2 ms·

Here's evidence that such claims are being communicated though: https://duckduckgo.com/?t=lm&q=5g+does+not+cause+covid&ia=web https://duckduckgo.com/?t=lm&q=5g

by loopz 6y ago

Here's evidence that such claims are being communicated though: https://duckduckgo.com/?t=lm&q=5g+does+not+cause+covid&ia=web https://duckduckgo.com/?t=lm&q=5g+does+not+cause+covid&ia=we... So it seems your claims are false. That people seeking lies as their information source would somehow listen to statements of scientists and doctors, doesn't seem plausible. The incentives for specialists and experts to become public targets for statements that later could be falsified, also seems dubious and unprofessional. Unfortunately such populist moves could remove one from "good company" in a profession.

Jabbles 6y ago
Are you trolling me? My claim is that "inability of (some) scientists" - the "some" is in the original. You then separately say that "It's almost impossible to validate a negative" (in relation to something else). You then say that some scientists do in fact pour scorn, therefore my original claim is false?
- loopz 6y ago
  Is there a solution there in your mind. Why would anti-science people listen to scientists in the first place? There are many ways people think, the minority think like you do. I'm just showing how such statements can be tweaked. You'll always fight an uphill battle trying to convince people with "logic", especially when people subscribe to religion, superstition, fear and conspiracy theories. This no matter the "scorn". The other side can muster up much more of that anyways. Unfortunate yes, but it's a call for much needed creativity also. Condemnation has already been thoroughly tried now.