We're treating RT and ZeroHedge as legitimate sources now?

Except that this is absolutely a normal part of the business and the hives are recouped throughout the year through normal population regrowth... there is nothing out of the ordinary happening here.

fOrCeD-vAx NaZi Tryhard dope.

Yeah, the dude you responded to is just trolling. Nearly all of his comments contain the phrase "forced-vax Nazis."

Rather than whine like an idiot about straw men while straw-manning your opponent, why not actually respond to what they said?

Children are not the "property" of anyone. They're the *responsibility* of their parents. And the community at large has a legitimate interest in protecting them if their parents make awful choices, such as abusing them or refusing to provide them real medical attention.

The only reason that these quacks publish videos on Amazon instead of making them freely available is because they want to profit off of their quackery. Nobody is censoring anyone by making you pay to see hear their speech. In fact, publishing it in a paid medium versus for free on a website is *restricting* your access to their speech.

And the first is what she did in this case. Saying "we didn't make this movie for white dudes" is not saying they don't want their business - it's saying they're not the primary motivator for the movie being made. Y'all already love to take ownership of everything minorities make for themselves; why not this, too?

Good god, dude, you need to grow up. Actual adults don't think like this.

"Maybe it was a placebo effect but no matter, it had an effect." ... It had an effect equal to FAKE treatment. That is... not an effect.

"Placebo effect can also boost or lower natural immunity"? Seriously? No. A boosted or lowered level of immune system function is an autoimmune disorder. Placebos and nocebos have only EVER been shown to affect SUBJECTIVE factors.

Ah, yes, the God of The Gaps. Your argument is identical to the "we don't know how it was done. so God done it" argument of the creationist crowd (whatever they call them selves this week). It's a bad argument, and it should certainly not be used to make drastic, and very, very expensive change.

It's not even remotely the same. His argument is based on evidence and data, not ignorance. He's asking for an alternate hypothesis that has as much explanatory power as his evidence-based model.

Oh, that's cute. Take a graph where a single pixel is millions of years, and use it to assert that historical CO2 levels were higher than current. There's just one problem, though. See the right-hand edge of the graph? See how it's a thick black line? THAT'S THE CONTINUATION OF THE ATMOSPHERIC CO2 LINE INTO THE LAST SEVERAL MILLION YEARS. All other lines in the graph are *thin* or *dotted* black lines, except for the atmospheric CO2 line. Increase the resolution on that data so that it's even just one pixel per decade and I'm damn sure that you'd see higher atmospheric CO2 levels in the last 200 years than *ever* before.