Thanks for suggesting this video.
It is glossy and well written. The narrator is well spoken and very convincing. The content is a collection of facts and the message is one of fear of unnamed conspirators and unproven dangers.
However, before anyone believes a single word, they should first research the source and verify that the CLAIMS are all true and the CONCLUSIONS are all logical. Who is Minivanjack? What is his real name? What are his background, training, qualifications, and purpose? Who paid to produce this video and why.
I revisited this video with a pencil and paper at hand. I listened carefully to every word intending to write down every sentence that made a claim or expressed a conclusion that the narrator supported with verifiable facts or with references to recognized external experts. I focused on the claims and conclusions and not the obvious facts. At the end, my sheet of paper was blank. No proof is offered to support a single claim and viewers are required to blindly accept everything said. Not one conclusion is validated by the facts presented in the video. The ruse is to state a lot of facts that are true, assume a lot of unproven theories and then jump to a conclusion that is also assumed to be true.
For example, look at the comment below the video in which Minivanjack says “large commercial interests suppress facts and cause huge delays in justice and remedy leading to millions of illnesses, injuries and deaths.” What a stretch without offering a single shred of evidence that suggests this accusation is true and applies to subject of EMR.
I admire a person who thinks independently. However, the method proven most reliable calls for a positive hypothesis followed by research that essentially supports the claim. Unfortunately, I do not see any of this in this video. Do you?
We are living in an age in which there is more information available then we average slobs can assimilate. Not all of it is valid and we are obligated to spend large chunks of our time separating the best from the mediocre. Relying on only quality data increases the likelihood that your conclusions are valid. “Garbage in, Garbage out,” as they say.
Thanks again for the link. The conclusions however are unsupported and therefore, their validity is suspect.
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.