Debate:Is Google hiding vaccine related deaths?

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Debate.png This is a Debate page.
Feel free to add your own spin on the story. Please keep it civil!
Information icon.svg This debate was created by PenaH.


There has been a lot of talk about ever since start of vaccine rollouts that Google would be hiding vaccine related deaths. I have always thought that Google is one of the worst censoring sites on internet and I think this is no different. To clarify, I'm not antivaxx, I have taken both doses and I'm fine, but it is still scummy that Google is hiding potentially important data.— Unsigned, by: / talk

This site doesn't link to any convincing evidence, let me put this into perspective for you, and why this kind of thing matters in the legal system and how that can help you understand what views to take seriously and not in real life. If you go to court tomorrow, for a crime you didn't commit, and you're a liberal, would you want a bunch of conservatives to convict you with the only evidence that links you to a crime being "you're biased" accusations? Do you know how insane that would be? BumblingBuffoon (talk) 09:41, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
Sure and yeah, website I linked doesn't really show the evidence, but you can easily find it yourself. If you search "covid vaccine injuries" on Google and then DuckDuckGo, you can clearly see difference and that is argument that Rogan is making too. — Unsigned, by: / talk
'Clearly seeing' the difference is a lot different from statistical analysis. Doing your exercise myself; google compared with DuckDuckGo reveals that the only difference that seems to be the case on DuckDuckGo is that I get a massive fat clickbait title that's from some totally trustworthy 'news' site, let's take a closer look at this poor website that we're just going to assume doesn't even exist on google, right? In fact, this article from Reuters was the top result on google using that term, so if there is a conspiracy to block information google is doing a poor job.
The article on the site was posted by someone called S.D Wells, who is S.D Wells you might ask? Who fucking knows! All you get when looking them up is links to other fake news websites and a shitload of articles with inflammatory titles, with a noticeable anti-democratic bent.[1][2][3][4] Wait, one of those sources is from a fact checker made by scientists, they must be in on the democratic plot! But, they gave CNN a roast on their own site![5] How can this be!?
If we're going to dismiss people based on bias it seems wrong not to dismiss this person because from their post histories it seems they're massively biased against anything that leans left. The article itself makes astounding claims with absolutely no sources given in the very first paragraph, it just expects the user to be lazy as shit and just accept it as fact, which they'll do because it confirms their already existing biases. Of the sources it lists, it lists fucking ZeroHedge, TruthWiki, itself (to another author called Ethan Huff, who on searching appears to be the name of someone with actual credentials, but there is no proof that this person is the same), and other batshit conspiracy sites. The site even uses talking points repeated by Alex Jones[6][7]. Pure brainrot.
The only author I found so far is Mike Adams from that old page, which brings us finally to the NaturalNews page itself on this wiki. BumblingBuffoon (talk) 12:12, 20 October 2021 (UTC)