Thought this was amusing....
In fairness, pedo joe doesn’t know what North Korea is...
Her opening comments about the vaccine being released before FDA approval are flat wrong. I don't know how anyone could watch beyond the first 30 seconds knowing that.Source? I couldn’t find anything.
Did you watch the video or just try to discredit it ?
east LA?In fairness, pedo joe doesn’t know what North Korea is...
Same politics, so very close.east LA?
life is a infomercial...doctors seem to be in control of our lives---trust the science?Her opening comments about the vaccine being released before FDA approval are flat wrong. I don't know how anyone could watch beyond the first 30 seconds knowing that.
I know "fact checkers" are the anti christ to you, but she has failed to show any evidence for her claim and is instead just using her Doctorate as a show of credibility.
Ever see an infomercial that didn't have a Doctors approval, even when it is a completely bogus product?
Just to be clear, skepticism is absolutely OK, especially when it is backed by credibility.Her opening comments about the vaccine being released before FDA approval are flat wrong. I don't know how anyone could watch beyond the first 30 seconds knowing that.
I know "fact checkers" are the anti christ to you, but she has failed to show any evidence for her claim and is instead just using her Doctorate as a show of credibility.
Ever see an infomercial that didn't have a Doctors approval, even when it is a completely bogus product?
i try to pay attention to what is going on around me and form a opinion since i don't have a doctorate....i feel i have the right to voice my opinion rather it's backed by evidence or not...if i have a conspiracy theory should i be silenced, or should people just look at it as my opinion? i am afraid we are heading towards a slippery slope where peoples opinions are going to be silenced, instead of just disregarded as a opinion.Just to be clear, skepticism is absolutely OK, especially when it is backed by credibility.
The problem though is when people see all evidence as being equal, even when none is presented. If the evidence was presented, then the argument would be credible, but without it it is just a baseless accusation.
Evidence is key, no matter who you are or what your stance is
Same amount of air still blowing in and out the sides...actually, Id say if you wear 2 you would only getting even more air coming in and out the sides making it worse. Thats for the typical masks people wear.Is there any science that shows wearing two masks is a measurable benefit (test data, evidence....)
Is there any science that shows we need to keep wearing masks at all after getting the vaccine??
Yet here we are...
Did you find evidence that the vaccines were in fact not distributed out prior to FDA approval?Just to be clear, skepticism is absolutely OK, especially when it is backed by credibility.
The problem though is when people see all evidence as being equal, even when none is presented. If the evidence was presented, then the argument would be credible, but without it it is just a baseless accusation.
Evidence is key, no matter who you are or what your stance is
This. She didn’t say they were being injected. Just deployed to distribution centers. Which isn’t illegal. Just shady af and shows it’s part of a planned agenda.Did you find evidence that the vaccines were in fact not distributed out prior to FDA approval?
Glad you demonstrated that you watched 30 seconds and then went to an alien DNA smear campaign WITHOUT evidence. Your handlers need to train you better or pay you more to try harder.Just to be clear, skepticism is absolutely OK, especially when it is backed by credibility.
The problem though is when people see all evidence as being equal, even when none is presented. If the evidence was presented, then the argument would be credible, but without it it is just a baseless accusation.
Evidence is key, no matter who you are or what your stance is
At minimum it was certainly a monster money heist by the pharmaceuticals and the politicians they bribe.This. She didn’t say they were being injected. Just deployed to distribution centers. Which isn’t illegal. Just shady af and shows it’s part of a planned agenda.
One of the problems is that people present their opinion as fact and dismiss counter evidence as if the opinion holds more weighting.i try to pay attention to what is going on around me and form a opinion since i don't have a doctorate....i feel i have the right to voice my opinion rather it's backed by evidence or not...if i have a conspiracy theory should i be silenced, or should people just look at it as my opinion? i am afraid we are heading towards a slippery slope where peoples opinions are going to be silenced, instead of just disregarded as a opinion.
Burden of proof lies on the accuser, not the defender.Did you find evidence that the vaccines were in fact not distributed out prior to FDA approval?
If she can assert something without evidence, why can I not? She hasn't provided evidence saying she never said those things.Glad you demonstrated that you watched 30 seconds and then went to an alien DNA smear campaign WITHOUT evidence. Your handlers need to train you better or pay you more to try harder.
“Evidence” can be manipulated, faked, created to serve any agenda
So your saying the accuser is by default a lie because she didnt provide evidence in a conversation??? Is it a set rule when you have a conversation you must present the evidence every time?Burden of proof lies on the accuser, not the defender.
You can't accuse someone of murder then say "prove you didn't murder them", the burden is on you to prove they did.
If you actually watch the video she says and I paraphrase "the information is out there, dont tell me there isnt any evidence, it doesnt take alot of effort to find evidence, and if not you can go to America's Frontline Doctor's (aflds.com) or American Association of Physicians and Surgeons (aapsonline.org) and other organizations that are speaking out now."Burden of proof lies on the accuser, not the defender.
You can't accuse someone of murder then say "prove you didn't murder them", the burden is on you to prove they did.
Her name is Dr. Lee Merrit, her name alone validates her, lol.Burden of proof lies on the accuser, not the defender.
You can't accuse someone of murder then say "prove you didn't murder them", the burden is on you to prove they did.
The vaccines are not FDA approved. They are being administered under an Emergency Use Authorization. There is a difference.Did you find evidence that the vaccines were in fact not distributed out prior to FDA approval?
If you assert something like that, you should absolutely provide evidence. She was asked to provide some and had repeatedly failed to show it.So your saying the accuser is by default a lie because she didnt provide evidence in a conversation??? Is it a set rule when you have a conversation you must present the evidence every time?
This the same person who said alien DNA is being used in treatments to stop people from becoming religious?
Just because someone may have been dead wrong on another issue doesnt justify the current topic or all the elements of the topic of discussion as also wrong.
The same groups that have also not been providing evidence to back their claims?If you actually watch the video she says and I paraphrase "the information is out there, dont tell me there isnt any evidence, it doesnt take alot of effort to find evidence, and if not you can go to America's Frontline Doctor's (aflds.com) or American Association of Physicians and Surgeons (aapsonline.org) and other organizations that are speaking out now."
So she isnt making claims without encouraging people to factcrap her claims.
She isnt asking people for blind faith in her.
Valid point. I think the doc was implying the vaccines were delivered before the EUA was granted though.The vaccines are not FDA approved. They are being administered under an Emergency Use Authorization. There is a difference.
So somebody made a comment without providing counter evidence on some blog and that fully discredits the AFD?The same groups that have also not been providing evidence to back their claims?
Evidence isn't more people asserting the same rhetoric. It is tangible, reliable evidence that withstands scrutiny. A bunch of doctors giving their opinion is not evidence. View attachment 202999View attachment 203000
In a real medical emergency, lets say we really had a real dangerous pandemic to me it would only make sense to distribute it for on the ready, Im not against that.The vaccines are not FDA approved. They are being administered under an Emergency Use Authorization. There is a difference.
That may be so. I think it is irresponsible, for her as well as anyone else, to simply call the vaccines "approved." Under the EUA, they remain experimental. I would like to see precise language, bacause most people will hear "FDA approved" and believe that the vaccines have gone through the full battery of testing and follow up surveillance. I think the populace should be armed with every bit of accurate info available before choosing to undergo any medical intervention.Valid point. I think the doc was implying the vaccines were delivered before the EUA was granted though.
That is certainly true.From a contextual usage perspective "Permitted Under FDA Emergency Use Authorization" is closer to "FDA Approved" than it is to "Not FDA Approved" (a phrase which implies that the FDA made a negative determination as to its use).
It all boils down to the same thing: where does the evidence fall?So somebody made a comment without providing counter evidence on some blog and that fully discredits the AFD?
Im not saying this woman is right I havent investigated this issue yet but things like this remind me of CiaNN whenever someone questions an official story some factyshytter from some think tank says a few words and all that was claimed was done.
Situations like this an old fashioned Ouija Board does the trickIt all boils down to the same thing: where does the evidence fall?
Ever been to a Doctor, got an opinion then went to another who gave something else? How do you determine who is right, when the opinions conflict?
Yes, indeed.It all boils down to the same thing: where does the evidence fall?
Ever been to a Doctor, got an opinion then went to another who gave something else? How do you determine who is right, when the opinions conflict?
in fact, fact isn't always fact according to the science...i remind you that fauci and the cdc said back in march of 2020 that wearing a mask wasn't necessary and that it might cause more harm than good---when they knew damned good and well that people with colds and the flu had been told to wear masks in doctors offices and hospitals for over a decade because they knew damned good and well it prevented spread of viruses!!!One of the problems is that people present their opinion as fact and dismiss counter evidence as if the opinion holds more weighting.
If I were to say "It is my opinion that water is actually fire", and someone provides evidence that it isn't, at what point should I recant my opinion and form a new one? Instead, a lot of people will continue to argue that water is actually fire, even in the face of compelling evidence.
I think then it is 100% fine to say "your opinion is wrong" and provide counter evidence to that. If the person continues to hold that opinion, which they are entitled to, they should stop getting so upset that people continue to correct them.
Its a novel virus, like with science the view changed with the evidence. Not all viruses spread through the air. You don't catch HIV for instance by being breathed on by an HIV positive person.in fact, fact isn't always fact according to the science...i remind you that fauci and the cdc said back in march of 2020 that wearing a mask wasn't necessary and that it might cause more harm than good---when they knew damned good and well that people with colds and the flu had been told to wear masks in doctors offices and hospitals for over a decade because they knew damned good and well it prevented spread of viruses!!!
i must have missed it-when did you post on here to correct fauci and the surgeon general and cdc when they were saying masks would not prevent spread of the virus? or do you cherry pick what you chose to correct?
this is not necessarily true in todays world...if someone accuses you of something you had better set out on proving you didn't do it or you will be assumed of being guilty---this may not be true in a court of law but the law of public opinion can ruin people rather quickly.Burden of proof lies on the accuser, not the defender.
You can't accuse someone of murder then say "prove you didn't murder them", the burden is on you to prove they did.
Yeah that's kind of my point.this is not necessarily true in todays world...if someone accuses you of something you had better set out on proving you didn't do it or you will be assumed of being guilty---this may not be true in a court of law but the law of public opinion can ruin people rather quickly.
you are arguing now in favor of wearing masks---were they not telling people to wear masks in doctors offices and hospitals in new zealand to prevent spread of colds and flu for a decade before coronaVIRUS? what the hell do they call covid? it's a VIRUS---did you not think to challenge this faulty science or did you just decide you are not smart enough to think for yourself and if fauci said it it must be true?Its a novel virus, like with science the view changed with the evidence.
Noones saying a person can't be wrong, it is about whether or not they have the character to admit when they are wrong and correct their statements in line with evidence.
If anything, your argument is simply an example of what I'm saying working
Well there is fact checking and claiming to be fact checking as well. Its an endless loop.Yeah that's kind of my point.
People take opinions as facts when they shouldn't, hence why social media has taken to fact checking everything because otherwise the words destroy reputations if left unchecked.
Just throw sick people in nursing homes and problem solved. Less people = less virus. They did a great job here with that in NY!you are arguing now in favor of wearing masks---were they not telling people to wear masks in doctors offices and hospitals in new zealand to prevent spread of colds and flu for a decade before coronaVIRUS? what the hell do they call covid? it's a VIRUS---did you not think to challenge this faulty science or did you just decide you are not smart enough to think for yourself and if fauci said it it must be true?
lol...the ayatollah of iran and lewis farrakhan have facebook pages but conservatives get censored--fact checking is great when it is given equal opportunity-eh?Yeah that's kind of my point.
People take opinions as facts when they shouldn't, hence why social media has taken to fact checking everything because otherwise the words destroy reputations if left unchecked.
when the fact checkers have clearly taken a side and only fact check the side they are against it kind of isn't really fact checking, lol.Well there is fact checking and claiming to be fact checking as well. Its an endless loop.
Do you think all viruses spread through the air? Human immunodeficiency VIRUS is not spread through airborne droplets. The word virus doesn't automatically mean you need to wear a mask to control the spread.you are arguing now in favor of wearing masks---were they not telling people to wear masks in doctors offices and hospitals in new zealand to prevent spread of colds and flu for a decade before coronaVIRUS? what the hell do they call covid? it's a VIRUS---did you not think to challenge this faulty science or did you just decide you are not smart enough to think for yourself and if fauci said it it must be true?
Controversial people can have social media accounts, but if they violate the terms of service then the companies do act.lol...the ayatollah of iran and lewis farrakhan have facebook pages but conservatives get censored--fact checking is great when it is given equal opportunity-eh?
Seems like everybody but the CDC, Nancy Pelosi, Fauci and the Demican party officials were the only ones in America who thought this couldnt be transmitted via air because Commies told them so.Do you think all viruses spread through the air? Human immunodeficiency VIRUS is not spread through airborne droplets. The word virus doesn't automatically mean you need to wear a mask to control the spread.
The Middle Eastern Respiratory Sydrome (MERs-CoV) is also a coronavirus, but human to human transmission has only been determined where prolonged, close exposure to an infected person has occurred. Because it doesn't spread as freely, widespread mask use was not required.
At the time the CDC made the statement, the evidence was not there to support wearing masks because most of the novel coronavirus cases that have spread to humans have had limited success with person to person infectivity.
Hindsight shows they were wrong, but they corrected themselves once the evidence came out. Again, its not about never being wrong, its about forming an opinion based on credible evidence and changing that opinion when the evidence changes. I have no idea why they recommend wearing 2 masks or whether that is based on anything, and if its not i would question that 100%.
Lots of countries didn't recommend widespread mask use early.Seems like everybody but the CDC, Nancy Pelosi, Fauci and the Demican party officials were the only ones in America who thought this couldnt be transmitted via air because Commies told them so.
But when I thought that they would have faktfuked me and told me to go to Chinatown and hug fresh chinese right off Air China.
What about controversial people owning social media who violate the terms of humanity? Can we not only ban them from owning the business, but can we also throw them in jail?Controversial people can have social media accounts, but if they violate the terms of service then the companies do act.
Most are smart enough to say just enough to not get in trouble. Others believe they have a right to say whatever they want, and they typically get banned.
Thats an obvious red flag right there, they probably wanted it to spread.Lots of countries didn't recommend widespread mask use early.
People will throw you in a pit of snakes if it makes them a dollar, not just govts.Thats an obvious red flag right there, they probably wanted it to spread.
Do you really trust governments that much? They people will throw you in a pit of snakes if it makes them a dollar.
Yeah a group of doctors decided to get together to make false claims, risk their careers, mislead people, and waste their time. Man you’re denseThe same groups that have also not been providing evidence to back their claims?
Evidence isn't more people asserting the same rhetoric. It is tangible, reliable evidence that withstands scrutiny. A bunch of doctors giving their opinion is not evidence. View attachment 202999View attachment 203000