Deaths On The Field

  • The Fighting Cock is a forum for fans of Tottenham Hotspur Football Club. Here you can discuss Spurs latest matches, our squad, tactics and any transfer news surrounding the club. Registration gives you access to all our forums (including 'Off Topic' discussion) and removes most of the adverts (you can remove them all via an account upgrade). You're here now, you might as well...

    Get involved!

Latest Spurs videos from Sky Sports

I’m pretty open-minded about this and I would want to see the data that shows a huge increase. But I also can’t figure out the motive to hide this if it exists? Like, who benefits if there was a spike in players dropping dead, and people don’t realize there’s a spike?
Why would the same media system that was gung ho for vaccination be invested in any disclosure that then makes them look like cunts?
 
You should post this data if you expect to have the slightest bit of credibility in this discussion.
It’s 100% this. If the data shows that players are dropping dead at a much more impactful rate, show your work.

As if the multibillion dollar clubs and franchises aren’t going to be interested in this. Like you’re Daniel Levy and you have these enormous financial assets which are the backbone of your business (maybe aside from an go-kart experience or skywalk), and you - along with every other owner - are just plain ignoring this?
 
Why would the same media system that was gung ho for vaccination be invested in any disclosure that then makes them look like cunts?
You don’t think the media could flip the script and tell everyone how big, bad Pharma is killing our sports heroes? The spike in views/clicks would be immense and they would do that in a second.
 
You don’t think the media could flip the script and tell everyone how big, bad Pharma is killing our sports heroes? The spike in views/clicks would be immense and they would do that in a second.
Thats the role/grift of the alternative and online media. Pfizer for instance would pull their funding of CNN immediately if they made on field deaths a big thing. So we end up with a polarised war between the two with the truth somewhere in the middle.
 
Sure it does

Not unless you know of and remember every incident in world football; then it's just hollow anecdotal pre and post covid.

I'm sure you'll just reply disagreeing; but to save any further back and forth......

Go ahead; quantify your "experience" (whatever that means) for us in a meaningful way.
 
Not unless you know of and remember every incident in world football; then it's just hollow anecdotal pre and post covid.

I'm sure you'll just reply disagreeing; but to save any further back and forth......

Go ahead; quantify your "experience" (whatever that means) for us in a meaningful way.
My experience and memory is meaningful to me.
 
My experience and memory is meaningful to me.

yeah-science.gif
 
Thats the role/grift of the alternative and online media. Pfizer for instance would pull their funding of CNN immediately if they made on field deaths a big thing. So we end up with a polarised war between the two with the truth somewhere in the middle.
Ok, so bearing in mind that Pfizer is public and we can see their financials…how much money does CNN get from them? And does BioNtech also give money to CNN? And what about the hundreds of other media outlets that compete with CNN? Wouldn’t they run a story about this?
 
My experience and memory is meaningful to me.
It's entirely possible that you might be right. Afterall, neither side of the debate has provided evidence. However, you basing and standing by your opinion on "well I don't remember people dieing on the pitch before the covid jab existed" makes for an easy target of ridicule.
 
It's entirely possible that you might be right. Afterall, neither side of the debate has provided evidence. However, you basing and standing by your opinion on "well I don't remember people dieing on the pitch before the covid jab existed" makes for an easy target of ridicule.

Burden of proof lies with those that are making an assertion to begin with.

If the "data" ( insert Travolta gif ) is being said to back up the theory; then provide the data. Why would one not seek to prove themselves right if they're going as far as arguing their point to begin with?

Anecdotal "evidence" (cough!) has no credibility in any serious debate.
 
It's entirely possible that you might be right. Afterall, neither side of the debate has provided evidence. However, you basing and standing by your opinion on "well I don't remember people dieing on the pitch before the covid jab existed" makes for an easy target of ridicule.
Notice, I’ve not once said it’s connected to covid Jabs
 
Ok, so bearing in mind that Pfizer is public and we can see their financials…how much money does CNN get from them? And does BioNtech also give money to CNN? And what about the hundreds of other media outlets that compete with CNN? Wouldn’t they run a story about this?
The large mainstream news are all beholden to significant corporate sponsorship. Thats a fairly monolithic system as the markets are all co-dependent. The independent new online media is only beholden to subscription. If you cant see that basic division of the cake I cant really help you.



View: https://twitter.com/_whitneywebb/status/1450464402000556039?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1450464402000556039%7Ctwgr%5E938172b6e954629a6030d6294c1dbbdaa5a844d4%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.realclearpolitics.com%2Fvideo%2F2021%2F10%2F19%2Fmontage_pfizer_sponsors_news_abc_cbs_nbc_cnn.html
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom