We are currently discussing with a little lawyer house the possibility of suing Reuters and Facebook for defamation. It’s mainly a financial issue, we’re living in a pay/survival and pay/justice world, but we may find a way.
UPDATE: The deal we were first discussing folded, but it happened just when a better one came up. We’re very close to get legal representation and open a case against Reuters, for a starter. Stay tuned!
UPDATE 2 (12.14.2020): We’re ready to launch the legal case against Reuters, we have to surpass two big obstacles though. First, the financial struggle, and I don’t have anymore the energy to beg people and campaign for cash. But it’s still doable. The major issue is that I need to go back to an EU or Commonwealth country, it’s almost impossible to do it from Morocco, it costs much more and it takes much longer. And I can’t even leave my block without getting molested by covidiots. I’m afraid of myself more than I am afraid of them if they initiate any violence. We’ll be paying attention and take any opportunity to get this done, not enough legal precedents and public debates on this topic.

Reuters is not just the #1 news agency in the world, providing a huge chunk of the BS you hear every day on TV and radio. Reuters is also prime fact-checker for Facebook, acting like some sort of elite Snopes.

And since our article on the Rothschild biometric Covid tests went viral, Facebook and Reuters collaborated to suppress it, censor it, defame us and obstruct public access to highly important information.
Let’s just take every sentence from the Reuters defamation piece and perform an autopsy.

The website points to a Dutch website that shows a patent for a “System and Method for Testing for COVID-19″ (here) .
FALSE: THAT’S ON OF THREE DIFFERENT REGISTRIES WE LINK TO, AND IT’S NOT JUST “A DUTCH WEBSITE”, IS THE OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT REGISTRY, THE ULTIMATE AUTHORITY IN THE FIELD. THAT DOWNPLAYING IS INTENTIONAL AND DENOTES DEFAMATION INTENTIONS.

The patent is numbered ‘US20200279585A1’ and has a “Prioriteitsdatum” (Dutch for “priority date”) of “2015-10-13”.
NAILED THIS ONE, YOU CAN COPY-PASTE, HIGH FIVE!

The article claims that the 2015 priority date is evidence that the coronavirus pandemic has been planned.
QUOTE OR IT NEVER HAPPENED. BUT IT’S NICE THAT YOU BROUGHT IT UP

But the author has conflated the terms “priority date” and “application date”.
WE NEVER THOUGHT OF IT BEFORE YOU DID.

The priority date can refer to the earliest filing date in a family of related patent applications, or to the earliest filing date of a particular feature of an invention (here) .
ACTUAL QUOTE FROM THE LINK THEY PROVIDE: “Priority date refers to the earliest filing date in a family of patent applications.”
“CAN BE” VS “IS”. DID THEY JUST ARGUE AGAINST WHAT IS WITH WHAT ASSUME IT CAN BE?! :)))))))
“FAMILY OF PATENTS APPLICATIONS” CAN ALSO BE A SERIES OF SUCCESSIVE IMPROVEMENTS OF A PATENT, AND THIS IS THE CASE HERE.

In this case, Oct. 13, 2015 is when Rothschild first made a provisional application within this family of patents.
FALSE. ALL IT TAKES IS TO ACTUALLY CLICK THOSE LINKS AND READ THE CONTENT, BUT THEY HOPE YOU DON’T. IT’S THE SAME PATENT, IN AN EARLIER STAGE.

A series of regular, non-provisional patent applications were subsequently made for a “System and Method For Using, Processing, and Displaying Biometric Data” (here) .
FALSE: THEY ARE INCREMENTAL MODIFICATIONS OF THE SAME PATENTS, AS THE LINK THEY PROVIDE SHOWS AND ANYONE CAN SEE

These earlier patents are essentially the predecessors to ‘US20200279585A1’ – and as such share similar features, such as the use of biometric data (here) .
THAT’S WHAT WE SAID EXCEPT WE DIDN’T LIE AND DOWNPLAY IT CLAIMING THEY JUST “SHARE FEATURES” WHEN IT’S THE SAME THING WITH SMALL INCREMENTAL IMPROVEMENTS

However, the patent for a system that analyses biometric data to determine whether the user is suffering from COVID-19 was not applied for until May 17, 2020 (here).
FALSE, THAT IS NOT A NEW PATENT, THAT’S JUST THE LAST UPDATE TO THE ONE FILED IN 2015, WHEN THEY ADDED “COVID” TO THE NAME/SPECIFICATIONS AND DID THE FINAL TWEAKS FOR THE NEW MARKET, AS THE LINKS SHOWS

The article also claims to provide evidence of a patent for COVID-19 testing being filed for in 2017.
QUOTE OR IT NEVER HAPPENED. WHAT HAPPENED IS THIS TITLE, QUOTE:
“THIRD REGISTRATION: US, 2017 (ACTUALIZATION FROM 2015)”

It references the patent for a “System and Method for Using, Biometric, and Displaying Biometric Data” and its filing date of April 24, 2017 (here) .
FALSE. IT REFERENCES THE SAME PATENT, AT WHATEVER STAGE OF DEVELOPMENT WAS THEN. NAMES CAN CHANGE, THE CONTENT DOESN’T MUCH. AND REUTERS NEVER MENTIONS THE ACTUAL CONTENT.

As already discussed, although this patent is indeed a predecessor to ‘US20200279585A1’, it does not mention COVID-19 in any form.
OBVIOUS STRAW-MAN, WE NEVER CLAIMED IT MENTIONS COVID-19, WE SHOW THAT THE INVENTOR CLAIMS HIS 2015 INVENTION TESTS FOR COVID IN 2020.

reuters VERDICT

False. The year 2015 was when Rothschild first filed a provisional application within the family of patents. The year 2017 is the filing date of a related, but separate patent within the family.

SILVIEW.MEDIA VERDICT

THERE IS ONLY ONE TRUTHFUL PARAGRAPH IN REUTERS’ ARTICLE AND THIS VERDICT IS NOT IT. BY ACCESSING THE LINKS THEY PROVIDE YOU CAN VERIFY IT’S ALL THE SAME PATENT, SEE FOR YOURSELVES, DON’T EAT PRE-CHEWED GARBAGE, ALWAYS REMEMBER OUR MOTTO:
DON’T BELIEVE WHAT WE SAY, RESEARCH WHAT WE SAY AND MAKE UP YOUR OWN MINDS!

PENALTY KICK: IT’S ROTHSCHILD AND BIDEN WEEK-END ON ALL SILVIEW.MEDIA NETWORK, WHICH IS NOT AS LARGE, BUT EXTENDS WAY BEYOND ROTHSCHILD MEDIA

To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous supporters. But we’re not really covering our costs so far, and we’re in dire needs to upgrade our equipment, especially for video production.
Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them