cloverleaf wrote:Bad-Thoma wrote:cloverleaf wrote:
Look through to the sources. Obviously you are in the mainstream media matrix, so other perspectives and info look off to you. The sources from Israel and the UK and what the CDC has stated re: different testing protocols for those who are "vaccinated" vs. those who are not are all publicly available, with links provided from this article.
Lol, no. You are way too smart for that Clover.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/natural-news/
I am too smart for what you accuse me of. NN does indeed go over the edge at times and I don't buy into all of it all--as I don't for pretty much any mainstream or alternative news source I can think of.
But I also realize that "fact checkers" are pretty much universally bogus on their own. Setting up strawmen to knock down rather than dealing with the real and documented counter narratives that far too many have been zombified with, starting by watching "the news" in on the intentionally alpha state-inducing TV news.
You, unfortunately, are the one deluded.
Yeah, I'm not a mainstream media guy at all, I like my news delivered without telling me how I should feel about it. I like Reuters, consistently ranked as being highly accurate and unbiased. Being non-deluded isn't panning through a river as dirty as NN for some flecks of truth, it's realizing that you can't post a story from it and expect to be taken seriously regardless of the individual story. It's like relaying a rumor told to you by a guy who only lies about 80% of the time, sure there's a chance this one's true but no one's wasting their time tracking it down to find out if this one is accurate when it's pretty safe to disregard it out of hand. You might as well post some links from NationalEnquirer.com then tell me how deluded I am when I roll my eyes. "Yeah, I know that bat-boy story was bogus but this theory about Hillary Clinton drinking the blood of children really resonates with me so it must be true. Go ahead and laugh sheeple."














