Sources in the Conspiracy-Pseudoscience category may publish unverifiable information that is not always supported by evidence. These sources may be untrustworthy for credible/verifiable information, therefore fact checking and further investigation is recommended on a per article basis when obtaining information from these sources. See all Conspiracy-Pseudoscience sources.
- Overall, we rate Stillness in the Storm a Right-Wing Tin-Foil Hat conspiracy and strong pseudoscience website based on scientific and political positions that do not align with the consensus.
Factual Reporting: LOW
World Press Freedom Rank: USA 45/180
Founded in 2015, Stillness in the Storm is a conspiracy and pseudoscience website with a strong right-leaning pro-Trump agenda. According to the about page “Stillness in the Storm is a venue where cutting edge news, research, conspiracy, health and consciousness information can be shared for the purpose of making the world a better place.”
The website lacks transparency as it does not name authors or disclose ownership.
Funded by / Ownership
Stillness in the Storm does not openly disclose ownership. Revenue is derived through advertising and sponsored content.
Analysis / Bias
In review, the website covers pseudoscience such as anti-vaccination propaganda Aborted Human Remains Used in the Production and Testing of Vaccines — Charisma News as well as covid-19 disinformation such as this How To Avoid Mask Mandates & Vaccine Mandates At Work. There is zero evidence to refute masks as a means of protection from Covid and most airborne diseases. Further, during the election of 2020, they have promoted election fraud conspiracies that have never been proven in the court of law such as this: Michigan’s Matt Sealy Explains How President Trump Has SEVERAL Paths To Victory…”Never Count Donald Trump Out!” [VIDEO]. In general, this is an extreme right biased conspiracy site that is rarely factual.
Overall, we rate Stillness in the Storm a Right-Wing Tin-Foil Hat conspiracy and strong pseudoscience website based on scientific and political positions that do not align with the consensus. (D. Van Zandt 12/31/2016) Updated (12/16/2020)