Johns Hopkins Medical Centre - World Coronavirus infection Map by Country.

[HD Goofnut]

I would credit anything on the BBC website about 1,000 times more than anything I read on the Daily Mail website.

That would be your downfall, here is one example why.

[Marco]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-52833706

'So how did the founder of Microsoft, who has poured billions into global healthcare from the philanthropic foundation he runs with his wife Melinda, become the bogeyman of Covid-19 conspiracy theorists?

Prof Joseph Uscinski, a political scientist at the University of Miami and author of books on conspiracy theories, believes it is simply because he is rich and famous.

"Conspiracy theories are about accusing powerful people of doing terrible things," he told the BBC. "The theories are basically the same,
just the names change.

"Before Bill Gates, it was George Soros and the Koch brothers and the Rothchilds and the Rockefellers."

And while the majority of conspiracy theories "die on the vine", the ones that endure are those that offer "big villains and address issues that people care about".

"It should come as no surprise that rich people and big corporations are being accused of conspiring to put chips in our necks because that is a thing we fear," he said.

"This has been the ammo of conspiracy theories for a long, long time."

Sure, but that doesn't mean that the above aren't guilty of some of the things that they've been accused of. It could be that so far there hasn't been enough evidence to convict them, or it's been covered up. As usual Joe, you just want to believe what you want to believe, and pooh-pooh the rest. And it's getting rather tedious.
,

While he thinks such conspiracies have "no tether to the truth whatsoever", people still seem to be falling for them.

Or maybe, like me, they're deeply suspicious of anything that's considered as challenging the accepted norm, and automatically labelled as a "conspiracy theory", as potentially being a way of trying to cover up the truth? And in that respect, it's not us who are "falling" for anything, but those who refuse to entertain anything other than that which best fits with their bias.

That mindset cuts both ways.

More than a quarter of all Americans and 44% of Republicans believe that Bill Gates wants to use a Covid-19 vaccine to implant microchips under people's skin, according to a survey from Yahoo News and YouGov.'

Good. If there's *any* truth in it all, it might prevent it from happening. Anything that raises awareness of any potential wrongdoing by Gates (or anyone else) is fine by me!

Marco.

[Marco]

I would credit anything on the BBC website about 1,000 times more than anything I read on the Daily Mail website.

Good for you, I don't! For me, they're both potentially as bad as each other, but if either of them reports on a story that I think deserves consideration, I'll consider it. It's called being openminded.

Marco.

[walpurgis]

The idea of a vaccine containing a 'chip' is implausible. For instance, it would need to rely on external fields to have power for information relay and in any case would need to be microscopically tiny to be in suspension with vaccine, and what frequency would this micron sized item operate at and would it have an aerial that works? I don't think so.

[Marco]

That would be your downfall, here is one example why.

Haha, Ben, that's fantastic and ably proves my point about the BBC simply being a mouthpiece for the establishment. It also ably highlights their anti-Trump agenda, which I guess are one and the same! They should be called out for DELIBERATELY misrepresenting the facts and forced to retract their LIES and PROPAGANDA!!

TBH, Trump should sue the BBC. I think he'd have a very good case.

Also, this is a very telling comment under the YT video:

Thank you for exposing the lies by the BBC. We need to investigate who is on the Chinese Communist Party's payroll because there is a pattern emerging.

Indeed - and my thoughts exactly!

Marco.

[Marco]

The idea of a vaccine containing a 'chip' is implausible. For instance, it would need to rely on external fields to have power for information relay and in any case would need to be microscopically tiny to be in suspension with vaccine, and what frequency would this micron sized item operate at and would it have an aerial that works? I don't think so.

The claim is, Geoff, that it would be done 'invisibly' with an ink, not a chip as such, and as an abuse of this new technology:https://www.sciencealert.com/an-invi...accinated-kids

I've posted that link before.

Marco.

[Barry]

That would be your downfall, here is one example why.

It would have been better for the commentator to have shown all of the clip he downloaded, rather than showing bits of it and telling us what went on in-between.

[Macca]

I would credit anything on the BBC website about 1,000 times more than anything I read on the Daily Mail website.

I'm surprised you would say that Joe. The sole the purpose of a newspaper, like any business, is to make a profit, and that has been the case since the format was invented. They do that by printing things that people want to read, not by printing facts or the truth. The Daily Mail is no better or worse than any newspaper in that regard.

But publicly funded organizations like the BBC are also subject to bias because their primary objective is to service their own interests, and the objectives that they were actually set up to achieve will always be secondary to that.

[Joe]

I'm surprised you would say that Joe. The sole the purpose of a newspaper, like any business, is to make a profit, and that has been the case since the format was invented. They do that by printing things that people want to read, not by printing facts or the truth. The Daily Mail is no better or worse than any newspaper in that regard.

But publicly funded organizations like the BBC are also subject to bias because their primary objective is to service their own interests, and the objectives that they were actually set up to achieve will always be secondary to that.

I didn't say that the BBC was free of bias, just that it's 1,000 times more likely to be accurate than the Daily Mail, which mostly seems to obsess about which food causes/cures cancer (updated to COVID these days), 'wardrobe mishaps' and house prices. There's nothing like the in-depth BBC reporting such as this:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/extra/Qwh...-of-a-pandemic

Which is hardly surprising, as I guess the Daily Mail these days is down to a couple of unpaid interns checking Google, Twitter and Facebook for possible stories.

[Joe]

It would have been better for the commentator to have shown all of the clip he downloaded, rather than showing bits of it and telling us what went on in-between.

He could do with getting his teeth fixed too.