Comments by "Dr Gamma D" (@DrDeuteron) on "This COVID Researcher Was Hella Suss" video.

  1. the fact that your think we need to be protected from strangers' opinions and idea means we should be protected from your opinions and ideas.
    6
  2. really? The conspiracy crowd? That's a conspiracy theory right there.
    3
  3.  @ernestolynch1926  didn't he say m@sk don't do anything, then he said wear them, then he said you don't need to wear them at mostly peaceful protests b/c r@c!sm is a bigger threat than a v!ru$? Not very scientific, .., and the fact that I need to spoof certain letters to even get the post to stick...why?
    2
  4. I will be reporting this for mis information. I watched that pressor live. POTUS turned to his expert and asked if you could use said product in vivo (I mean rn we use antimatter in vivo to annihilate part of your brain to see you brain, so it's not an unreasonable question), the expert said "no!". So he did what a non-expert should: have an idea, ask the person you hired to set you straight, accept his/her answer. Then, a reporter asked a question no one needed: "are you saying we should inject [cleaning product]", Potus said "NO", and the fake news went with the opposite 'Potus says inject ch*****x, DONT! Here's Why:"  And here we are 4 years later with ppl who think they are smart and informed repeating absolute lies they learned from the TV. The TV!
    1
  5.  @_human_1946  Did he "compare to" or "compare with". Big difference. Read Strunk & White.
    1
  6. this comment was not shadow banned.
    1
  7. was mine?
    1
  8. it doesn't really matter. We had scientific criteria to say a product is safe and effective [heretofore SNE] (and it takes like 5-10 years), and whatever was done, was done in under 1 year, so it is manifestly impossible that the criteria were satisfied, and the statement that it is SNE is not, cannot be (by definition), scientific. It could be true, it could be false, we may know in the within the next 5 years. Moreover, the definition of a "vax" has certain specifications that are not met by "a prophylactic", yet we use the former term, not the latter. This has the added benefit of labeling "people questioning the prophylactic" as anti-vaxxers, which is already a nut-job conspiracy group, who got started from a peer-reviewed (iirc) scientific publication that has since been retracted.
    1
  9. that's not a reasonable take. When he was in office, he had a pressor every day with the nation's experts up front, and then said experts later said "they felt gagged", and can now speak freely (post '20)--I mean if POTUS was doing something wrong, then you bring your resignation letter to pressor, call him out, and walk out on live national TV. But that's if you have: integrity and courage. So don't fall for the BS. btw: Do you believe he said we should inject Clorox?
    1