LOOKING INTO THE LIVES OF 81 PEOPLE WHO TOOK THE MRNA INJECTION BY DANA AHSLIE

submitted by JustLookDontDismiss from bitchute.com

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]cant_even 6 insightful - 4 fun6 insightful - 3 fun7 insightful - 4 fun -  (5 children)

[sources adl, wikipedia and the Manchester Guardian...]

[accuses others of "misinformation"]

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

Mention anything in those sources that you can claim is false.

Or, if you have something to contribute, say it.

(Don't just whine about sources that have factual information that you don't like because you don't like facts. Also not how brackets are used.)

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

Wikipedia oftentimes leaves out vital information, and they oftentimes never mention any contention between scholars and academics. If they do, the Wikipedia editors obviously lean one way, even if the evidence points to both sides. It has a bias, although it also has it's use.

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

I agree, though generally there are attempts to corroborate the facts, even if this fails with biased editors. It's had a long strange history with these people. But it's never been an academic site, even if it's used by numerous academics. It's just one approach, of several, and for basic information that is generally agreed upon, it's a convenient site.

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

I agree. I use shitpedia for certain things, and I don't think people should write it off just because it has a bias.

I used to have a good friend who edited wiki. He had to quit because everytime he would give the "less popular" view some more insight, his edits would be removed by someone else. I don't know how rampant this is, but learning that changed my view on the website.

You said it yourself: it is a convenient site. I agree.

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

Wikipedia states right on their site that it is "not a reliable source." Socks is a mainstream leftist shill who is engaged in a push to undermine this and ALL sites that go against the "official" narrative. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_reliable_source