I have posted articles on my blog regarding this virus discussing symptoms of the virus, and those posts provide links to sources.
I didn't read my comment first, and misunderstood your question. The reliable reporters I refer to in my comment are the individual researchers reporting their research, and particularly where it has been peer reviewed, is very likely to be completely factual.
Edit: consider peer review like reporters having to get reporters from other outlets to agree their research, quotes, and reporting is accurate before it could be printed. The researchers in the fields in which they work compete for funding, so it's not much different than my analogy with reporters. Peer reviewed papers have been vetted by competitors for grants before being published. It doesn't fail to point our shoddy work often.
Any sources originating from 'the establishment are to be looked at with maximum suspicion (imo).
That cover 90% of information.
I'm now leaning to the fact it doesn't exist at all! The biggest false flag in history.
(based on doctors interviews who disagree.)
Here's the full video that I grabbed clips from, for my vid the other day, as an example. https://www.bitchute.com/video/XxeGUIBPVleu/
I am not quoting the WHO. If you don't discriminate between the WHO and actual scientists that publish the results of their experiments after other scientists that compete with them for funding review their work (peer review), you are hopelessly incapable of making rational decisions. Science is real information. The WHO are lying mouthpieces for banksters.
See the difference? These links are what the WHO omits from their discussions, along with the enemedia, and government. That's why I post them.
The difference between facts and lies is the difference between peer reviewed science and political statements.
I thought you capable of grasping that difference. If you cannot I have wasted every moment I have spent discussing this matter with you.
I have posted articles on my blog regarding this virus discussing symptoms of the virus, and those posts provide links to sources.
I didn't read my comment first, and misunderstood your question. The reliable reporters I refer to in my comment are the individual researchers reporting their research, and particularly where it has been peer reviewed, is very likely to be completely factual.
Here's one I haven't posted previously:
https://archive.vn/pA1RI
Here's one I think is extremely important (and I happened to have it open):
https://riderinstitute.org/discovery/
Edit: consider peer review like reporters having to get reporters from other outlets to agree their research, quotes, and reporting is accurate before it could be printed. The researchers in the fields in which they work compete for funding, so it's not much different than my analogy with reporters. Peer reviewed papers have been vetted by competitors for grants before being published. It doesn't fail to point our shoddy work often.
If you're talking about folks on TV channels, I don't know of any I have any confidence in
Phew! I was getting worried then.lol
Any sources originating from 'the establishment are to be looked at with maximum suspicion (imo).
That cover 90% of information.
I'm now leaning to the fact it doesn't exist at all! The biggest false flag in history.
(based on doctors interviews who disagree.)
Here's the full video that I grabbed clips from, for my vid the other day, as an example.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/XxeGUIBPVleu/
Never mind.
When the WHO lie using their own figures to create a narrative ( panic), you don't start to smell a rat?
#Seriously?
I am not quoting the WHO. If you don't discriminate between the WHO and actual scientists that publish the results of their experiments after other scientists that compete with them for funding review their work (peer review), you are hopelessly incapable of making rational decisions. Science is real information. The WHO are lying mouthpieces for banksters.
See the difference? These links are what the WHO omits from their discussions, along with the enemedia, and government. That's why I post them.
The difference between facts and lies is the difference between peer reviewed science and political statements.
I thought you capable of grasping that difference. If you cannot I have wasted every moment I have spent discussing this matter with you.
...don't be a dick, seriously.
The Corbett report...you might find this interesting....
https://www.bitchute.com/video/bM9aZflBoOU/
Great stuff - sheeple are much scarier than an imaginary virus...