3 ms·

Yes, we should ignore it until we have trusted independent verification. It would be impossible for us to assess the credibility or accuracy without a third par

by abduhl 5y ago

Yes, we should ignore it until we have trusted independent verification. It would be impossible for us to assess the credibility or accuracy without a third party that I trust and hopefully agree with.

WarOnPrivacy 5y ago
Or spend 5 minutes and review the anti-vax mess. It spells out it's agenda in the opening paragraphs. Past that, it isn't a focus on FIFA but globs together tons of posts about anyone who plays sports, eg: school-age leagues.
- abduhl 5y ago
  Interesting that your first post was attacking the source as being antivax and casting doubt about the substance of the article because there was no independent verification but the second half of your second post was able to credibly comment on the substance of the article without relying on third party verification. Lead with the second post next time.
  - WarOnPrivacy 5y ago
    >Interesting that your first post was attacking the source as being antivax So visit the source. It's antivax focus is confirmed by reading the opening paragraph or by visiting the homepage. > casting doubt about the substance of the article because there was no independent verification 180 FIFA athletes dropping dead would get worldwide attention. If that were to ever happen, we'd have tons of verification. > but the second half of your second post was able to credibly comment on the substance of the article Yep. It credibly commented that the substance of the article was sewn together from SM posts and anecdotes of hospitalized individuals who happened to sport - and who have nothing to do with FIFA. Most importantly, all of it together doesn't add up to the claimed numbers.
    - abduhl 5y ago
      Yes, great post. These are all good substantive comments on the article which are far superior in quality to your first post which, at its core, was a post saying “this guy is antivax don’t trust him!” Try to post more like this without having to have someone draw your substance out first.
      - WarOnPrivacy 5y ago
        Or, you know, reallocate some snark time into actually reading the Israeli antivax source for yourself.
- paul7986 5y ago
  I guess everyone has bias and then hops onto their media of choice yet media is manipulated for profit trash (i.e. https://www.axios.com/steele-dossier-discredited-media-corrections-buzzfeed-washington-post-6b762a0b-64a9-4259-8697-298e2f04fb3e.html https://www.axios.com/steele-dossier-discredited-media-corre...). Whatever your choice of media outlet you follow you are more inclined to embrace what they are saying as 100% fact/truth. Also point to science they are pushing yet this is new science and only time will tell the true science and story as you see years later with that article I linked. It's shows how the media spun whatever they wanted for their bias agenda and will always/continue to do so especially when greed/money/power is in the aim. From someone who believes nothing seen on any for profit media and believes in science but only years and years of science! Not what any for profit media machine is saying or the science they are pushing cause we are all learning as we go .. it's fluid yet time (years) is the bellweather!
  - WarOnPrivacy 5y ago
    I would agree you shouldn't believe an anti-vax source without years and years of science to back up their claims.
tmaly 5y ago
There are a bunch of numbers on that article. Does anyone have a list of names that those numbers represent? I think if we can check major news sources for these names, it would be pretty easy to debunk the article.

by abduhl 5y ago

WarOnPrivacy 5y ago

Or spend 5 minutes and review the anti-vax mess. It spells out it's agenda in the opening paragraphs. Past that, it isn't a focus on FIFA but globs together tons of posts about anyone who plays sports, eg: school-age leagues.

abduhl 5y ago
Interesting that your first post was attacking the source as being antivax and casting doubt about the substance of the article because there was no independent verification but the second half of your second post was able to credibly comment on the substance of the article without relying on third party verification. Lead with the second post next time.
- WarOnPrivacy 5y ago
  >Interesting that your first post was attacking the source as being antivax So visit the source. It's antivax focus is confirmed by reading the opening paragraph or by visiting the homepage. > casting doubt about the substance of the article because there was no independent verification 180 FIFA athletes dropping dead would get worldwide attention. If that were to ever happen, we'd have tons of verification. > but the second half of your second post was able to credibly comment on the substance of the article Yep. It credibly commented that the substance of the article was sewn together from SM posts and anecdotes of hospitalized individuals who happened to sport - and who have nothing to do with FIFA. Most importantly, all of it together doesn't add up to the claimed numbers.
  - abduhl 5y ago
    Yes, great post. These are all good substantive comments on the article which are far superior in quality to your first post which, at its core, was a post saying “this guy is antivax don’t trust him!” Try to post more like this without having to have someone draw your substance out first.
    - WarOnPrivacy 5y ago
      Or, you know, reallocate some snark time into actually reading the Israeli antivax source for yourself.
paul7986 5y ago
I guess everyone has bias and then hops onto their media of choice yet media is manipulated for profit trash (i.e. https://www.axios.com/steele-dossier-discredited-media-corrections-buzzfeed-washington-post-6b762a0b-64a9-4259-8697-298e2f04fb3e.html https://www.axios.com/steele-dossier-discredited-media-corre...). Whatever your choice of media outlet you follow you are more inclined to embrace what they are saying as 100% fact/truth. Also point to science they are pushing yet this is new science and only time will tell the true science and story as you see years later with that article I linked. It's shows how the media spun whatever they wanted for their bias agenda and will always/continue to do so especially when greed/money/power is in the aim. From someone who believes nothing seen on any for profit media and believes in science but only years and years of science! Not what any for profit media machine is saying or the science they are pushing cause we are all learning as we go .. it's fluid yet time (years) is the bellweather!
- WarOnPrivacy 5y ago
  I would agree you shouldn't believe an anti-vax source without years and years of science to back up their claims.

tmaly 5y ago

There are a bunch of numbers on that article. Does anyone have a list of names that those numbers represent? I think if we can check major news sources for these names, it would be pretty easy to debunk the article.