Your definition of "misinformation" seems to be vague. If a difference in scientific approach or strategy exists bewteen people, that doesn't mnean one of them is spreading "misinformation". Misinformation is both clearly incorrect, and also is stated with the express aim of misleading the independemt observer away from the facts.
Your definition of "misinformation" seems to be vague. If a difference in scientific approach or strategy exists bewteen people, that doesn't mnean one of them is spreading "misinformation". Misinformation is both clearly incorrect, and also is stated with the express aim of misleading the independemt observer away from the facts.
Which is why my definition of "antivaxer" applies to such individuals.
...You have declined boosters. That's your choice. You may have opinions about them, which I would not necessarily call "mosinformation". I am not calling you an antivaxer.
Your definition of "misinformation" seems to be vague. If a difference in scientific approach or strategy exists bewteen people, that doesn't mnean one of them is spreading "misinformation". Misinformation is both clearly incorrect, and also is stated with the express aim of misleading the independemt observer away from the facts.
Which is why my definition of "antivaxer" applies to such individuals.
...You have declined boosters. That's your choice. You may have opinions about them, which I would not necessarily call "mosinformation". I am not calling you an antivaxer.
I meant “Disinformation” in the last sentence in my first para above, sorry.
It should read:
“Disinformation is both clearly incorrect, and also is stated with the express aim of misleading the independent observer away from the facts.”