| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
 | This article contains a translation of Vasilios Kotronias from de.wikipedia. |
WikiProject class rating edit
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 08:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
"Kotronias has repeatedly shared popular conspiracy theories on his social medial accounts, arguing that number of deaths is inflated and that the disease is not as dangerous as presented"
Why are his statements brushed off as "conspiracy theories?" According to research performed by Minnesota State Senator Dr. Scott Jensen, the number of deaths has likely been inflated; many people are alleged to have died from the virus but upon further investigation autopsies were never performed, or these people had multiple co-morbidities and it was impossible to determine cause of death with certainty. A more accurate characterization might be that a significant number of people died with the virus rather than from it. There are also credible arguments put forward by Heather McDonald et al. that the virus (not sure if it qualifies as a "disease," e.g. the virus is not cancer) may not in fact be as dangerous as initially presented and society's reaction to it has been hysterical, a classic case of fear-mongering and overreaction on the part of governments, businesses, health agencies, et al.
Not presenting both/all sides of an argument fairly, but instead dismissing views its editors don't agree with as "conspiracy theories," is a major reason why Wikipedia is regarded as more and more left-wing. Tpkatsa (talk) 16:15, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
- Since most countries have a high excess mortality to say that it's "not as dangerous as presented" is a strong denial of facts. What does that have to do with right wing / left wing? Regarding Jensen it turned out that he couldn't provide proof for his speculations. So being scientific is left wing and guessing around is right wing in your opinion? --Gereon K. (talk) 22:19, 9 February 2021 (UTC)