6 ms·
Except for the fact that it actually doesn’t.
by smohare 5y ago
Except for the fact that it actually doesn’t.
- ekianjo 5y agoOnly if you believe the WHO, which has been hacked at the highest level by other interests.
- WarOnPrivacy 5y agoBlaming the WHO is what conspiracy theorists have been doing to drown out reputable people, who are debunking the ivermectin/covid19 hoax. And it is a hoax - of the most egregious type. https://grftr.news/why-was-a-major-study-on-ivermectin-for-covid-19-just-retracted/ https://grftr.news/why-was-a-major-study-on-ivermectin-for-c...
- colordrops 5y agogrftr.news is a politically motivated site for attacking the right. I wouldn't trust it any more than I would trust the other side, e.g. breitbart and fox
- srtjstjsj 5y agoIsn't there a difference between attacking with well founded facts, and attacking with opinions and lies?
- colordrops 5y agoThere is, but that's not what I'm talking about. Regardless of how well researched and accurate their stories are, if they ignore half of the lies out there, they are carrying implicit strong opinion, and doing everyone a great disservice. The site rightly goes after people like Tim Pool and Andy Ngo, but I guarantee this site won't say a single word about the constant lies and misogyny of people like Cenk Uygur, because they are more interested in pushing an agenda rather than righting wrongs.
- trickstra 5y agoAnd whom do you believe instead? A single study that can't be replicated because the data is fake.