Reply To: Vaccine contaminants and safety

Home Forums Discussion Forum Vaccine contaminants and safety Reply To: Vaccine contaminants and safety


“…dissing Barrie Trower (on what basis?)”

I may have misjudged Trower; his declaration references many scientific sources, so he appears to have at least done considerable reading.

Actually I suspect that the main reason I dismissed Trower was because you had recommended him. As I keep trying to explain, your approach to such matters is both created by and contributes to the greater problem, which is public misunderstanding of science, and I am not immune to the effects either, it spreads like contagion. It’s the “cry wolf” effect; it was your recommendation that associated Trower in my mind with the likes of Wakefield and Dane Wiggington.

Please, please read Bad Science I simply can’t untangle all this stuff on my own, there is far too much for me, I need your help. The problem is far worse than you suspect, because the disinformation does not come from just one side, it comes straight out of every person’s id-ego system, out of human imperfection itself. Yes, more disinformation comes from the more powerful team, but that is merely a truism, inherent in what we mean by “more powerful”, and it does not mean that conflicting information is any more trustworthy; often it is less trustworthy – out of the frying-pan and into the fire.

“…dissing 3,000 + Architects and Engineers, whilst having no qualifications in those areas.”

I have O and A levels in Physics (grades A and B respectively, Oxford examination board), and O grade A in Additional Mathematics (which was more than 50% classical mechanics). My school, a state grammar, said I was one of the two best physics students in its history and urged me to take the Oxbridge entrance exam. I didn’t fancy Oxford or Cambridge (too posh and stuffy); I entered Queen Mary College, University of London but dropped out after a year, partly because most other physics graduates were getting jobs with armaments manufacturers.

It is relatively simple to show that, following collapse initiation throughout one storey (by whatever means), the Twin Towers would have undergone rapid accelerating collapse. It is, however, very very difficult to keep a cool head and explain clearly when under continual personal insult by a concerted group, as I was on the 9/11 thread, and especially when no one listens to me, and merely wants to shut me up. When I am in London next month we should arrange to meet, with some pencils and large sheets of paper, for diagrams – I guarantee that we won’t need a calculator.

“It’s a pity you don’t check these issues out, instead of relying on MSM, government, Mick West and Corporate propaganda”

Bollox. Pardon my French, but I work things out for myself as best I can, and that’s exactly the sort of attitude I was complaining about in my paragraph above. Working things out for myself instead of relying on media (MSM or alternative) is why I feel so isolated.

“Professor Hulsey and his team from University of Alaska Fairbanks have just put out their 4-year investigation into WTC 7; […] I’ll let you search it out as it is verboten here”

Actually I have already read half of the UAF report. But rather like I dismissed Trower because of your recommendation, you have repeatedly failed to hear what I was saying on the 9/11 Post – namely, that I suspect WTC7 was destroyed by emergency demolition, set up and detonated following the collapses of the Twin Towers. And no I’m NOT saying that to “protect the official story” – screw officialdom – I’m saying it because that’s where the evidence has led me.

“The reason that [Extinction Rebellion] is allowed through by the gatekeepers is because some big Corporations can make a bundle by manipulating innocent dupes”

Partly, and I’m aware of that. But we need to rebel anyway. You’re leaving our salvation to God. I’m either Godless, or God’s hands – I can’t tell which because I’m merely human. I can’t tell whether the sky will open and salvation arrive from above just in time, so my conscience dictates that I take what action I can against the destruction of all nature. If God turns up and takes over: great. But I’ll quite literally be damned if I sit on the sidelines and let it happen unopposed.