Check Mark Credentialism

In this article, Ralph and I aim to address concerns regarding what is labelled the “health freedom movement.”

Substack presents itself as a platform for independent voices. However, it operates on a legacy form of credentialism, primarily through its checkmark system. While this system could potentially be improved, change is unlikely, as it has proven highly lucrative for those involved.

The checkmark system¹, established in 2022, highlights writers who excel in revenue, positioning them as examples for others. According to an official Substack release, they introduced a bestseller badge as an indicator of credibility, suggesting that a paid subscription reflects trust in media. This implies that providing important information is contingent on profit motives, fostering a form of censorship rooted in credentialism. The checkmark serves as a credential, granting visibility mainly to those who request and receive payment. Checkmarked writers benefit from algorithmic amplification, which promotes profitable Substacks. This raises the question: would it be preferable to award checkmarks based on alternative metrics? Determining those metrics warrants further discussion. The current system overlooks charitable individuals who contribute knowledge without seeking fame or monetary rewards. For example,

biologyphenom

dedicates extensive time to reviewing the Scottish Covid Inquiry to inform others about events in 2020 and current developments in Scotland, all without compensation.

The unlikelihood of Substack extending checkmarks to non-monetized writers can be viewed through the lens of the COVID era, which witnessed an unprecedented wealth transfer. Examples include Jeff Bezos tripling his profits between 2019 and 2022, skyrocketing food and energy prices, and a new billionaire emerging every 30 hours during lockdowns. Billionaires’ profits surged over 24 months at rates previously seen only over 23 years.

The dynamics of Substack’s checkmark system suggest that some holders operate within a potentially corrupt framework, akin to hush money. Those with checkmarks may face financial repercussions if they disclose compelling evidence disputing the existence of a pandemic, risking their elevated status and ability to profit from the events of 2020. It is questionable whether they would openly admit this reality to their readership or relinquish their privileges for the sake of truth.

Ralph Pike:

This post may not be popular or widely read, but the question merits discussion. My avatar suggests the pharma cartel won’t cure you while they can keep you alive, requiring medication to do so—a perfect business model.

I won’t provide examples to avoid making this article overly long, complicated, or hard to read. I want you to think about what I write here—a broad brush on a blank canvas.

Consider the Scottish Covid Inquiry. Reams of evidence provided under oath prove beyond doubt that a mass government-sponsored murder took place and is still occurring. God help us with Plandemic 2.0. Yet, there’s an almost complete absence of promotion regarding this inquiry from our beloved leaders in the health freedom movement. Despite biologyphenom collating this evidence and presenting it daily, nobody with a significant following is even restacking Dave’s work, which takes seconds. They’re not too busy—they’re simply not bothered.

Why? Occam’s Razor provides the answer: these people depend on the pharma cartel for their income. Without viruses, vaccines, mustard gas chemotherapy, toxic drugs, and the like, where would they be? Some even embrace gain-of-function, spike proteins, lab leaks, and other psyops, offering remedies, of course. They wouldn’t have followings, paid subscribers, monetized websites, or alternate career paths for supposedly disaffected medics. By the way, none of these “disaffected” medics renounce their worthless “qualifications” that entitle them to call themselves “doctor.” Why? It offers no kudos, so they should drop the meaningless honorific.

The only people promoting the Scottish Covid Inquiry are those without a financial stake in the game. It is most definitely a game, and we are being played by both sides.

Renee:

Beyond what we have said above, there is a notable phenomenon where several influencers, both on Substack and beyond, who regularly assert that a pandemic did not occur or that viruses do not exist, have labeled Biologyphenom(BP) as a source of harassment or trolling. Influencers like Jessica Hockett and Jonathan Engler have blocked BP, after posting this article…

We are receiving sustained and repeated jibes from the anonymous blogger “Biologyphenom”

...accusing BP of “jibing” them. Denis Rancourt, who published a paper concerning such measures in 2020, measures which are confirmed by testimony at the Scottish Inquiry, recently blocked BP.

Additionally, Mike Yeadon recently expressed his desire for BP to "just leave me alone," while Sasha Latypova dismissed the inquiry as a "fake."

This raises the question: why do these individuals, many of whom possess checkmarks (the new approved form of credential) , some having hundreds or thousands of paid subscribers, wish to distance themselves from BP? What implications does this hold for their audience?

In a recent article….

World Council for Wealth-Profits over truth?

…. Biologyphenom wrote this on the robustness of this evidence (emphasis mine):

“The general rule is that oral evidence given under cross-examination is the gold standard because it reflects the long-established common law consensus that the best way of assessing the reliability of evidence is by confronting the witness.”

The Scottish and UK COVID-19 inquiry evidence submitted under oath is the gold standard ……and is compelling that either the ‘pandemic’ was manufactured and all excess deaths were a direct results of brutal public ‘health’ policies OR a large number of reported ‘COVID’ deaths were falsely attributed to COVID-19 which was a real disease but killed far fewer people that reported. Either way you look at it the evidence what cannot be argued ‘the pandemic’ advertised to the public was a grotesque distortion of reality and nothing better demonstrates than the inquiry evidence. 1

Do you not find it peculiar that these prominent influencers, who claim there was no pandemic, are actively rejecting an individual simply because he persistently urges them to share critical evidence?

Conclusion:

The so-called “health freedom” movement avoids discussing the evidence presented at the Scottish Covid Inquiry. Online systems appear to segment people into categories, but does this ever work in our favour? Isn’t this how control is exerted—divide and conquer? There may be hesitation within this group— “health freedom”— to raise these topics because the next logical step after learning what happened in 2020 would be to open a dialogue with those who dismissed and cancelled us as “crazy” years ago. When faced with the pressure to take a useless product for a nonexistent pandemic, we didn’t shy away. Why are people so timid now?

1. Introducing the Substack Bestseller badge

Upon qualifying for a badge, writers will receive a congratulatory email and can choose whether or not to display their badge.