Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
The Kitchen Sink
Idaho doctor reports a ‘20 times increase’ of cancer in vaccinated patients
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="JustSomeBloke" data-source="post: 76244344" data-attributes="member: 413014"><p>It isn't a bad thing. Provided it's done by people and organisations who are impartial. But it usually isn't. I know that because I often try to find out who is behind these so called factcheckers, and who is funding them, and I usually discover evidence of Left wing bias. There was already an example of this upthread. Didn't you see it? Someone posted a so-called factcheck, and I saw immediately that it was supported by Google. That's a problem, given that Google (and YouTube, which they own) are the king of internet censorship, and are vigorously deleting absolutely everything that questions the covid vaccines or suggests alternative treatments. There has also been numerous reports of Google shadow banning and demoting content they don't like, so that nearly no one can see it or find it. Why would anyone expect a factchecking website supported by Google to be impartial?</p><p></p><p></p><p>Tell that to the Swedes. But I suppose the pro-lockdown types would probably rather not discuss Sweden. They might be forced to conclude that wrecking the economy, jobs, education and numerous other areas was all for nought. </p><p></p><p></p><p>Can you explain what you think is meant by the term 'Estimated new cases in 2021'? In particular, what is meant by 'estimated', and as 2021 has not yet ended, are they working to a calendar that does not end on 31st December?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="JustSomeBloke, post: 76244344, member: 413014"] It isn't a bad thing. Provided it's done by people and organisations who are impartial. But it usually isn't. I know that because I often try to find out who is behind these so called factcheckers, and who is funding them, and I usually discover evidence of Left wing bias. There was already an example of this upthread. Didn't you see it? Someone posted a so-called factcheck, and I saw immediately that it was supported by Google. That's a problem, given that Google (and YouTube, which they own) are the king of internet censorship, and are vigorously deleting absolutely everything that questions the covid vaccines or suggests alternative treatments. There has also been numerous reports of Google shadow banning and demoting content they don't like, so that nearly no one can see it or find it. Why would anyone expect a factchecking website supported by Google to be impartial? Tell that to the Swedes. But I suppose the pro-lockdown types would probably rather not discuss Sweden. They might be forced to conclude that wrecking the economy, jobs, education and numerous other areas was all for nought. Can you explain what you think is meant by the term 'Estimated new cases in 2021'? In particular, what is meant by 'estimated', and as 2021 has not yet ended, are they working to a calendar that does not end on 31st December? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
The Kitchen Sink
Idaho doctor reports a ‘20 times increase’ of cancer in vaccinated patients
Top
Bottom