General Discussion

BumRushDaShow

(172,716 posts)

35. Thank you for clarifying

Thu Jan 6, 2022, 08:32 AM

Jan 2022

and I agree completely.

It makes sense that this progression might have happened as we have seen a similar thing happen with "Libertarian thought", where depending on what end of the political spectrum may determine whose "government" one might believe is "oppressing" or "deceiving" them, it eventually coalesces into "all government" (and "institutions" ). And of course the encyclopedic trove of information that is "the internet" is ripe for promoting and magnifying this. And the deeper one dives into it, the more it draws them in.

Much of the info cited is actually based on valid research, but that research has been cherry-picked and then re-combined with other citations to purportedly be "associative" in order to spin a yarn that is now out-of-context and most likely false.

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