Twitter: @TomLaRuffa

Response from Tom La Ruffa (Twitter user: @TomLaRuffa) to NewsGuard’s Twitter Super-Spreaders Report:


Following my tweet from May 6, attached here with a picture, you asked for my comment on your classification as “false or misleading” of this tweet, following an analysis of the documentary Plandemic, which my tweet linked to on YouTube. The said analysis was posted on your website on May 8, and you sent it to me via DM. 

After reading your analysis of the Plandemic documentary, on which you base your fact check, I notice that it’s only a clash of different viewpoints and several scientific studies, regarding a few specific statements made by Judy Mikovits in this documentary, while joyfully masking the main message in the said video, herself being an internationally recognized scientist.

With this recent Covid19 crisis, we often notice that scientists are contradicting one another. Even the WHO (World Health Organization) was mistaken in the last few months in several of its analyses or predictions, including at the beginning of this pandemic, when it underestimated its severity, and even delayed revealing certain pieces of information to the international community. 

Therefore, the mere fact of self-proclaiming oneself a “fact checker,” and to be funded by private individuals, does not give your conclusions or analyses more weight than the opinion of real scientists. I would encourage you to read the works of Doctors Rashid Buttar ( and Andrew Kaufman (ttps://, among others, who directly or indirectly support the approach and statements of Judy Mikovits.

Finally, about the way you proceed at NewsGuard, when it comes to the tweet you are mentioning, I do not understand why you care about a tweet that was published on May 6, which is to say two days before the publication of the conclusions of your analysis (which you told me was published on May 8, on a website that was completely unknown to me, as it is for a lot of people, considering how few followers you have on Twitter, among other things.)

The “Plandemic” video was still available on YouTube and already neared 2 million views at the time. My sharing of it was therefore completely justified. 

If you had an honest and logical intellectual approach, you would only look at tweets and messages published AFTER your conclusions. Moreover, you wrote to me at first qualifying the entirety of my tweet as false and misleading, before you finally said its only misdeed was to share the link to the video. I had to try and understand your approach to clarify your position and intentions. 

Therefore, for all these reasons, please note that I will not attach much importance to your conclusions or article. 

For a more personal opinion, the “plandemic” emergence — if you will allow me this pun — of all these “fact-checking” websites is only one more desperate attempt by the mass media (including NewsGuard, seeing the resume of your leaders and consultants) to regain control over information (and therefore, over people’s perceptions). We no longer have to prove that over the past few years, the said media have proven their incapability to give people a clear, true and objective information, which does not serve their owners’ interests, in France as well as in the US. 

Unfortunately, the public no longer believes in the “Fake news” from MSM (mainstream media), and the increase in the number of “fact checker” websites, is only reinforcing their profound opinions, as far as I can tell. It’s very sad that we have come to this point, but it enables courageous and motivated people to do their own research on their own, and to make their own opinion, instead of having it dictated by a so-called “authority,” which is often corrupt by many conflicts of interest. 

I nevertheless want to thank you for the cordiality and professionalism of our conversation. I wish you the best. 


NB: Please publish this message in full in your article, and do not just select a few parts of it, if you decide to use it.