4 ms·

Because I think having those two videos linked without the context of opposing views will potentially mislead some people, here's some push-back on the first to

• StavrosK 5y ago
  Thanks, I started watching the first video and the claims smelled, so it's good to have the counterargument.
  • loceng 5y ago
    That you're not understanding everything or didn't spend the time to watch the whole thing to have been painted a fuller picture doesn't make it smell funny, one's an evolutionary biologist and the other is a virologist. The article he linked above makes a false statement within the first paragraph - trying ton discredit and plant doubt: Geert in the video didn't say "it's going to cause a problem" - it's a caution that it may, and logically it's a possibility. I'd recommend watching the second video too - that front line research doctor is very credible as well - you'll have to decide for yourself what narratives you start believing or being open to vs. shutting them down - which will all depend on how you orient yourself in the world which depends on how much time and attention you put to go deeply into a topic to determine for yourself vs. being sidetracked and just agreeing with some other internet stranger's "opposition" which then prevents you from digging into the original presented sources (where the bird-group.com also links to the related research done if you truly want to do a deep dive - but the 2nd video is a where what's in the research is shared in easily consumable video format).
• loceng 5y ago
  And so the suppression continues via injecting shallow doubt without actually referencing (not done in the articles) and refuting the research put forward by bird-group.com - nor is the representation of what for example Geert has said: cautioning that something may occur because logically it's a possibility isn't the same as the article you linked says: the article saying "going to cause a problem" isn't the same thing as cautioning that it may cause; we're really suffering an intellectual crisis. Realize too this high intellectual level of introducing doubt could either laziness and incompetence/bad science and review, or it could be more malicious and could be the industrial complex wanting their vaccines as the only treatment and therefore only thing sold; there can easily be intelligent people hired to write hit pieces on anything to add doubt, to go along with the insanity of platforms like Twitter, Facebook, YouTube agreeing to be complicit in censoring legitimate questioning and criticism; did you actually watch the full 2nd video I linked, and do you really think he'd - a front line worker with incredible experience in this domain - be lying? Here's a simpler, less complex example of how people think they know what they're talking about and then regurgitate the conclusion (because they believe they're more competent than they are): (Going to edit to add re: poorly done Ivermectic research concluding no statistical significance between Ivermectin being used as part of treatment, no experimental structure to it to determine a protocol, short length use compared to full 14 day treatment period, and inadequate dosing)
  • JshWright 5y ago
    How is the fact that he is a "front line worker" relevant? (asking as someone who has also spent time on the COVID "front lines")
    • loceng 5y ago
      Watch the video and write down all presented as building his credibility and then let us all know what kind of person, with what kind of experience, you'd trust if not someone like him.
      • JshWright 5y ago
        The person should be irrelevant, yet you keep pushing the "front line worker" thing. Why does that matter? If anything, it makes someone less credible, as it makes it more likely that they are influenced by personal anecdotes.