Bill Burr On Anti-Vax Conspiracy Theories - bestofyoutube.com

Main videos
Top videos
- All time
- Today
- Yesterday
- Week
- Month
- Year
- Random
Submissions (upcoming)

Vote

Bill Burr On Anti-Vax Conspiracy Theories

Posted 3 years ago by boyt in category: funny

Comments (19)

Ruckus42 - 3 years ago [ Reply ]

Right, so... People who don't want to get a permanent experimental medical procedure are the same as flat-earthers? Uh huh.

Reply to this post:

Dorsalfin - 3 years ago

A lot of similarities in their "research".

DaveJoyce - 3 years ago [ Reply ]

I don't give a flying flip about anti-vaxxers. I'm anti-mandate. They're literally treating unvaccinated citizens in Australia like literal second class citizens. We need to make segregation EVIL again.

Reply to this post:

spydyrman - 2 years ago

You were at 5 up and 5 down Dave, I'm guessing the 5 down don't live in Australia or have a clue how draconian the measures there are.

wongauto - 3 years ago [ Reply ]

I had two family members die shortly after the vaccine and the hospital refused to report it to VAERS, they said they both were heart attacks. Fit, healthy people. Never a heart issue. Anti-vaxsers aren't a problem, if you got it, you should be safe. Not anti-vax, anti-rushed-vax.

Reply to this post:

Noemoc - 3 years ago [ Reply ]

I am very much in favor of getting the vaccines. (As it happens, I am a pediatrician, not that it matters, except that I have thought a lot about vaccines or, depending on your perspective, am just a puppet of the grand conspiracy.) But I have to agree with Dave on this one. (Hey Dave! Nice to see you again.) I don’t think Bill Burr is going change many people’s minds. I wish we could dial the rhetoric way back and let people make their own choices. I get it. There is a public health issue here. We are super busy at my hospital in part because of unvaccinated folks. So maybe we should stop yelling at unvaccinated folks, present the information we have as accurately and clearly as possible and then let them decide. Outside the made up outrage factory that the media (both left and right) has become I think most people are well intentioned and would make reasonable choices if they understand the risks and the benefits both of getting vaccinated and not getting vaccinated. But once vaccination or non-vaccination becomes a badge of honor related to politics we have lost the public health battle.

Reply to this post:

DaveJoyce - 3 years ago

DaveJoyce - 3 years ago [ Reply ]

Agree. It shouldn’t be political. There are legitimate concerns about the vaccine as well. But *because* it’s political as wongauto indicated it’s being suppressed. Take this for example… "We conclude that the mRNA vacs dramatically increase inflammation on the endothelium and T cell infiltration of cardiac muscle and may account for the observations of increased thrombosis, cardiomyopathy, and other vascular events following vaccination." https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/circ.144.suppl_1.10712

Reply to this post:

DaveJoyce - 3 years ago [ Reply ]

Is this site updated like once a week now?

Reply to this post:

Noemoc - 3 years ago

boyt - 3 years ago

It will improve with a complete re-launch in not too long time.

Roger8456 - 3 years ago [ Reply ]

So, Bill, you picked a side. You went with the so-called vaccine. What did you base that on? Who is your trusted source? Let’s hear it, genius. The library? Get real. You don’t have to be a conspiracy theorist to simply say I’m going to look at all the evidence out there. Isn’t that what an intelligent person would do, especially since this “vaccine” was authorized for emergency use only? Calling someone who doesn’t agree with you a conspiracy theorist, is a lame cop-out, not much different from labeling someone you disagree with a racist. You just don’t want to have an honest discussion or debate. Why do you think the pseudo-media is so reviled? Their approval rate is lower than the dogcrap I stepped in this morning on my way to work. The media and the left want to dominate the narrative. No discussions allowed. I’m disappointed in you, Bill. Thought you might have just said something like, “Let everyone decide for themselves what they want. If someone doesn’t like it, tough tits.” Instead, you threw in with the overloads on the left. I hope you got your 30 pieces of silver.

Reply to this post:

heftygrain - 3 years ago

Well, it depends on where you get the "evidence" from. Either from the established media and real scientists, or from the social media and self-declared scientists (read: anyone with access to social media sharing whatever they made up).

spydyrman - 2 years ago

heftygrain - "Either from the established media" who have been lying about everything since day 1, I remember them all. Your first alarm bell should have been when they told you that the lab-leak theory was somehow racist, but the bat theory wasn't. Big, fire-red alarm bells. :)

Roger8456 - 3 years ago [ Reply ]

But if you get your information from world-renowned researchers, scientists and the like who have dissenting opinions based on verifiable publicly available information, you’re labeled flat-out as an anti-vaxxer or conspiracy theorist. That’s my point. We cannot have conversations, because these labels are meant to silence dissent. Establishment media and social are the most powerful censors out there, which is why trust in the media is at all-time low. So you’re suggesting this is who we should listen to? No thanks. Sorry, but they made their beds. They must lie in it. If they want to be watched, listened to, respected, then they must do their damn jobs. They’ve compromised all ethics for the sake of a single ideological agenda. Don’t a slave of thought. Be a free thinker. Don’t allow their labels to prevent you doing your own research.

Reply to this post:

heftygrain - 2 years ago

That's what you get when you do your own "research", you start believing in conspiracies like hidden agendas of the media. Social media shows you what you want to see, so you don't see anything from outside that bubble. You are basing your ideas on incomplete information. Science is supposed to be objective, not subjective. Proper scientific publications have been verified my multiple researchers. I tend to take such information over information that has been circulating on the internet with obscure sources. Free thinking for me includes thinking about how credible certain information is.

anon100 - 2 years ago

It’s big media and social media that’s doing all the censoring and bullying. They won’t allow science that doesn’t conform to their own version of science. It’s silenced completely. I’m not talking about obscure sources. I’m talking about data oftentimes from the same sources as big media and social media. But it’s data that’s tells the opposite story. So, you aren’t just saying this is a trusted source. You’re parsing their information/facts/data to say, “I like what you said there, but this other thing you said directly contradicts what you said before, so I’ll ignore this new thing.” That’s not being objective or truthful with yourself. That’s not being a free-thinker. That’s picking a side.

anon100 - 2 years ago

If you do your research before buying a car or house, your a savvy shopper. Duh(!), who wouldn’t, right? However, if you do your homework before succumbing to an injection, you’re somehow a conspiracy theorist. And that’s what you implied, heftygrain.

asgath - 2 years ago [ Reply ]

Wow. 16 comments on a video on BOYT. I wonder what the topic is =D

Reply to this post: