https://youtu.be/zBkVCpbNnkU

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/amp/technology-48227377

@Magical Sheep why should we listen to you ??? you are a liar with your bull comments if mike adams deleted it it would have the natural news link the the archive https://images-ext-1.discordapp.net/external/8Getiq6uObwp-ecQD8v9MwM3XDBXh50KJpeTANlbx24/https/media.discordapp.net/attachments/552285797038948364/575137708947669012/Annotation_2019-05-06_215124.png

trying to say natural news deleted that link when it has zero to do with natural news

you cant be trusted at all srry

They believe anything they are told as long as it comes from their priests

should be removed from the server tbh for being dishonest

@Citizen Z thanks for the role upgrade lol

@Magical Sheep where does natural newz say they are against science?

@Wretch yw

At least his name describes him

hahahaha

Magical sheep

you see the article from texas calling vaccines sorcery

No i didnt

But ive been calling it alchemy

https://www.naturalnews.com/2019-05-11-texas-rep-rips-big-pharma-shill-parental-rights.html

Texas rep rips big pharma shill: ‘parental rights mean more to us’ than vaccine ‘sorcery’

hahahaha

they also forget natural news put links to the sources in the articles they write

they like to call him antiscience because he goes against the mainstream narrative

it is far from it hahaha

uses more science than your side does

real science

cause he does not hide the truth about the things the government wants to hide from you

@「阿波根うみこ」 http://humansarefree.com/2019/04/science-pioneer-99-of-modern-scientific.html what is real science to you

@「阿波根うみこ」 hahaha you believe in pseudoscience

“People just don’t do it,” Wharton School professor and forecasting expert J. Scott Armstrong told Brietbart.com after making the shocking claim that less that one percent of papers published in scientific journals follow the scientific method.

“Advocacy research is the bulk of these 99 percent of non-scientific studies and they’re not done for scientific development, they’re done to support a political idea. If you want to make money in universities these days, you publish papers that support global warming and you live handsomely.”\

“[Scientists] cheat. If you don’t get statistically significant results, then you throw out variables, add variables, [and] eventually you get what you want,” he concluded.

yea you do BELIEVE in PSEUDOSCIENCE

less than 1% of what you believe is actual science

kinda like this

keep putting values in till you get what you want

“[Scientists] cheat. If you don’t get statistically significant results, then you throw out variables, add variables, [and] eventually you get what you want,” he concluded.

@「阿波根うみこ」 lol the main article came from breibart hahaha they list their sources like natural news

and just cause some government funded rag tag magazine put something out there like forbes which is run by big pharma then you understand

forbes get all kinds of funding from big pharma from ads in their magazine so if they publish stuff against the big pharma they lose their funding lol

come back any time with a real argument cause you guys have not given me one yet i cant shoot down

mediabiasfactcheck seems to be the ones who need to be fact checked hahahahaha

https://mobile.twitter.com/stutzy6/status/618111447604662273