134
This thread is about "Are there any decent news sites anymore?". That's it. Not what is the best sole-source news site?.
I listed one as part of the discussion, and you appeared to lump it in with some very suspect news sites (GWP, CT) known for peddling outright falsehoods. and called it conspiracy-driven. All I did was try and clear up what I considered misinformation about the one that I originally presented as a good news site. That's why I focused on it.
...
As to anti-vax, a lot of people equate anything negative about the covid vax as anti-vax. They know they are being disingenuous, but they still do it because it makes the people questioning one vaccine sound extreme and ignorant. I disagree with that approach. Historically many vaccine rollouts wound up with significant regrets. There are plenty of people including many many doctors and scientists, especially now that the data is out, that rightfully questioned the covid vax.
Of course, the MSM painted all doctors not buying the narrative as quacks. We all remember and there are plenty of news articles to illustrate this. Many were very highly respected in the field of immunology yet journalists with no medical experience got to wield the club of "Science" and shut them down.
People still call those that didn't trust the COVID vax as "anti-vax" to paint them with a certain light. You may want to consider that. ET only ever posted sourced journal info, gov't info from FOIA requests etc. and rightfully questioned the narrative. It turns out it wasn't so effective or safe, so who was really reporting correctly -- the MSM that said it was nearly 100% effective and nobody could die from it or transmit COVID, or others simply reporting what turned out to be verified significant side-effects and pretty weak efficacy?
Sorry to go off topic, but "anti-vax" is just a purposefully misused term for painting things in a poor light.
I listed one as part of the discussion, and you appeared to lump it in with some very suspect news sites (GWP, CT) known for peddling outright falsehoods. and called it conspiracy-driven. All I did was try and clear up what I considered misinformation about the one that I originally presented as a good news site. That's why I focused on it.
...
As to anti-vax, a lot of people equate anything negative about the covid vax as anti-vax. They know they are being disingenuous, but they still do it because it makes the people questioning one vaccine sound extreme and ignorant. I disagree with that approach. Historically many vaccine rollouts wound up with significant regrets. There are plenty of people including many many doctors and scientists, especially now that the data is out, that rightfully questioned the covid vax.
Of course, the MSM painted all doctors not buying the narrative as quacks. We all remember and there are plenty of news articles to illustrate this. Many were very highly respected in the field of immunology yet journalists with no medical experience got to wield the club of "Science" and shut them down.
People still call those that didn't trust the COVID vax as "anti-vax" to paint them with a certain light. You may want to consider that. ET only ever posted sourced journal info, gov't info from FOIA requests etc. and rightfully questioned the narrative. It turns out it wasn't so effective or safe, so who was really reporting correctly -- the MSM that said it was nearly 100% effective and nobody could die from it or transmit COVID, or others simply reporting what turned out to be verified significant side-effects and pretty weak efficacy?
Sorry to go off topic, but "anti-vax" is just a purposefully misused term for painting things in a poor light.
