Read what you wrote?Read what you wrote!
If you are concerned about what's in tweets then put it in an appropriate thread.
That said, what you seem unwilling to grasp is that social media are taking some responsibility for what their platforms contain, and to say they are "in no position" to do that is plain nonsense.
...and Twitter gets pretty p¹ssed when you try to click on that link too.The American Heart Association has put out a study on the affects of mRna vaccines on one of the indicators for heart disease, the PULS score.
The tweet to it , found HERE has been slapped with a "warning: Link may be unsafe" tab by the medical experts at Twitter.
Not wise to get your medical advice from twitter, nor from the AHA it seems.
Mick
All social media are taking steps to ensure their content is properly described where claims are dubious, and that what Twitter is doing. So on that point you are plain wrong.Read what you wrote?
For heavens sake Rob, talk about Pot kettle black.
I said that Twitter is in no positon to deternine the health content of an AHA post.
I said nothing about the taking responsibility for their platforms.
Mick
What utter garbage.All social media are taking steps to ensure their content is properly described where claims are dubious, and that what Twitter is doing. So on that point you are plain wrong.
The other things you fail on relate to the fact that AHA merely included a contributor's abstract to a presentation to his AHA session on 13 November. The AHA did not "post" anything, and they certainly have not produced any study. However your post clearly suggests it's of AHA's making, which is false.
If your intention was to highlight social media policies then why didn't you post this where it belongs?
You know you are wrong, but still insist otherwise!What utter garbage.
Irrelevant to the facts - see above links.Do you ever read twitter or Facebook?
So what? When false attributions to AHA endorsement are made it gets a bit more serious than the typical dross of Twitter and Facebook, especially as the intention is to cast aspersions on the benefit of vaccinations. The average reader can work this out.Its chock full of absolute drivel ass well as downright lies.
Your logic is deficient. Trump's lies after the fact led to serious injuries and deaths at the Capitol, and he still has tens of millions believing he won the election.The fact that Twitter blocks the POTUS, but allows the Taliban to twit says it all.
Blah blah blah.You know you are wrong, but still insist otherwise!
Irrelevant to the facts - see above links.
So what? When false attributions to AHA endorsement are made it gets a bit more serious than the typical dross of Twitter and Facebook, especially as the intention is to cast aspersions on the benefit of vaccinations. The average reader can work this out.
Your logic is deficient. Trump's lies after the fact led to serious injuries and deaths at the Capitol, and he still has tens of millions believing he won the election.
This one Mick ? from hereBlah blah blah.
Exactly!!!Are face masks biodegradable?
These things are bloody everywhere. What's the point of banning straws and replacing it with disposable masks every damn where.
My 3-layer cotton face mask with a filter is washable and now well over a year old. It's way more comfortable and safer than the disposables, and the pattern on it makes it less sterile to look at.Are face masks biodegradable?
These things are bloody everywhere. What's the point of banning straws and replacing it with disposable masks every damn where.
I own two masks that have lasted just fine. I also wouldn't throw disposables on the ground and litter. But these things are all over the place. A lot have the plastic on the nose strip.My 3-layer cotton face mask with a filter is washable and now well over a year old. It's way more comfortable and safer than the disposables, and the pattern on it makes it less sterile to look at.
So if you are worries about disposable face masks, choose a much better alternative.
I would put more credence on it if the scientists or doctors were speaking, but lawyers?It will be interesting to see where this leads.
Well you sort of need lawyers to bring actions such as these. I strongly doubt anything will come of it anytime soon, but I find it interesting that the Nuremberg 2.0 idea is gaining traction.I would put more credence on it if the scientists or doctors were speaking, but lawyers?
I rank them down with politicians and lobbyists on the scale of credibility.
Mick
Unfortunately, the traction is not where it counts.Well you sort of need lawyers to bring actions such as these. I strongly doubt anything will come of it anytime soon, but I find it interesting that the Nuremberg 2.0 idea is gaining traction.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?