you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted]  (7 children)

[deleted]

    [–]proc0 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

    It's not about WHO, it's about what's actually true (obviously they won't be publishing 100% lies all the time). I just assumed you would be pro-vax and think WHO is a credible source. Drugs exist and sometimes are helpful when taken appropriately. In this case, it's about the narrative having been against IVM, even though there is so much evidence of safety. This in turn is evidence against the narrative that so many just like to believe.

    [–][deleted]  (5 children)

    [deleted]

      [–]proc0 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

      Yes, because it's proof their narrative is bogus. And yes they're corrupted shit anyway.

      [–][deleted]  (3 children)

      [deleted]

        [–]proc0 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

        When it makes sense and aligns with other sources that aren't as corrupt. Knowing when it lies doesn't matter to me, but it should matter to those that believe it as a valid institution.

        [–][deleted]  (1 child)

        [deleted]

          [–]proc0 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

          I dont know what you're going on about.