We have created this situation ourselves. Too damn many stupid people hear all the nonsense and crap. It has led to death, long term sickness, the potential destruction of our health care system. Vaccines have been around for 500 years. Tell the native Americans (N & S) about 'herd' immunity when, in some places 90% of the indigenous people died. Yes, absolutely this is crying fire in a crowded theater and it needs to be controlled. Freedom is NOT more important than people's lives. If you're dead you have no freedoms.

LOL...crying because he's pushing "natural immunity" which is interpreted by too many as a freedom to avoid vaccines and masks.

Sorry - I won't buy it.

Sounds too #FauxNews" to me.

I’m against censorship, but there is a difference between publishing something which is clearly only an opinion, which is perfectly ok, …..and publishing that same opinion and calling it fact ….that is not ok. It’s not ok because it’s not fact, but merely opinion and I hope you can tell the difference, because many people can’t, and are confused which leads them to not be able to distinguish truth from lie.

[mediabiasfactcheck.com]

The Washington Times, although praised by conservative political leaders, has also been criticized for being the mouthpiece of the Unification Church. The Washington Times also has a strong pro-Christian bias, with a whole section dedicated to the Bible. They have also published articles that criticize left-leaning Christians such as this: “George Soros and his ‘rented evangelicals’ outed by Christian leaders.”

In review, The Washington Times utilizes emotionally loaded language in their headlines such as “Gowdy puts Comey on blast after FBI ex-chief’s snarky ‘search for the truth’ tweet” and “NBC News’ Mika Brzezinski problem.” When it comes to sourcing, The Washington Times re-publishes articles from the least biased Associated Press and occasionally utilizes credible sources such as Refinery29. In examining several articles, we found that The Times either does not source information or links back to themselves (internal linking) to information not relevant to the article. This article is a good example of internal linking: “Mueller: FBI did not mislead Flynn into lying.” Internal linking is a technique used to increase page views and improve SEO, thereby increasing advertising revenue. There is nothing wrong with internal linking if the link relates to relevant information, but it does not in the case of The Times.

When evaluating how The Times covers science, we found they published an analysis/opinion piece by L. Todd Wood that promotes a climate change conspiracy theory: “global warming and then the climate change narrative was cooked up by America’s adversaries to enable our enemies to eventually dominate us.” According to IFCN fact checker Climate Feedback, The Washington Times published an article with very low scientific credibility. However, when covering straight news on climate change, they report accurately, as seen in this article: “Trump admin releases National Climate Assessment with dire warnings.”

It's the Washington Times, owned by the founder of the "Moonies" (or his heir I guess as I think he passed.)

What??