General Discussion

YP_Yooper

(291 posts)

8. Meh

Wed Jan 5, 2022, 11:13 AM

Jan 2022

Running through it, looks like doom-porn. First scare you with selective headliner stories that have nothing specific to do with Omicron, offers a ton of tweets as support, and after being happy you're scared (straight from the posts) then tells you what we all know just to send you off to push traffic to other sites. Not much in real research to be called the most informative. If you like simply bashing anti-vacc crazies, may be entertaining, but certainly not a place to go for facts. For example, attacking Dr Malone (a real virologist and immunologist) is intellectually dishonest to say the least. He literally discovered and developed the entire mRNA technology along with significant peers that created the foundations of the vaccines we are now grateful to have. May not like his politics, but he is certainly not a quack as suggested.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

38 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Possibly the most informative thread on Omicron ever [View all] AntivaxHunters Jan 2022 OP

Yay. But they need some editor's Achilleaze Jan 2022 #1

They sure do. mahina Jan 2022 #6

And whose, not who's. niyad Jan 2022 #13

There is always a taint when an article is written in Republicanese DFW Jan 2022 #34

Some good stuff on there. Hugin Jan 2022 #2

Meh YP_Yooper Jan 2022 #8

Dr. Malone is a controversial figure to say the least. I can't figure Tomconroy Jan 2022 #11

Agreed when he starts to opine about what public health policy should be YP_Yooper Jan 2022 #21

The Atlantic is also skeptical of Dr. Malone. femmedem Jan 2022 #22

Thank you for the link YP_Yooper Jan 2022 #23

Thanks for reading and replying! femmedem Jan 2022 #25

change your user name lapfog_1 Jan 2022 #3

+1 leftstreet Jan 2022 #17

Thank you for the work you're doing and sharing information here. femmedem Jan 2022 #4

I don't know who these people are but I don't think they Tomconroy Jan 2022 #5

I ran through the material YP_Yooper Jan 2022 #9

I'm weighing your reading vs. the NIH, Scientific American, the Lancet, Scrivener7 Jan 2022 #15

Not sure what you mean YP_Yooper Jan 2022 #18

This message was self-deleted by its author Scrivener7 Jan 2022 #20

Unsure why you think it's weird AntivaxHunters Jan 2022 #19

As far as I can tell your big issue is Covid has to be eliminated. Tomconroy Jan 2022 #24

Our goal is to fight against Covid misinformation AntivaxHunters Jan 2022 #26

Why don't you identify yourself and state what your qualifications Tomconroy Jan 2022 #27

Because many of us AntivaxHunters Jan 2022 #28

Then you're just another anonymous person on the internet. Tomconroy Jan 2022 #29

I think you are misreading this site BumRushDaShow Jan 2022 #31

Thanks -- a lot of good info with links to REAL peer reviewed journal articles JT45242 Jan 2022 #7

The OP is an example of misinformation (ie misleading about the facts) YP_Yooper Jan 2022 #12

Lol. Scrivener7 Jan 2022 #16

"And sadly, that includes Democrats too who have fallen to the grift of far right antivax doctor's.. FSogol Jan 2022 #10

Really? OneGrassRoot Jan 2022 #30

In 2 sentences BumRushDaShow Jan 2022 #32

I should probably be more specific... OneGrassRoot Jan 2022 #33

Thank you for clarifying BumRushDaShow Jan 2022 #35

Yes, yes about the horseshoe effect. Absolutely. n/t OneGrassRoot Jan 2022 #36

Yes, this is all generally my observation. I've seen this across the Hortensis Jan 2022 #37

The thread does have links from excellent sources. And I have heard even some Scrivener7 Jan 2022 #14

Both of my grandmothers went blind from childhood scarlet fever. lindysalsagal Jan 2022 #38