all 30 comments

[–]whereswhat 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (13 children)

Seriously? OP, do you really believe zerohedge.com is a trustworthy source?

[–]FormosaOolong 5 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 3 fun -  (2 children)

I find a lot of the content there is insightful, clear, and scathingly cuts to the truth.

[–]whereswhat 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

I never said everything on the site is fake, it's not. Just that they have published too many fictions to be relied upon as a stand-alone source.

[–]Zahn 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Post fictions please or its just your opinion.

[–]Zahn 4 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 3 fun -  (5 children)

Please provide a link from an article on Zerohedge that is not "trustworthy" by commonly accepted standards for news blogs.

[–]whereswhat 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

Not sure how you want to define commonly accepted standards for news blogs. Are such standards even relevant here? Do they have any bearing on truth? The article below is false.

https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/ukrainian-indictment-reveals-hunter-biden-group-made-165-million-mp

I suggest you read the wiki about zerohedge. Maybe supplement with the newsguard summary too.

[–]Zahn 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

This is the exact same article that someone else on this site posted in response to a similar question into Zerohedges integrity. Very weird.

There was ONE translation error in that article that they acknowledged. Many news sites inadvertently and unmaliciously post some inaccurate details about a news story.

This one small example of an unintentional error doesn't make your case or prove your point.

Who owns Newsguard, by the way........?

[–]whereswhat 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

What issues do you have with the owners of Newsguard? If you can give me a good reason, I will happily never use that site again.

Wikipedia would be more difficult for you to dissuade me from but nothing's impossible...

[–]Zahn 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

The owner is a left leaning propagandist, and Newsguard is yet another attempt to slander dissenting or alternate information that deviates from the official narratives.

[–]whereswhat 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Which owner are you talking about? I understand your viewpoint but I need to understand why still.

[–]DffrntDrmmr 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

No, Zero Hedge is not a trustworthy source. The Bulgarian-based blog consists of some financial news and rumors, gossip and right-wing news reports, many of them pro-Russia and seemingly sourced from the Kremlin's RT (Russia Today).

The founder and main editor of the blog, Daniel Ivandjiiski, has been banned from securities trading since 2008. Most stories are posted under the pseudonym of "Tyler Durden", a character in the movie Fight Club.

Ivandjiiski's dad, who worked with the Communists of the Soviet Union, operates a similar website for Bulgarians.

[–]FormosaOolong 5 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

That said, I still find they are ahead of the curve in terms of what pans out eventually.

[–]Zahn 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

It's kind of strange at this point when someone is Zerohedge bashing, they frequently post the exact same copypasta. As if posting the founder's background suddenly makes the news items irrelevant. I really don't care that he's pro Russian no more than I'd care if someone is pro Irish. The news stories check out and are as reliable as any American news outlets...often more reliable, honestly.

[–]useless_aether[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

if you have dirt on them, do share. afaik it's a bulgarian dude.

[–]beermeem 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Say what you will about the source of this link and their “theories” but tons of fact centered links in this post if anyone missed it from yesterday:

https://www.minds.com/redmoon1111/blog/bill-gates-and-covid-19-everything-you-need-to-know-1095145722625499136?referrer=redmoon1111&fbclid=IwAR1f0JG5bC-nZ7snhIIaceO0O7sgzZEqWCYQv7CPIIM5Lk4AT8Kw0AuS5YU

Sometimes it’s not the information that’s enlightening but the juxtaposition.

[–]beermeem 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

So, is it claimed that Robert F. Kennedy, Jr didn’t issue a scathing report of Gates? Because that seems easily verifiable.

I didn’t watch the whole thing but here he is on RT just now discussing the corrupt revolving door that is the CDC. It’s RT, sure, but that is RFK saying what I’d expect RFK to be saying:

https://youtu.be/5CfLDXpC324

[–]beermeem 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (10 children)

Here it is from another source:

https://globalintelhub.com/robert-f-kennedy-jr-exposes-bill-gates-vaccine-agenda-in-scathing-report/

Would someone like to go ahead and bash this source for me? I don’t really know anything about it.

I’m somewhat confused about what the “report” is. Is it just his appearance on RT? In any case all of the facts listed are easily verifiable from other sources — just not often all in one place — and furthermore are facts any one paying attention to Gates’s eugenics driven vaccine philosophy, which he has used “philanthropy” as the cover for over the past 10+ years.

[–]whereswhat 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (9 children)

In any case all of the facts listed are easily verifiable from other sources

Oh really?

"In 2010, the Gates Foundation funded a phase 3 trial of GSK’s experimental malaria vaccine, killing 151 African infants and causing serious adverse effects including paralysis, seizure, and febrile convulsions to 1,048 of the 5,949 children."

The link (https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa1102287) they provide goes to a medical journal article that does not support this claim. That's just the first one I checked.

[–]beermeem 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

It does support the claims and maybe try the ones from the CDC, Harvard, NYT, or USA Today. You might like those more.

[–]whereswhat 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Please show me where it supports the claim. I can't find it. Must be too stupid.

[–]Zahn 0 insightful - 1 fun0 insightful - 0 fun1 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Since you are claiming to of read the article, what did it say that the 151 kids died from?

[–]whereswhat 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

The article does not say the vaccine killed 151 kids. Many of the deaths were in a control group, others had malaria, others were inconclusive or had some other issue that is clearly described in the article. Only a handful of serious negative side effects were attributed to the vaccine. Overall, their test groups had better outcomes than the control groups.

"Similar proportions of children died in each study group. In the older age category, 56 of 5949 children (0.9%; 95% CI, 0.7 to 1.2) died in the RTS,S/AS01 group and 28 of 2974 children (0.9%; 95% CI, 0.6 to 1.4) in the control group; in the younger age category, 49 of 4358 children (1.1%; 95% CI, 0.8 to 1.5) died in the RTS,S/AS01 group and 18 of 2179 children (0.8%; 95% CI, 0.5 to 1.3) in the control group. Of the 151 children who died, 78 (52%) died in the hospital after a thorough medical assessment was made; 9% of deaths occurred at a health facility before completion of a full medical assessment, and 39% occurred in the community. Causes of death were similar in the two groups (Table 11 in the Supplementary Appendix). Ten children died with a diagnosis of malaria, which was confirmed on blood smear in 7 children. At least one serious adverse event that was considered to be related to a study vaccine occurred in 11 children in the older age category: 10 of 5949 children in the RTS,S/AS01 group reported 12 events (7 seizures, 3 episodes of pyrexia, 1 episode of myositis, and 1 injection-site reaction) and 1 of 2974 children in the control group reported 1 event (seizure). In the younger age category, serious adverse events that were considered to be related to a study vaccine occurred in 6 children: 3 of 4358 children in the RTS,S/AS01 group reported 3 events (1 injection-site reaction, 1 episode of pyrexia, and 1 episode of febrile convulsion), and 3 of 2179 children in the control group reported 3 events (2 episodes of pyrexia and 1 episode of anaphylaxis). All children who had seizures that were deemed to be related to a study vaccine recovered from the acute event; epilepsy subsequently developed in 1 child."

[–]Zahn 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

They did not confirm that the cause of death was malaria for the ones listed to of had it, just that it was present. Please note: the control groups were given comparator vaccines. All participants in this study received vaccines at the same time, the control group was not the specific vaccine being tested but something similar. Can you link a study from a source that doesn't have a financial investment in the outcome of it.... non Pharma or CDC sources, please.

This vaccine test killed 151 children and caused serious adverse effects including paralysis, seizure, and febrile convulsions to 1,048 of the 5,949 children.

Here, let's make it easy. We all know Pharma has billions at their disposal to run huge disinfo and shill campaigns. What are Pharma Shills saying to allegedly debunk this type of bad publicity malaria results? I've found virtually nothing and they're always frothing at the mouth.

[–]whereswhat 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

No, the control group was given a non-malaria vaccine for comparison. There were two other versions of the vaccine they tested. Three groups total.

Also, why re-cite the same source I took issue with in your middle paragraph? Shill tactics!! Conspiracy!!

Edit: the control was given a rabies vaccine

[–]Zahn 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I don't see where you're finding that the control group had no vaccines.

The trial included two age categories: children 6 to 12 weeks of age and those 5 to 17 months of age at enrollment. The trial included three study groups in each age category: children who received all three doses of the RTS,S/AS01 vaccine administered at 1-month intervals and who were scheduled to receive a booster dose 18 months after the third dose, children who received the RTS,S/AS01 primary vaccination series without a booster, and a control group who received a non-malaria comparator vaccine.

Comparator vaccines (used) were rabies vaccine (VeroRab, Sanofi-Pasteur) for children 5 to 17 months of age at enrollment and meningococcal serogroup C conjugate vaccine (Menjugate, Novartis) for children 6 to 12 weeks of age at enrollment. All vaccines were administered intramuscularly.

All the children in the study received vaccines like the human guinea pigs they were being treated as. Like I said before, why is it that everyone that tells us this is safe seem to have an invested interest in making money off of it?

Conflicts Of Interest listed here...in part 7 called "Conflicts Of Interest": https://www.nejm.org/doi/suppl/10.1056/NEJMoa1102287/suppl_file/nejmoa1102287_appendix.pdf

We all know Pharma always puts people before profits...right? Just a partial list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_pharmaceutical_settlements

[–]whereswhat 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Ah, thanks for clearing that up for me. Yes, I made a mistake in my last comment. The control group was given an established vaccine for rabies so they wouldn't know they were in the control group. An even better approach than what I originally thought.

It sounds like you generally don't trust the safety of vaccines. Is that true? Are there any vaccines other than rabies you would consider safe for use as a comparator?

Thanks for structuring your argument with a thesis, supporting evidence, and a conclusion. Even though I don't agree with your conclusion, you have my upvote because you framed your comment in a way that moves the debate forward.

[–]DffrntDrmmr 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

A few excerpts from an article today in Zero Hedge called, "Unmasked: NATO's Dog-Eat-Dog Pandemic Reaction":


Despite its charter proclaiming mutual defense and security, the NATO military alliance is showing a rather unbecoming dog-eat-dog...


The United States, the top dog in the 30-member pack of nations, is accused of “modern piracy”...


To think too that only last year, NATO celebrated the 70th anniversary of its founding in 1949 with lots of fanfare and vain self-congratulations of how noble the alliance is. Skeptics, though, see the bloc as a Cold War relic whose security claims are but empty Orwellian excuses for warmongering and propping up obscenely wasteful corporate militarism.


Well, maybe not underhand, but the Wild West-style capitalism of outbidding others with bigger bucks over life-saving medical material certainly seems unethical. And what about all that jive about mutual defense and security?


The American death toll may peak at multiples of what we have seen in China or Europe. This is especially because of the deprived social conditions of American workers and due to under-resourced for-profit public health services.


No doubt too that was why Trump gratefully accepted medical aid sent from Russia last week. The US has also received supplies from China. Which puts into perspective how tawdry are American sanctions on Moscow and Trump’s trade-war wrangling with Beijing is.

Russia and China have both despatched medical aid to Italy to help it cope with the crisis. The Italian government and public have acknowleged the show of solidarity with gratitude.

Ironically, and cheaply, some US media outlets and European parliamentarians have accused Russia and China of exploiting the pandemic for alleged propaganda purposes. It is claimed that Russian and Chinese media are spreading disinformation over Covid-19 with the objective of undermining NATO and the European Union. That’s just another iteration of the usual anti-Russia mentality which is fixated on the notion of a supposed Kremlin plot to “destroy Western democracies”.

NATO and the EU are doing a pretty fine job of undermining themselves, never mind purported input from Russia or China.

The only time NATO seems to show “solidarity” is when its member-nations attack and destroy weaker foreign countries like Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria and Somalia – at the behest of top-dog USA. When the chips are down, however, and survival instincts kick in, then it’s dog-eat-dog with a snarling “Screw You!”

The saga of stealing masks from one another is surely truth-by-parody.


The anti-American, anti-NATO and pro-Russian bias couldnt be more obvious.

[–]DffrntDrmmr 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Methinks surely you kids can find a better channel to watch than Zero Hedge.

[–]Velocity 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I don't see the problem you have with these articles. Most of them provide succinct insight into world affairs that are often left out of mainstream news. Maybe you just like dumbed down spoonfed news? And that's okay if you do, I'm not judging.

[–]whereswhat 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Did he say anything about the news he likes?