Hyperlinks And Copied Documents
Technology1 min ago
Looks Like David Eek Is Banned From Youtube
111 Answers
He is a bit mad but why is he banned? Too close to the truth? He was saying the corona virus death stats have been exaggerated and with that he is gone. Its just his opinion so why ban him it makes me mad.
Our local hospital is the regional epidemic center and there is absolutely no one there! We know nobody who has had it apart from some kids at the school and parents. It has been confirmed they have the virus but they were NEVER tested. Its very strange all of this and getting banned for questioning it makes it even more suspicious.
Our local hospital is the regional epidemic center and there is absolutely no one there! We know nobody who has had it apart from some kids at the school and parents. It has been confirmed they have the virus but they were NEVER tested. Its very strange all of this and getting banned for questioning it makes it even more suspicious.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ukanonymous. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
sp1814
///royfromaus
Facebook said it had removed Icke's page "for repeatedly violating our policies on harmful misinformation".
What have the WHO said on their page that violated Faacebooks policy on spreading harmful misinformation?
I'm not saying you're wrong - it's just that I don't subscribe to their page, so I've got no idea how they've violated Facebook's terms and conditions.//
I'd guess repeatedly assuring everyone that Covid was a non communicable disease until the end of january could be considered slightly harmful misinformation.
Don't ask me for a link, only WHO approved Covid information is allowed on the Internet.
Wouldn't surprise me if this post disappeared.
///royfromaus
Facebook said it had removed Icke's page "for repeatedly violating our policies on harmful misinformation".
What have the WHO said on their page that violated Faacebooks policy on spreading harmful misinformation?
I'm not saying you're wrong - it's just that I don't subscribe to their page, so I've got no idea how they've violated Facebook's terms and conditions.//
I'd guess repeatedly assuring everyone that Covid was a non communicable disease until the end of january could be considered slightly harmful misinformation.
Don't ask me for a link, only WHO approved Covid information is allowed on the Internet.
Wouldn't surprise me if this post disappeared.
I've not read what was banned, but judging from his reputation, and the fact that not everyone sees his problem in believing any going conspiracy, and crucially some deciding to believe his views as if they were facts, then for sure he should be banned during times like this, when there's a serious problem that needs the public to be correctly informed. Nothing strange or questionable in that at all. Maybe he can preach his fantasies when this is all over.
There seems to be an innate need in human beings to believe in nonsense for which there's no evidence.
Historically, that need has been satisfied by religion, but in these increasingly secular times, other things like conspiracy theories have had to fill the role.
David Icke is a prophet for that new nonsense, and there are plenty of people gullible enough to buy into his preaching, as there always have been for self proclaimed holy men since time immemorial.
Historically, that need has been satisfied by religion, but in these increasingly secular times, other things like conspiracy theories have had to fill the role.
David Icke is a prophet for that new nonsense, and there are plenty of people gullible enough to buy into his preaching, as there always have been for self proclaimed holy men since time immemorial.
There is something in what Spicerack says about the WHO ('Won't Get Fooled Again')
Here is the timeline as it is shown now.
https:/
For 14th Jan it now says " WHO's technical lead for the response noted in a press briefing there may have been limited human-to-human transmission of the coronavirus (in the 41 confirmed cases), mainly through family members, and that there was a risk of a possible wider outbreak. The lead also said that human-to-human transmission would not be surprising given our experience with SARS, MERS and other respiratory pathogens. "
Yet on the same day WHO had tweeted that that there was "no clear evidence" that the coronavirus could spread between people."
https:/
Mixed messages certainly.
But unlike Icke they then almost immediately changed the message once it was clear to any scientists in the field that transmission was possible and was occurring.
Here is the timeline as it is shown now.
https:/
For 14th Jan it now says " WHO's technical lead for the response noted in a press briefing there may have been limited human-to-human transmission of the coronavirus (in the 41 confirmed cases), mainly through family members, and that there was a risk of a possible wider outbreak. The lead also said that human-to-human transmission would not be surprising given our experience with SARS, MERS and other respiratory pathogens. "
Yet on the same day WHO had tweeted that that there was "no clear evidence" that the coronavirus could spread between people."
https:/
Mixed messages certainly.
But unlike Icke they then almost immediately changed the message once it was clear to any scientists in the field that transmission was possible and was occurring.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.