracy.
Detailed Report
Questionable Reasoning: Propaganda, Lack of Transparency, Poor Sourcing, Pseudoscience
Bias Rating: RIGHT
Factual Reporting: MIXED
Country: USA
MBFC’s Country Freedom Rank: MOSTLY FREE
Media Type: Organization/Foundation
Traffic/Popularity: Minimal Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: LOW CREDIBILITY
History
Founded in 2019, Stand For Health Freedom (SHF) is a 501(c)(4) nonprofit advocating for health-related liberties, including parental rights, religious freedoms, informed consent, and privacy. SHF opposes vaccine mandates, COVID-19 protocols, and mask mandates while supporting parental rights in children’s healthcare decisions. It is based in Naples, Florida.
Read our profile on the United States government and media.
Funded by / Ownership
Stand for Health Freedom (SHF) is led by Leah Wilson, an attorney and advocate for health freedom, and Dr. Joel Bohemier, a chiropractor. Together, they co-founded the organization. StandForHealthFreedom.com operates as a nonprofit organization; much of its funding comes from donations from its supporters. The site lacks transparency regarding its financial structure and major donors.
Analysis / Bias
Stand for Health Freedom (SHF) presents a strong right-wing bias, consistently advocating for personal and parental rights over governmental intervention in health matters. For example, it criticizes government-funded health programs like school-based health centers (SBHCs). SHF frames SBHCs as a vehicle for government overreach, claiming they undermine parental rights by providing medical services like vaccinations, mental health care, and reproductive counseling without sufficient parental oversight. This narrative aligns with conservative positions emphasizing personal liberty and skepticism of government interventions. Stand for Health Freedom (SHF) omits the proponents’ perspective of School-Based Health Centers (SBHCs), which emphasize increased access to care for underserved students, improved health outcomes, and healthcare integration into education to reduce barriers.
According to the National School-Based Health Alliance, SBHCs are designed to provide essential services like preventive care, mental health support, and chronic disease management in a convenient, accessible environment, improving both health and academic performance. SHF’s focus on parental rights leaves out these benefits of expanded student care access.
The organization often promotes skepticism toward mainstream institutions like the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the World Health Organization (WHO), and the pharmaceutical industry. For instance, “Who will hold the WHO accountable?” SHF promotes skepticism towards global organizations like the WHO, the UN, and the World Economic Forum, framing them as threats to state sovereignty and individual freedoms. It celebrates recent legislation in Louisiana and Oklahoma that limits these organizations’ influence on public health policies and urges citizens to support “health freedom” candidates in local elections. This aligns with right-wing ideologies, particularly those prioritizing local control and opposing global governance or centralized health mandates. The article cites credible sources such as oklegislature.gov.
Similarly, “WHO in Our Schools?” criticizes initiatives like School-Based Health Centers and the integration of health literacy into curricula, painting them as forms of indoctrination. For sourcing, Stand for Health Freedom (SHF) employs numbered references within the article, but these references do not hyperlink directly to the external sources they cite. Instead, they direct readers back to the same article page, requiring them to manually copy and paste the source URLs to verify the information. In practice, links like the 2011 LA Times reference lead to broken or outdated pages, hindering information verification.
The articles and advocacy pieces on StandForHealthFreedom.com typically employ emotionally charged language designed to resonate with individuals who value personal freedom and autonomy. While the platform focuses on health freedom, it often amplifies concerns about government overreach and the potential dangers of vaccines, masks, and other public health measures, positioning itself in alignment with the broader anti-vaccine movement. This can lead to a sensationalized portrayal of the risks associated with public health interventions.
Stand for Health Freedom often downplays or ignores research from mainstream medical authorities. This selective presentation can result in a skewed portrayal, especially regarding vaccines and COVID-19. While raising legitimate concerns about informed consent, its selective use of facts compromises its credibility. Readers should verify claims with credible scientific sources.
Failed Fact Checks
- None by a third-party fact checker.
Overall, we rate Stand for Health Freedom (SHF) as right-biased due to its focus on individual liberties and opposition to government health mandates. We also rate it as questionable due to its use of selective data, omission of mainstream scientific perspectives, and lack of transparency, which contribute to a mixed rating for factual accuracy. (M. Huitsing 10/11/2024)
Source: https://standforhealthfreedom.com/
Last Updated on October 11, 2024 by Media Bias Fact Check
Do you appreciate our work? Please consider one of the following ways to sustain us.
or
Left vs. Right Bias: How we rate the bias of media sources