Vaccine contaminants and safety


Home Forums Discussion Forum Vaccine contaminants and safety

This topic contains 173 replies, has 1 voice, and was last updated by  Paul Barbara 2 weeks, 1 day ago.

  • Author
    Posts
  • #45309 Reply

    Paul Barbara

    The Mods invited us to continue vaccine discussion here.
    I’ll start off by reproducing some of the discussion from the thread ‘How To Spot A Twitter Troll’. I may possibly have missed some comments, but I don’t think so.
    ‘Paul Barbara
    July 3, 2019 at 01:36
    I trust these two links won’t be judged O/T, as they both are about interference with what we access online:
    ‘Who Created Facebook? New Letter from Alleged Insider Claims Zuckerberg is a Frontman for Military Intelligence’:
    http://freedom-articles.toolsforfreedom.com/who-created-facebook-zuckerberg-dossier-darpa-cia/
    and: ‘EXCLUSIVE: Google to block all anti-cancer, “anti-vax” and anti-GMO websites at the browser level as tech giant goes all-in with pharma drug cartels’:
    https://www.naturalnews.com/2019-07-02-google-to-block-all-anti-cancer-anti-vax-and-anti-gmo-websites-at-the-browser-level.html
    The strong suspicions that these giant sites, Facebook, Twitter, Amazon, Google, Microsoft etc are hand-in-glove with the ‘Security’ Services are almost certainly spot on, even to their inception.

    Reply ↓
    SA
    July 3, 2019 at 05:11
    Paul
    Not so much OT as OTT. We are all aware of the manipulations of Google but what you get reading Natural news and Organics is a series of articles each referencing each others’ articles or their own articles with allegations based on zero evidence just statements. It is this sort of thing that gives adversaries a chance to label people as conspiracy theorists. And to lump weed killers with vaccines and chemotherapy is just plain ignorant. Please do not take these hoax websites at face value be more critical and seek independent evidence and find out a bit more about how vaccines have transformed the prevention of many diseases and how chemotherapy, a crude first step in treating cancers, is evolving.
    Anyway thanks for reminding us not to consult these two websites in future.

    Reply ↓
    Paul Barbara
    July 3, 2019 at 12:04
    @ SA July 3, 2019 at 05:11
    As you are aware this is not the place to argue vaccinations etc. Some articles in Natural News I agree with, others I don’t. The point is, blanket banning because the site questions ‘Official Narratives’ is blatant censorship, and to be deplored.
    This site has frequently been attacked by ‘forces’ in support of the PTB; would you be happy if Craig’s alternative to official ‘narratives’ was also censored?

    Reply ↓
    SA
    July 3, 2019 at 16:14
    As far as I know Craig never publishes ‘fake news’. These sites do and are misleading and dangerous and there is no loss if they are censored in my opinion.

    Reply ↓
    Paul Barbara
    July 3, 2019 at 16:59
    @ SA July 3, 2019 at 05:11
    ‘… And to lump weed killers with vaccines and chemotherapy is just plain ignorant…’
    Perhaps it is you that needs to watch where you get your info from – there are a slew of reports about Glyphosate being found in vaccines – are they all fake news?
    ‘Glyphosate Found in Childhood Vaccines’: https://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/glyphosate-found-childhood-vaccines
    ‘…The ever-present narrative that vaccines are perfectly safe is falling apart after testing shows that many childhood vaccines contain the carcinogenic chemical glyphosate

    Glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto’s flagship herbicide Roundup and hundreds of other herbicides, has been found in vaccines. Moms Across America received preliminary screening results from Microbe Inotech Laboratories Inc. of St. Louis, Missouri, which showed:

    MMR II (Merk) vaccine had 2.671 parts per billion (ppb) of glyphosate
    DTap Adacel (Sanofi Pasteur) vaccine had 0.123 ppb of glyphosate
    Influenza Fluvirin (Novaris) 0.331 ppb of glyphosate
    HepB Energix-B (Glaxo Smith Kline) 0.325 ppb of glyphosate
    Pneumonoccal Vax Polyvalent Pneumovax 23 (Merk) had 0.107 ppb of glyphosate
    The MMR II vaccine had levels up to 25 times higher than the other vaccines. Following our test, additional independent tests have confirmed these findings at or above the same levels. The tests were conducted using the ELISA method….’
    Cast off your blinkers.

    Reply ↓
    Kempe
    July 3, 2019 at 07:11
    Good for Google and about time. It’s taken Facebook long enough to take down anti-vax sites and those pushing fake cancer cures.

    Reply ↓
    nevermind
    July 3, 2019 at 11:27
    Can you name any of the fake sites,Kempe, so we can stop wasting our time on them? Denial of facts do not equate with superior knowledge,imho.
    The derision of natural drugs that have been used for thousands of years and, shown drastically in current days, can help people, especially young children from epilepsy, reducing 200 tremors/day to almost none, without ever been scientifically assessed, and what was a large study in1947, coming out with the same conclusion,i.e. that this natural drug helps, was suppressed and buried.

    They knew this for 5 decades, but still send thousands to prison, declared them deranged criminals, and much more. Now big pharma wants to lay their hands and control a natural drug everyone has been growing for themselves for decades.

    Add to this, two Tory’s are growing 40 acres under police protection and with full knowledge of the cartel/Home office who sanctioned this cutting edge business for the Adkins family, whilst busting small scale growers nationwide.

    Thats is only one example, but a very big one, and the commercialisation of this drug in this country, will for years be tinged with the smell of corrupt self serving Tories who kowtow to big pharma and their,often, obsessive pricing.
    looking forward to hear your fake cancer story.

    Reply ↓
    SA
    July 3, 2019 at 16:19
    I agree mostly with what you say but these are two separate problems. One is that Big Pharma is out to make big money, mostly by charging a lot for drugs developed by others and this sharp practice must be condemned and regulated. But this does not mean throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Big pharma also produce highly effective vaccines and cancer treatments and without this major expansion there would not n=be as much progress in prevention and treatment of many diseases.

    Reply ↓
    Kempe
    July 3, 2019 at 17:24
    I suggest you do a quick search for MMS, Miracle Mineral Solution, on the search engine of your choice. Here’s a quick overview:-

    Bleaching away what ails you: The Genesis II Church is still selling Miracle Mineral Supplement as a cure-all

    There were quite a number of sites on Facebook promoting this dangerous rubbish which Facebook initially refused to take down as they “didn’t violate Facebook’s terms and conditions” ie they were making money out of them.

    Desperate parents were encouraged to give their sick children enemas (which should only be done with medical supervision) of what is essentially industrial bleach on the promise that it would cure cancer, AIDS, autism; you name it. The result is really a lot physical and mental harm to the child.

    Reply ↓
    Paul Barbara
    July 3, 2019 at 12:06
    @ Kempe July 3, 2019 at 07:11
    As long as they don’t censor the trolls…

    Reply ↓
    Paul Barbara
    July 3, 2019 at 17:06
    @ Kempe July 3, 2019 at 07:11
    I suggest you too read my comment to SA @ Paul Barbara July 3, 2019 at 16:59
    So if you had your way, this independently sought testing by a Mothers Health site would be censored?
    Why the hell didn’t the Big Pharma Vaccine producers check this out? Because they are not liable for vaccine damages, due to a government protective of ‘Big Donors’.

    Reply ↓
    Kempe
    July 3, 2019 at 17:34
    Yes Moms Across America. Claims found to be untrue.

    https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2018/02/23/vaccines-contain-glyphosate-examining-anti-gmo-claim/

    Paul Barbara
    July 4, 2019 at 00:47
    @ Kempeb July 3, 2019 at 17:34
    No, not UNTRUE, the silly bollo^^s say: ..’A closer look at the science shows that what MAAMs and Samsel describe is a very unlikely scenario..’ Where is the science in that?
    And similar prats say Glyphosate doesn’t effect humans, whereas it is an incontrovertible fact that it affects human gut bacteria, extremely important in human health and it’s immune system.
    Anyhow, thanks for at least trying to respond – you normally just ignore stuff you cannot respond to.
    And obviously, Moms Across America must, perforce, be a fake organisation. Why on earth should mothers in America give a truppeny f^ck about their kids?
    But you, obviously, appear to!

    Reply ↓
    N_
    July 3, 2019 at 13:17
    Google are scum and always have been. It’s a kind of litmus test for whether people are worth talking to or not: do they have the activeness of mind to be able to understand to a noticeable extent what Google is and to criticise it? Or do they think it’s just a noun formed from the normal verb for “to look for stuff”, and “obviously” beyond criticism in the way that one doesn’t criticise the sky or the mountains?

    Anyone who slavishly follows Big Pharma propaganda and gets their children vaccinated with every vaccine that is “recommended” and who rushes to get vaccinated against colds and flu every autumn is a complete and utter moron.

    It is about time that some of the moon-faced gumbies whose lives have involved so much “activity” on the internet to realise what the internet is all about and to find channels of communication which can be used for genuine contestation.

    Reply ↓
    Paul Barbara
    July 3, 2019 at 14:49
    @ N_ July 3, 2019 at 13:17
    I’ve just downloaded ‘Brave’ and made it my default browser. It’s Open Source, and though I don’t understand a much about computers, it is supposed to be faster than Google, as well as more privacy-conscious.

    Reply ↓
    SA
    July 3, 2019 at 16:24
    N_
    Rather sweeping statement
    “Anyone who slavishly follows Big Pharma propaganda and gets their children vaccinated with every vaccine that is “recommended” and who rushes to get vaccinated against colds and flu every autumn is a complete and utter moron.”

    First vaccines are manufactured and marketed by big pharma after they undergo extensive trials in research laboratories that are not directly under the influence of big pharma so this is not propaganda.
    Secondly, I would say that making sweeping statements about vaccinations is not really a sign of a discriminating mind, surely vaccines have saved millions of lives?

    Reply ↓
    Paul Barbara
    July 3, 2019 at 17:27
    @ SA July 3, 2019 at 16:24
    ‘…First vaccines are manufactured and marketed by big pharma after they undergo extensive trials in research laboratories that are not directly under the influence of big pharma so this is not propaganda…’
    It appears you haven’t seen my comment to you @ Paul Barbara July 3, 2019 at 16:59
    It obviously shows that Big Pharma do not rigorously test their products, and there are many instances where tesing that shows problems is not rectified, but simply covered up.
    There is enough material available to make anyone who cares about vaccines seriously question their blanket support for their ‘safety’.

    SA
    July 3, 2019 at 19:32
    Paul
    I dare say I know much more about vaccines, medical and scientific research than you do. I am trained to read a medical and research paper. I have myself done research and know the methodology of research and how to deduce the validity of scientific research. I say this not to be patronising but to say to you that it takes a lot of training and effort to go through this process. To rubbish this painstaking research and say that it is all big Pharma propaganda is the most blinkered attitude. Yes big pharma is out to get a lot of money but not by killing us all.

    Paul Barbara
    July 4, 2019 at 01:02
    @ SA July 3, 2019 at 19:32
    You may well have more knowledge of these issues than me, but that dows not give you any sort of ‘carte blanche’ right to rubbish comments, without giving your evidence.
    I put up evidence showing independent assays had shown Glyphosate in vaccines.
    Kempe replies with some waffle abut some jokers saying it is ‘highly unlikely’.
    The science in that? The science would be multiple assays showing no Glyphosate -n but of course, that might prove problematic, seeing as it has been found.
    Is the independent analyst crooked? So show it – shouldn’t be too hard.

    Reply ↓
    Kempe
    July 3, 2019 at 17:36
    It’s not propaganda it’s science.

    Reply ↓
    SA
    July 3, 2019 at 19:38
    Paul
    I am not going to make any more comments on this thread because I think you treat this as you treat religious belief. You cannot convince a religious believer by evidence or logic because belief does not need logic or evidence. Therefore I will not convince you and you will forever be using non-evidence and statements as proof. Have a good evening.

    Reply ↓
    Paul Barbara
    July 4, 2019 at 01:08
    @ SA July 3, 2019 at 19:38
    So you won’t be contesting my comments? What can I say, except I agree we seem diametrically opposed on many issues, so frankly I won’t miss you.

    Reply ↓
    SA
    July 4, 2019 at 05:43
    [ Mod: Unfortunately this anti-vax conspiracy theory is well off-topic, so the comments will be pruned accordingly. Please make copies of any foregoing comments you wish to retain.

    You’re welcome to continue the debate in the discussion forum. ]

    Paul
    Your are upset that I will not be contesting your comments, so I have to be fair to you gone back to look at the ‘evidence’ connecting glyphosate with vaccines. As expected I wasted my time. Look at this for details.

    https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2016/09/20/glyphosate-herbicide-vaccines-frightened-parents-know/

    The problem with the original study as discussed in this article are summarised:
    1. The results were published in a non-peer reviewed journal which means there was no critical analysis of the data.
    2. The techniques used are not suitable for assay of trace contaminants but may be used as a cheap screening test which will then require confirmation by more sophisticated techniques.
    3. The laboratory used is a private lab not qualified to be authoritative in these matters.
    4. Vaccines go through a rigorous process of testing and no such contamination has been found by other much better qualified labs.

    Now you can answer me by saying that of course this is all a big conspiracy theory, as you do, and that all scientists and politicians and everybody is trying to pull the wool over our eyes, or you can argue scientifically if you can.
    I have never used glyphosate, not necessarily because it is potentially carcinogenic, because if it is, it is a much weaker carcinogen than other very commonly used agents such as some solvents, let alone cigarettes and alcohol both of which are indulged in by many people who want to ban vaccines and endanger the lives of children.
    The reason I dislike Glyphosate is a simple political and economic one. It and GMO foods are being used as a political and economic tools to monopolise food control by corporations to the detriment of small farmers everywhere. It is well documented that there has been a steep rise in suicide by farmers in India related to this introduction of GM foods. Certainly also the environmental damage from glyphosate and GM crops is much more damaging to wildlife and in turn, mankind than the postulated unproven links produced by people unqualified to make these wild allegations

    So much for linking Glyphosate with vaccines.’

    Where to start?
    I wouldn’t trust https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2018/02/23/vaccines-contain-glyphosate-examining-anti-gmo-claim/
    relied on by both SA and Kempe, as far as I could throw them – typical supporters of the Corporations, albeit ‘allegedly’ not funded by them.
    So, how honest and scientific are they?
    Well, firstly, the MAAM has not been shown to be wrong; admittedly the test they had done was certainly not definitive, but strongly indicates more stringent tests need to be done.
    The fact that GLP say more complex testing has not shown any Glyphosate in the vaccines, means little. The more complex tests are very specific – they are aimed to find specific chemicals. So unless they were aimed to find Glyphosate, they wouldn’t show it.
    Much like NIST – they claimed no evidence of explosives were found in WTC’s 1,2 and 7. When asked if they had looked for them, they answered no, and said it would be a waste of taxpayers money looking for something that wasn’t there!
    Big Pharma may be pulling the same trick.
    The MAAM asked specifically that further more accurate tests be done urgently on the vaccines – they did not rely on the far-from-accurate ELISA findings.
    ‘…While it’s not at all clear that what MAAM, Seneff and Samsel are claiming is true—the techniques they used are not reliable for determining a chemical at those low levels—these claims raise other questions about their hypothesis: How could glyphosate get into a vaccine?…’
    ‘Whilst it may not be clear that what MAAM, Seneff and Samsel are claiming is true’ is an admission that it equally may be true. The fact that the test is inconclusive does not negate their request to government and regulatory agencies to do the more expensive and definitive tests.
    Bottom line – the MAAM organised tests have not been proven wrong, and high-tech testd should be urgently done, rather than trying to rubbish the preliminary testing commissioned by MAAM.

    A closer look at the science shows that what MAAMs and Samsel describe is a very unlikely scenario. Glyphosate is metabolized by microbiota in soil; it is not metabolized by plants. Bioaccumulation (ever larger volumes of the chemical after repeated applications) has never been demonstrated for glyphosate. It is not retained in animal tissues and is quickly eliminated by animals that encounter it—that includes humans….’

    ‘…what MAAMs and Samsel describe is a very unlikely scenario…’
    How scientific is that? Instead of waffling on, they should be doing high-tech tests to prove the issue one way or the other.

    ‘…Bioaccumulation (ever larger volumes of the chemical after repeated applications) has never been demonstrated for glyphosate. It is not retained in animal tissues and is quickly eliminated by animals that encounter it—that includes humans….’
    Indeed? https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0269749108004053
    ‘…Abstract
    The bioaccumulation potential of glyphosate and the formulation Roundup Ultra, as well as possible effects on biotransformation and antioxidant enzymes in Lumbriculus variegatus were compared by four days exposure to concentrations between 0.05 and 5 mg L−1 pure glyphosate and its formulation. Bioaccumulation was determined using 14C labeled glyphosate. The bioaccumulation factor (BCF) varied between 1.4 and 5.9 for the different concentrations, and was higher than estimated from log Pow. Glyphosate…’

    Glyphosate found again in animals and humans


    ‘…Glyphosate was detected in various organs of slaughtered cows: intestine, liver, muscles, spleen and kidneys, which is old news to the scientific community (the bioaccumulation of glyphosate is known since 1985). Dairy cows absorb about 35-40% of glyphosate from feed, part of which is permanently stored in bones as glyphosate is known chelator of calcium, macro and micro-elements….’

    Yet GLP state ‘..’…Bioaccumulation (ever larger volumes of the chemical after repeated applications) has never been demonstrated for glyphosate. It is not retained in animal tissues and is quickly eliminated by animals that encounter it—that includes humans….’
    Are you sure you can rely on that quack Corporation supporter?

  • #45324 Reply

    SA

    Paul
    You obviously feel very strongly about this. The problem here is that we have to agree whether you believe in scientific methodology or not. The main protagonists of the theory that all of the diseases on the rise in western society are due to glyphosate are Samsel and Seneff, neither of whom have done or have been trained in biological sciences as far as I can see. Their so called studies are rather limited and their conclusions are too far sweeping for the information provided. The supposed amounts of roundup found in their studies in vaccines are infinitesimally small and for the assay used are liable to false positive results. They have not shown beyond doubt that these results represent roundup and if this is to be believed, then they should get more definitive assays carried out. They get around that by asking the FDA to proof that roundup does is not found in vaccines and various commentators have then said that this is tantamount to asking someone to prove that they are innocent.
    This excellent review by a reputable team explains how the these scientists used a system of deduction called syllogism to reach their unfounded conclusions.
    “The five commentaries by Samsel and Seneff propose a link between exposures to environmental levels of glyphosate and the development of a wide range of chronic diseases (11–15). In each commentary, these authors largely construct their arguments on deductive reasoning based on a logistic structure called syllogism, which is formed when two or more propositions are used in order to generate a conclusion. Although syllogisms can help in deductive reasoning, to ensure that they are used in science in a constructive rather than a misleading way, it is necessary to ensure that the two propositions that lead to the conclusion are firmly evidence-based. We therefore evaluated the Samsel and Seneff commentaries to see whether this was indeed the case.”

    https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2017.00316/full

    • #45588 Reply

      Paul Barbara

      ‘…The main protagonists of the theory that all of the diseases on the rise in western society are due to glyphosate are Samsel and Seneff, neither of whom have done or have been trained in biological sciences as far as I can see…’
      I don’t hold that view, but I do hold the view that Glyphosate is poisonous to humans and animals. Along with many vaccines, bee and other insect killing herbicides, increasing electro-smog, nano-particles in the air, water and soil, and so on.
      The snake-oil salesmen, in keeping with their slimy murderous trade, speak with fork tongue.
      They say Glyphosate attacks the shikamate pathway, which they say humans and animals don’t have, but they are lying, insofar as the incredibly important gut bacteria do use this pathway, and it is disrupted, seriously damaging their health. But do they care? All they care about is being slapped with a multi-million cancer suit, and plenty more waiting in the wings.
      Monsanto pulled a crafty one selling out to Bayer – I suspect they knew their dirty game was about to come under serious (I hope) attack, and ‘passed the parcel’. I’m sure the Jerry’s will appreciate it.

  • #45346 Reply

    Clark

    Paul, this is looks like a fairly complex issue; you recommended one of Goldacre’s lectures a while ago; have you read his books Bad Science and Bad Pharma yet? They supply something of the grounding you need to make sense of all this – corruption is <b>not</b> confined to one “side” as you seem to think it is. There’s no monopoly on either corruption or good-faith error.

    • #45587 Reply

      Paul Barbara

      Sure, the anti-vaxxers might also be corrupt. But where the major money is, there you will find the major crooks. In this case, the multi-billion dollar vaccine market.
      Here is another link: ‘Fully Vaccinated vs Unvaccinated Part 3’ by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Chairman, Children’s Health Defense https://stuartbramhall.wordpress.com/2019/07/18/fully-vaccinated-vs-unvaccinated-part-3/
      ‘…Thimerosal Containing Hepatitis B Vaccines—When Compared to Children Vaccinated Without Thimerosal—Increased Odds of ADHD 1.9X;
      Highest Levels of Thimerosal Exposure Increase Autism Risk 11.35X;
      Two H1N1-Containing Influenza Vaccines Prior to and During Pregnancy Increases Miscarriage Odds by 7.7X;
      H1N1 Influenza Vaccine Increases Risks of Bell’s Palsy (1.34X), Paraesthesia (1.25X) and Inflammatory Bowel Disease (1.25X) in High Risk Patients;
      HPV Vaccination Increases Odds of Memory Impairment (1.23X) and Involuntary Movement (1.53X);
      Thimerosal Containing Triple HepB Series in the First Six Months of Life Increases Odds of Emotional Disturbances by 2.37X;
      HPV Vaccine Increases the Risk of Celiac Disease by 1.56X;
      The H1N1 and Seasonal Influenza Vaccines Both Given During Pregnancy Increase Fetal Loss by 11.4% Compared to the Seasonal Influenza Vaccine Only….’
      The CDC, FDA, EPA and so forth are crooks, first and foremost, not guardians of the Nation’s health. As in this article, instead of acting on new evidence in defence of the people’s health, they simply block the information. It’s their forte.
      Re Goldacre, no I have too much on my plate to read the book, though I’m sure it might add a little to my discernment.
      Sorry I didn’t reply sooner – I only just found your comment.
      And now the PTB are pushing 5G, despite industry spokesmen admitting their are no studies showing it’s safe, and lots of scientists and doctors etc. saying it most definitely is not.

      • #45595 Reply

        SA

        Paul
        There is a basic problem here in why we cannot agree. And that is that there is that we have to define whom to believe and how to read data. My way of looking at a scientific report is to look at the original published material and to assess the ability of those who wrote the report and then also to see whether this has been published in a reputable peer reviewed journal. Even then there have been glaring errors in the past and reputable journalists have been caught out by hoaxes and unscrupulous scientists (they do exist). So vigilance is advised on both sides. Of course there have been some very high profile scandals concerning medication and there is considerable sharp practice by big pharma, but their aim is to make money and one way of ensuring that this making of money is continued is to produce good products, not products that will kill the customer.

        Now the study you send a link is supposed to be from data obtained under the FOA and therefore there is no raw data that can be verified. This is published in the internet by a group and therefore there is no scientific verification. I cannot accept such publications and cannot waste time looking at them because it is simply this, a waste of time. Anybody can make claims and we can spend a lot of time and money trying to disprove them.
        In the case of mercury, its use has been discontinued in the developed countries but may still be used in some developing countries. The toxicity of mercury occurs because it is not easily excreted and therefore can accumulate in the body. The major toxicity is that can cause a dermatitis, inflammation of the skin and some neurological toxicity. But there have been studies to look at the specific link with autism and this was not proven. Therefore how the paper you link to got this figure of OD ratio of 11 is a mystery. But notice one way to cheat in statistics is by subgroup analysis, so they have a group called highest level of exposure. No figures are given for the number of cases although I have to admit I did not look at this too closely.
        In your original post you were talking about presence of Roundup in vaccines, and the authors allege, using an ELIZA assay method that they detected Roundup in vaccines at levels of one part per billion. This is really weird because this assumes an enormous accuracy in a test that is generally not used to detect trace amounts such as these.

        https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24814559
        https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/thimerosal/study-risk-autism.html

        • #45596 Reply

          Paul Barbara

          Unfortunately: ‘The Medical Journals’ Sell-Out — Getting Paid to Play’:
          https://childrenshealthdefense.org/news/the-medical-journals-sell-out- getting-paid-to-play/
          Re Roundup, they knew the test was not reliable for such amounts, but used it to demand full spectrum tests – fair enough, I should say, given the health stakes of children.
          You seem to give the benefit of the doubt to Big Pharma, I to the parents.
          ‘…The toxicity of mercury occurs because it is not easily excreted and therefore can accumulate in the body. The major toxicity is that can cause a dermatitis, inflammation of the skin and some neurological toxicity. ..’
          You seem to be very blase about the ‘dangers’ of mercury (and it has not been removed from all vaccines in the West – the flu jab, for example), but not as bad, admittedly, as the WHO!!
          I was really taken aback when I just read: ‘…Methylmercury is very different to ethylmercury. Ethylmercury is used as a preservative in some vaccines and does not pose a health risk…’ on an official WHO website:
          https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/mercury-and-health
          World HEALTH Organisation?? Is their statement on the safety of ethylmercury based on science?
          ‘…Of course there have been some very high profile scandals concerning medication and there is considerable sharp practice by big pharma, but their aim is to make money and one way of ensuring that this making of money is continued is to produce good products, not products that will kill the customer…’
          Sure, they don’t want to kill the customer, but they don’t want to cure him either. They want him as a recurring source of profit. I believe the Ancient Chinese had a system where people paid the doctor when they were well, and ceased when sick, so the doctor’s self-interest meant he would try to keep them well, thus getting income. Present day ghouls (obviously not all) aim to keep as many people sick and dependent as possible.

        • #45607 Reply

          Paul Barbara

          Further to my comment above, I’ve done some more searching, and Voila!:
          ‘Vaccine Ethylmercury vs. Methylmercury’: http://whale.to/vaccines/ethyl_vs_methyl.html
          ‘World Mercury Project Thimerosal, a mercury-containing preservative, is still in 48 million U.S. flu vaccines each year, tetanus toxoid, meningococcal vaccines and, in massive doses, in the pediatric vaccines given to 100 million children across the developing world. A Centers for Disease Control (CDC) review published last month found that the ethylmercury in thimerosal is as profoundly neurotoxic as the heavily regulated methylmercury in fish.

          ”I had no clue about the pivotal role they both had played in deceiving the public about thimerosal safety. Both of them spoke to me willingly. Offit expressed admiration for my father, which is an effective way to butter me up. I asked them both the obvious question: “Why do we advise pregnant women to steer clear of fish because of neurotoxic mercury and yet inject much larger doses of mercury into pregnant women and babies?” They both repeated to me the thread worn industry canard that the “ethyl mercury in vaccines is not as dangerous as the methyl mercury in fish” which everyone admits is highly neurotoxic. Offit explained to me that ethyl mercury wasn’t toxic because it leaves the human body so quickly.
          By then, I’d read Burbacher’s monkey studies which confirmed Offit’s assertion that the ethyl mercury from vaccines rapidly left the blood. But, Burbacher had shown the ethyl mercury was not being excreted from the body as Offit implied during our telephone conversation. Instead, it was going directly into the brain, where it rapidly metabolized into highly toxic inorganic mercury, and then lodged there, creating inflammation and brain damage. Burbacher had shown that inorganic mercury remains in the brain for years. Instead of being evidence of its safety, as Offit represented, ethyl mercury’s penchant for disappearing quickly from the blood was testimony to its extreme peril; it was disappearing due to the ease with which it crossed the blood-brain barrier! Ethyl mercury used in vaccines was both far more persistent and far more toxic than the methyl mercury found in fish. The Guzzi study, in 2012, showed the ethyl mercury was 50 times as toxic to cells. When I mentioned the Burbacher study to Stratton and Offit, they both went silent. It was obvious that they were aware of the study. THEY BOTH KNEW that science had refuted what they were telling me. They were accustomed to talking to journalists who seem to have an allergy to reading science and were content to parrot their reassurances.” [2016 Dec] Mercury, Vaccines and the CDC’s Worst Nightmare By Rita Shreffler…’

          Please read the full article, it really should shake your confidence in your sources.

  • #45355 Reply

    Clark

    Paul, do you see these matters as safe, God-given natural medicines versus the lies of Big Pharma and the Powers That Be?

    • #45597 Reply

      Paul Barbara

      In some cases, yes. Take GcMAF and cannabis oils. Whilst I am a Christian, it is not necessary to bring God into it to upset the atheists. One can just say ‘nature provides the cures’.

      • #45624 Reply

        SA

        Two pivotal events led from blind belief to rationality: the renaissance and the enlightenment. Science is evidence based and therefore blind belief will not be an argument to rationally advance any human endeavor

        • #45632 Reply

          Paul Barbara

          That is hardly relevant to the latest information I provided – that the WHO, CDC and OFFIT were all proven wrong in stating ethylmercury was harmless as it was rapidly excreted (you seem to accept it is not, but still reckon ethylmercury is harmless). It was just rapidly lost from the blood stream, because it lodged in the brain!).Are these two statements compatible:
          ‘…Methylmercury is very different to ethylmercury. Ethylmercury is used as a preservative in some vaccines and does not pose a health risk…’ ( official WHO website).
          ‘Burbacher had shown the ethyl mercury was not being excreted from the body as Offit implied during our telephone conversation. Instead, it was going directly into the brain, where it rapidly metabolized into highly toxic inorganic mercury, and then lodged there, creating inflammation and brain damage.’
          Isn’t there one hell of a difference between mercury getting excreted from the body, or stored in the brain?
          Surely this is your sort of science talk.

          • #45633 Reply

            SA

            Paul
            This could go on and on as did the 911 blog controversy. Wikipedia has a very good summary and here is an important paragraph:

            Scientific consensus
            In 2001 the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institutes of Health asked the U.S. National Academy of Science’s (NAS) Institute of Medicine to establish an independent expert committee to review hypotheses about existing and emerging immunization safety concerns. This initial report found that based on indirect and incomplete evidence available at the time, there was inadequate evidence to accept or reject a thiomersal-autism link, though it was biologically plausible.[54]
            Since this report was released, several independent reviews have examined the body of published research for a possible thiomersal-autism link by examining the theoretical mechanisms of thiomersal causing harm and by reviewing the in vitro, animal, and population studies that have been published. These reviews determined that no evidence exists to establish thiomersal as the cause of autism or other neurodevelopmental disorders.[6][7][34][36]
            The scientific consensus on the subject is reflected in a follow up report that was subsequently published in 2004 by the Institute of Medicine, which took into account new data that had been published since the 2001 report. The committee noted, in response to those who cite in vitro or animal models as evidence for the link between autism and thiomersal:
            “However, the experiments showing effects of thimerosal on biochemical pathways in cell culture systems and showing abnormalities in the immune system or metal metabolism in people with autism are provocative; the autism research community should consider the appropriate composition of the autism research portfolio with some of these new findings in mind. However, these experiments do not provide evidence of a relationship between vaccines or thimerosal and autism. In the absence of experimental or human evidence that vaccination (either the MMR vaccine or the preservative thimerosal) affects metabolic, developmental, immune, or other physiological or molecular mechanisms that are causally related to the development of autism, the committee concludes that the hypotheses generated to date are theoretical only.”[7]
            The committee concludes:
            “Thus, based on this body of evidence, the committee concludes that the evidence favors rejection of a causal relationship between thimerosal-containing vaccines and autism.”[7] [bold in original]
            Further evidence of the scientific consensus includes the rejection of a causal link between thiomersal and autism by multiple national and international scientific and medical bodies including the American Medical Association,[55] the American Academy of Pediatrics,[56] the American College of Medical Toxicology,[57] the Canadian Paediatric Society,[58] the U.S. National Academy of Sciences,[7] the Food and Drug Administration,[9] Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,[10] the World Health Organization,[8] the Public Health Agency of Canada,[59] and the European Medicines Agency.[60]
            A 2011 journal article reflects this point of view and described the vaccine-autism connection as “the most damaging medical hoax of the last 100 years”.[19]
            Consequences

            The problem is that putting people off vaccinating all children has got dangerous consequences as there has been a rise of diseases that have almost been eradicated such as measles and believe me measles is a very unpleasant disease for children to have.
            Like with many things in life you have to take facts and decide for yourself if the risk is acceptable. Every time you smoke that cigarette (if you are a smoker) or pick that drink you will face a choice of risk versus benefit. This can also be extended to your bacon sandwich, crossing the road or going canoeing. We need utter safety we stay in a bubble at home and that is what these odd ratios are about.
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thiomersal_and_vaccines
            Anyway hope you have a good weekend and enjoy yourself.

          • #45638 Reply

            Paul Barbara

            Wikepedia serves the PTB. You have ignored my point about the WHO and Co. stating ethylmercury is safe because it is excreted from the body, whereas it is certainly excreted from the blood, but is retained in the brain.
            Do you not wish to concede this point?
            This does not need to go on and on. Is Ethylmercury a safe substance to inject into human beings, including tiny babies, OR IS IT NOT?

          • #45662 Reply

            Paul Barbara

            @ SA July 21, 2019 at 14:29
            The problem is extremely simple – no one, or Corporation, can be trusted to police itself.
            ‘Big Pharma’s Role in Clinical Trials.
            Dhttps://www.drugwatch.com/featured/clinical-trials-and-hidden-data/ata from clinical trials are important in approving new medicines and discovering new treatments. But Big Pharma funds and runs most clinical trials. According to critics, this could allow drug companies to fake study results or hide dangerous side effects to get their drug approved or increase sales.
            ‘Data from clinical trials are important in approving new medicines and discovering new treatments. But Big Pharma funds and runs most clinical trials. According to critics, this could allow drug companies to fake study results or hide dangerous side effects to get their drug approved or increase sales….’

            ‘..Before the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approves a prescription drug, it must first go through a series of clinical trials. Data obtained from these trials should ensure the safety and effectiveness of drugs before they make it into the hands of patients.
            Each year, the National Institutes of Health’s (NIH) budget provides less money to fund clinical trials. Because of this, Big Pharma pays for and runs the majority of these trials.

            It then provides data to the FDA for drug approvals and safety reviews after the drug hits the market. While this practice may help get more drugs approved and allow more treatments to reach patients sooner, it may also lead to unknown risks.

            According to critics and consumer watchdogs, Big Pharma’s influence over clinical trials could allow drug companies to focus on the benefits of a drug and downplay the risks for the sake of profit. This biased information could also influence doctors to prescribe a drug without knowing all the risks.

            How Big Pharma Influences Trial Results
            It can cost billions to develop a new drug, and drug manufacturers want a return on their investment. For example, studies indicated that cost estimates of bringing a new drug to the market can start at approximately $160 million and end up as high as $2 billion.

            Brand-name drugs that are still under patent make the most money for drug companies. In addition, only about 34 percent of these trials make it to the final phase to testing, according to a 2014 study by Michael Hay and colleagues published in Nature Biotechnology. This puts more pressure on drug companies to have successful clinical trials.

            To this end, Big Pharma may influence clinical trials in a number of ways, including funding the trials, designing the trials and handpicking trial results. These practices could skew trial results in favor of drug companies and put patients at risk.

            “Clinical trials for pharmaceuticals are conducted and funded by the industry.”

            Dr. Michael A. Carome
            For example, the New England Journal of Medicine — one of the most prestigious medical journals in the world — published 73 studies of new drugs. Of those studies, a pharmaceutical company funded 60, 50 had drug-company employees among the authors and 37 lead researchers had accepted money from a drug company, according to a review conducted by the Washington Post.

            This means drug companies greatly influence the majority of medical information provided to the public.

            Unreliable clinical trials resulting from the possibility for bias due to Big Pharma influence is an ongoing issue because “clinical trials for pharmaceuticals are conducted and funded by the industry,” Dr. Michael A. Carome, director of the Health Research Group of Public Citizens in Washington, D.C., told Drugwatch……..’

            I don’t trust someone just because they have ‘Dr.’ in front of their name, any more than I trust someone because they have M.P. after it, or Congressman before it, when they have big spoils to protect.

          • #45663 Reply

            Paul Barbara

            The link got a bit jumbled above, should read:
            https://www.drugwatch.com/featured/clinical-trials-and-hidden-data/

          • #45800 Reply

            Clark

            This is a very important article, but with its repeated use of “may” and “could” it seriously understates the case. It’s not “according to critics”; investigations and documents demanded by courts have shown repeatedly that Big Pharma does “fake study results or hide dangerous side effects to get their drug approved or increase sales”, and that this does “lead to unknown risks”.

            “Big Pharma may does influence clinical trials in a number of ways, including funding the trials, designing the trials and handpicking trial results. These practices could do skew trial results in favor of drug companies and put patients at risk.”

          • #46217 Reply

            Paul Barbara

            @ Clark July 27, 2019 at 15:54
            We seem to be in agreement for a change!

          • #46316 Reply

            Clark

            Paul, I think you would be surprised at just how much we agree about. Politically and ethically we share very similar positions; we both want the best for the vast majority ie. the ordinary people, and the natural world upon which we are all dependent. We both believe that the method of achieving this is for truth to be told and deception to be exposed.

            Where we differ is in our methods of assessing what is true.

      • #45764 Reply

        Clark

        “One can just say ‘nature provides the cures’”

        No. Nature provides chemical elements and compounds, but it has not provided a book that says “willow bark will ease a headache, but foxglove causes heart seizure”. Such facts have been learned by trial and error, or in other words, experiment ie. science, albeit often informal.

        Whether a thing is “natural or not” is no guide to its efficacy, nor to its safety. Some of the most toxic substances are made by insects and arachnids. Many supposedly effective pharmaceuticals turn out to do nothing at all, once the trials hidden by the manufacturers have been revealed.

        – – – – – –
        The other matters on this page are a thimbleful of details cherry-picked from an ocean of data, and consequently this is not an appropriate forum to discuss them. The proper place is the scientific literature, where those with education and experience in analysis can pull claims apart and discuss them. Please read Bad Science and Bad Pharma to obtain a grounding in the skills and methodology required. Until you do, you are inadvertently adding to the vast clouds of fog around medicine, much of which is promoted deliberately to obscure and confuse.

        • #45765 Reply

          Clark

          And Paul, when considering hidden agendas, always consider both sides of the original proposition. Who stands to gain by the elimination of vaccination programmes if vaccines are effective? Are there not vast profits to be made if preventable diseases are not prevented?

          • #46221 Reply

            Paul Barbara

            @ Clark July 26, 2019 at 10:34
            Do you believe, or at least are you aware, that certain very powerful ‘people’ have seriously considered culling the human population by 85 – 95%? And ‘dodgy mandatory vaccines’ would be a handy adjunct to wars, induced famines and artificial Pandemics?

          • #46317 Reply

            Clark

            I am aware of that theory. A very effective way of reducing the human population would be to withhold preventative treatments such as vaccines, which have prevented literally millions of deaths. As an additional “bonus”, fortunes could be made from treating cases that would never have arisen.

            In some ways I am even more suspicious than you. The “depopulation theory” was formulated by critics of a document called Limits to Growth by the Club of Rome, and the resulting UN initiative Agenda 21. Limits to Growth set out a message that big corporations wanted to discredit, that infinite economic growth on a finite planet was a recipe for mass extinction, including possibly human extinction. The UN’s Agenda 21 was an early sustainability initiative, and as such posed a major threat to corporate monetary profit. My suspicion, which I think you should consider, is that the “depopulation theory” benefited from corporate backing (hidden behind front organisations, of course, just as climate science denial has been). The UN is far from perfect, but it does hold governments and hence corporations to some (very inadequate) degree of accountability by being the authority of International Law.

            The real situation is actually far more sinister; the vast majority of ordinary people are effectively being farmed for their labour. While a desire to cull the majority may be a fantasy of some less intelligent members of “the elite”, their more realistic brethren fully understand that their elite status derives entirely from the exploitation of the vast masses ‘beneath’ them. You only have to attempt to pay your electricity bill to discover how useless robots and software systems are when presented with the most trivial of complications; the notion that robots could replace human intelligence is beyond folly; we may be “made in God’s image”, but making in God’s image is clearly beyond our abilities. The elite need the masses, indeed, without the masses the very concept of elite status is meaningless.

  • #45767 Reply

    Paula

    The lancet study was made up to divert attention from real cause autism which is possibly anti biotics. Paula cannot speak up being silenced. Her son is child ,4. Someone needs to investigate this. She was told there was no girl in study yet is from same doctor surgery but no one will let her know who it is.

    • #45771 Reply

      Clark

      The lancet study was made up to divert attention from real cause autism

      If that is so, it was a spectacularly weak attempt. Wakefield’s paper was merely a “case series” ie. the equivalent in the scientific literature of a hunch, and it studied only twelve children, and only eight of them were autistic.

  • #45768 Reply

    Paula

    Paula tried to expose for 7 years but is blocked. She went to the royal free for tests to find out why son had gone autistic but was coaxed. That was 97 she did lot research into natural treatment like diet and probiotics and Paul shattock visited her after this him and Wakefield started setting up research and study

  • #45769 Reply

    Paula

    Paula gets so many problems with mobiles and internet and almost impossible to expose. Had files put on her computer that were locked in 2012 which was very scary she has tried main stream papers but no luck. Is it financial links to pharmecutimals. Families need to know the truth
    Gov knows cause autism
    All lancet parents need to be aware who each other are
    Are they all genuine. All those in controversy on same side. Paula is from north shields and a jabs centre was set up there not long after Paul shattock visited her yet no others except main group.

    • #45772 Reply

      Clark

      “Gov knows cause autism”

      The scientific search for the cause of autism can be followed in the scientific literature. The cause is not documented there, so it cannot be known to governments. In any case, politicians ignore and dismiss science far more often than heeding it, eg. the sacking of Alvin Weinberg (nuclear power), the sacking of Professor Nutt (assessment of the dangers of illegal drugs), the dismissal of climate change and environmental degradation for thirty years etc. etc.

      Paula may be able to find help with computers from her local Linux User Group.

  • #45770 Reply

    Paula

    Paula met Brian deer journalist in 2014 she had told Paul shattock she was determined to find child 8 parents from Whitley bay so he suggested Brian yet there meant to be on different sides controversy the address Brian give Paula in Whitley bay was probably false. She left letters yet no replies. She is diverted and blocked every time she tries to do some thing to expose this. There is no freedom of speech. There is latest scandel of autistic people being abused in NHS hospitals. All this is to keep elite rich. Its all about making money. Scientific research is used to suit them in some cases and they do not care about families.

  • #45801 Reply

    Clark

    Paul Barbara, July 21 23:05:

    Wikepedia serves the PTB

    That is a gross oversimplification; I edit at Wikipedia and my edits certainly don’t serve the Powers That Be, yet because I’m careful to follow the rules, my edits endure:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Criticism_of_the_9%2F11_Commission&action=historysubmit&type=revision&diff=661172358&oldid=650511014

    If you’re unhappy with Wikipedia, don’t just moan and dismiss; learn to recognise reliable sources and learn to edit Wikipedia!

    You have ignored my point about the WHO and Co. stating ethylmercury is safe…

    No, SA answered you. It isn’t a binary choice, it’s a risk versus benefit assessment.

    • #46027 Reply

      Paul Barbara

      @ Clark July 27, 2019 at 16:04
      ‘No, SA answered you. It isn’t a binary choice, it’s a risk versus benefit assessment.’
      I made a long argument yesterday showing that he had not answered my comment, but for some reason the mods junked it.

      [ Mod: I’ve checked the deletion list and examined the activity logs, and I can see no deletion event in the last 48 hours for a reply with your username (or indeed anything on this thread). Maybe the reply wasn’t received? Sometimes a connection glitch can block the POST action, and sometimes replies can be automatically sent to the spam list – though I checked that too and didn’t notice your name! So unless you posted incomprehensible rubbish under a pseudonym, I don’t think it’s fair to say that “the mods junked it”. ]

      So may I refer you to my comment above, @ Paul Barbara July 19, 2019 at 23:28.
      To make a risk/benefit analysis, you need all or as much as possible information. Big Pharma will not give you that opportunity.
      As is stated in my comment, and in the two articles. WHO openly state on one of their sites, after going on about the hazards of mercury, states that: ‘Methylmercury is very different to ethylmercury. Ethylmercury is used as a preservative in some vaccines and does not pose a health risk. ‘
      https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/mercury-and-health
      This is probably based on the fallacious assumption that because it rapidly leaves the blood, it therefore goes out of the body. WRONG (as demonstrated with links above).
      Yet the false information still sits on the WHO site (they have previously been very credibly accussed of cooperating with the likes of Bill Gates and other ‘human culling’ organisations, to assist spreading a vaccine among Third Country women which while ostensibly was for one thing (Tetanus, I believe), also sterilised them). The WHO, as the Western Governments ,UN and OPCW have all been compromised.

      • This reply was modified 3 months, 2 weeks ago by  modbot.
      • This reply was modified 3 months, 2 weeks ago by  modbot.
      • This reply was modified 3 months, 2 weeks ago by  modbot.
      • This reply was modified 3 months, 2 weeks ago by  modbot.
      • #46053 Reply

        Clark

        Paul, it’s clear that you haven’t read even Bad Science, let alone Bad Pharma; it is simply impossible to have a meaningful conversation about this sort of subject until you have at least some of the necessary tools.

        The assessment of the effects of ethyl and methyl mercury in a system as complex as a living mammal is a hugely complex and technical subject, and just one of a myriad similar assessments; I know for certain that it is way beyond my technical experience, yet you rush in where angels fear to tread. You then attempt to support these claims with sweeping assertions such as “Big Pharma will not give you that opportunity” and “the WHO […] have previously been very credibly accussed of cooperating with the likes of Bill Gates and other ‘human culling’ organisations, to assist spreading a vaccine among Third Country women which […] also sterilised them”. These concern completely the opposite end of the pyramid of human activity, the pinnacle as opposed to the base.

        An ocean of highly complex structure with effectively infinite details lie between these two types of assessment and it cannot be ignored; the two simply do not belong together in the same comment. I’m sorry Paul, but this is conspiracy theorists’ type of thinking, like trying to assess momentum transfer in the collapses of the Twin Towers on the basis of whether I personally am Jewish or not.

        “The WHO, as the Western Governments ,UN and OPCW have all been compromised.”

        This is true, but “compromised” does not mean “puppet”, and the details are all-important. You need to be campaigning for transparency (as Ben Goldacre is) rather than against vaccines. It’s as if you’re campaigning against looking and listening when crossing a road because that’s what governments recommend.

        I take it you won’t read Goldacre because “he could be one of the bad guys” and thus might corrupt your thinking?

  • #46038 Reply

    Paul Barbara

    Mods, I apologies for saying you ‘junked’ my comment, as you have explained you didn’t.
    However, it somehow disappeared, possibly by some accidental action of my own.
    I took quite a while formulating it, but ‘C’est la vie’.
    Thanks for explaining the situation.

  • #46319 Reply

    Paul Barbara

    Further evidence of Big Pharma’s real motivations:
    ‘GcMAF and the Persecution of David Noakes, Lyn Thyer & Immuno Biotech’:
    https://www.ukcolumn.org/article/gcmaf-and-persecution-david-noakes-lyn-thyer-immuno-biotech
    ‘…Big Pharma is a corporate venture that has absolutely no vested interest at all in curing disease. They became acutely aware of the problem of cures in 2015 when Gilead Sciences (GILD) developed a 90% effective cure for Hepatitis C.

    Initially the $12.5 billion in revenue from the GILD cure was welcomed. However, the problem with a cure, from an investment perspective, is that it cures people. The former Hep C patients no longer needed any treatment, and revenues fell off a cliff as more and more people didn’t require medication. What was even worse were the rapidly diminishing numbers of people spreading infection, creating fewer and fewer new customers.

    The global investment firm Goldman Sachs are one of the world’s leading investors in the pharmaceutical industry. They were concerned about the potentially catastrophic financial effects of curing people. They saw that advances in medical science threatened to make people well and thus reduce their return on investment (ROI.) In 2018 they issued their report The Genome Revolution. In it they questioned if curing disease was sustainable from a business model perspective. Their analyst’s conclusions make horrifying reading.

    The potential to deliver ‘one shot cures’ is one of the most attractive aspects of gene therapy, genetically-engineered cell therapy and gene editing. However, such treatments offer a very different outlook with regard to recurring revenue versus chronic therapies …

    GILD is a case in point, where the success of its hepatitis C franchise has gradually exhausted the available pool of treatable patients …

    In the case of infectious diseases such as hepatitis C, curing existing patients also decreases the number of carriers able to transmit the virus to new patients, thus the incident pool also declines … Where an incident pool remains stable (eg, in cancer) the potential for a cure poses less risk to the sustainability of a franchise….’

    How much evidence is required before the penny drops?
    I was present in court for one day during the trial of David Noakes, but didn’t go again because of my hearing problems, and the very low sound level of the proceedings.

    • #46323 Reply

      Clark

      “How much evidence is required before the penny drops?”

      Paul, I think you should recognise and question your own assumption that those who don’t accept your opinions about vaccines etc. are all brainwashed dupes. Yes, there have been incidents in which elements of the pharmaceutical establishment have attempted to discredit researchers who have discovered cures. For instance, a major effort was directed against one of the two doctors who demonstrated that some stomach ulcers are caused by bacteria called helicobacter pylori and could therefore be cured with cheap, off-patent antibiotics, thus depriving the pharmaceutical industry of a steady income stream from anti-acid ulcer treatments. It does not follow that vaccines are a scam.

      I think you should also note that the quote in your comment above is advocating for a gene therapy, directly contradicting your own earlier position about “natural” treatments being more trustworthy.

      I know nothing of the GILD case and I expect it would take me several weeks to research it, but thanks to Ben Goldacre’s two books, I’d have some idea of how to research it.

      • #46326 Reply

        Paul Barbara

        @ Clark August 13, 2019 at 09:00
        You largely agree with my position re Big Pharma’s lack of interest in curing, and desire to rather have the walking-dead coming back for repeat prescriptions (more lovely loot).
        I don’t know if you read the GcMAF article about that cancer cure, which is avoided like the plague by Big Pharma, who use their tremendous clout to lean on regulatory and enforcement agencies to come down like a ton of bricks on doctors or others who try to use and distribute it.
        Considering it’s phenomenal record in cases everyone has totally given up on, don’t you believe this is unconscionable?
        And re one an antacid scam not proving vaccines are a scam, it all points to the possibility that vaccines COULD be, given the lack of honesty, morality and transparency.
        My position is the possibility is there, and because of my knowledge of their previous criminality, I accept the worst interpretation given by Big Pharma’s detractors.
        You seem to agree with me that Big Pharma are unprincipled, but give them the benefit of the doubt re vaccines.
        Would you agree?

        • #46332 Reply

          Clark

          You seem to agree with me that Big Pharma are unprincipled, but give them the benefit of the doubt re vaccines. Would you agree?

          Yes and no, respectively.

          More specifically, the pharmaceutical companies are the same as other companies; their primary legal duty is to maximise returns to their shareholders. They could probably do that better by not manufacturing vaccines at all. Mostly it is governments that mandate vaccination programmes, not pharmaceutical companies.

          Paul, this whole issue is a bit more complicated than the simple “us versus them” format you continually try to cobble it into. Why won’t you read Goldacre? Do you even know why you won’t?

          • #46379 Reply

            Paul Barbara

            @ Clark August 13, 2019 at 15:39
            If you saw the list of books I have to read, and the other things I have to do, and you knew how difficult it is to do anything with my lack of energy and almost constant tiredness, you would stop asking me to read Goldacre.
            The Pharma Companies do indeed have an obligation to their shareholders, but their primary obligation should be to the safety of the products they produce for use by patients. This clearly is not the case, and most of the various governments are quite happy with that.
            Sure, governments mandate the vaccines and drug regulations, but at the behest of the Big Pharma lobbyists. Surely that is obvious.

          • #46382 Reply

            Clark

            “If you saw the list of books I have to read…” etc.

            You are justifying your own ignorance. I remind you that the opinions you are promoting have life-or-death consequences. The books I recommend are full of intellectual tools. If you are unwilling to learn to use those tools, you should refrain from promoting potentially lethal opinions.

            “The Pharma Companies […] primary obligation should be to the safety of the products they produce”

            That would be some system other than capitalism. Yet the major promoters of anti-vax literature are the US Right. Que pasa?

            “governments mandate the vaccines and drug regulations, but at the behest of the Big Pharma lobbyists”

            It really isn’t as simple as that; there is public research too. Really, either read the books I am recommending, which will give you a grounding at least, or admit to yourself that you don’t know enough to take a side.

            Incidentally, I was with Craig all last week and we discussed many things. One thing he mentioned was that of all the conspiracy theories, it’s the anti-vax ones that he most objects to. Yet his latest heart specialist has taken him off many medications, replacing all of them with one of the oldest, derived from foxglove extract. By odd coincidence I mentioned foxglove’s cardiac effects earlier in this thread. Foxglove extract slows the heart, this being the treatment that Craig is receiving, but too much will cause it to stop completely, which is the effect I mentioned. Natural or not? Good or bad? Maybe these aren’t quite the right questions.

  • #46380 Reply

    Paul Barbara

    Again, surely this screams out to the heavens:
    http://whale.to/c/trace_amounts.html
    ‘…Take Another Look : An Interview with ‘Trace Amounts’ co-director Shiloh Levine I learned that Ethylmercury is not the “safe mercury,” which a lot of people like to spout in the media. It is actually more dangerous than Methylmercury, which is the type of mercury found in fish. And it gets trapped in the brain twice as much as Methylmercury and that’s where the neurological problems are….Two parts per billion is the amount of allowable mercury in our drinking water. Two hundred parts per billion is considered toxic waste. Fifty-thousand parts per billion is the amount of mercury in Thimerosal at twenty-five micrograms. In a flu shot, that amount is fifty thousand parts per billion, which is twenty-five thousand times more than the allowable amount in drinking water. You’re injecting toxic waste into babies and pregnant mothers, and that’s not okay…..’

    • #46383 Reply

      Clark

      “surely this screams out to the heavens”

      No, it is merely rhetoric. An obvious flaw that even I can spot is that we each consume pints of water day in day out, whereas vaccinations are given in tiny doses and only a few times per lifetime.

      • #46384 Reply

        Paul Barbara

        @ Clark August 13, 2019 at 20:20
        The fact that mercury has been removed from almost all childhood vaccines in the US proves that there is a very real danger (though it is still used in the yearly flu shot, and also used in vaccines exported to other countries).
        The CDC has been shown to have covered up the fact (not theory) that their schedule for babies’ vaccinations went way over even their own appalling ‘limits’, and rather than correct the issue immediately, let it ride for years, so as not to get embarrassed by their stupidity (and even when the top vaccine makers offered to supply mercury-free vaccines almost immediately).

        • #46386 Reply

          Clark

          “The fact that mercury has been removed from almost all childhood vaccines in the US proves that there is a very real danger”…

          No, it doesn’t prove that. The way to prove that would be cohort studies, and case-control studies.

          The mercury may have been removed for a host of reasons, for instance at the direction of government to increase acceptance of and confidence in vaccination. Such acceptance and confidence could be justified or misplaced, and the way to find out would be cohort studies and case-control studies.

          You need to read Goldacre. His arguments clearly make sense, and he’s streets ahead of either you or me.

          • #46397 Reply

            Paul Barbara

            @ Clark August 13, 2019 at 23:00
            No, it’s not me that should read Goldacre, it’s you who should read previous comments on this and other previous threads, or just to read up on the CDC and mercury. You will find out the obvious – it was removed because it is a hazard – something that should be obvious to anyone who knows the slightest bit about mercury and it’s neurotoxicity.
            Tell me something – above I quoted a WHO website that claimed, with no caveats, that:
            ‘…Methylmercury is very different to ethylmercury. Ethylmercury is used as a preservative in some vaccines and does not pose a health risk…’ https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/mercury-and-health

          • #46540 Reply

            Clark

            OK, so assuming you’re right (since clearly, no other assumption is acceptable to you), you can show me the cohort studies and the case-control studies that indicate widespread neurological damage in populations vaccinated with the substances you object to, right?

            Is there anything you aren’t the ultimate source of wisdom about? Or do you “just know” about everything?

          • #46543 Reply

            Paul Barbara

            When I said ‘tell me something’ I missed out, ‘tell me what you think of that statement from the WHO’.

          • #46541 Reply

            Clark

            I have a reason for placing little weight upon the handful of links you’ve posted; what do you think it is?

          • #46544 Reply

            Paul Barbara

            @ Clark August 15, 2019 at 10:18
            Do you not trust that the WHO site I linked to is genuine? If it is, what do you make of such a ridiculous statement that:
            ‘…Methylmercury is very different to ethylmercury. Ethylmercury is used as a preservative in some vaccines and does not pose a health risk…’
            If the WHO can get away with posting such utter BS, what does it say about the WHO, and indeed, of ‘Peer Revue’? Why have not the world’s premier doctors and scientists corrected them?
            And the CDC are still pumping out the same lies, though they know the truth that ethylmercury disappears quickly from the blood because it passes easily through the blood/brain barrier and is stored in the brain:
            https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/thimerosal/index.html
            How can anyone trust these puppet organisations?

  • #46545 Reply

    Clark

    “If the WHO can get away with posting such utter BS, what does it say about the WHO, and indeed, of ‘Peer Revue’? Why have not the world’s premier doctors and scientists corrected them?”

    Tell you what Paul, you tell me, seeing as that’s the only direction of communication you’ll permit.

    While you’re at it, since you’ve identified which organisations are ‘puppets’, please tell me who the puppeteers are. Just explain how the whole world works, since you’re clearly convinced that you know.

    And when you’re done, might I be permitted to ask questions to test the logical consistency of your infallible knowledge?

    • #46547 Reply

      Paul Barbara

      @ Clark August 15, 2019 at 14:51
      They are the puppets of the Banksters, Financiers and Corporations and their lobbyists, of course.
      But why on earth you cannot respond to the WHO statement, and call it out for what it is, utter murderous BS, I fail to see.
      Here is a balanced BMJ article (surely they are not sowing disinfo to question vaccines?):
      ‘Pressure mounts for inquiry into MMR furore’:
      https://www.bmj.com/rapid-response/2011/10/30/how-can-vaccines-cause-damage

      Similarly, the Banksters’ and Corporations’ lobbyists lobby (bribe) for arms buildups, wars, GMO’s, pesticides and herbicides, deregulation of safety and pollution standards etc. These things are obvious facts, and should not need me to point them out.

      • #46550 Reply

        Clark

        “They are the puppets of the Banksters, Financiers and Corporations and their lobbyists, of course.”

        Of course. So why do these puppeteers want ethylmercury in vaccines? And why did the CDC stop administering it? And why do governments fund road safety campaigns, and enforce food regulations? Is the WHO more compromised than the CDC or vice versa? Who can we trust apart from your very good self and the US Christian Right websites that you, personally, endorse?

        “Here is a balanced BMJ article (surely they are not sowing disinfo to question vaccines?)”

        Er, it is not a BMJ article. If you bother to look, it is written not by the BMJ editorial board, nor by a doctor, scientist or professor, but by a “Father of vaccine damaged daughter” who apparently wishes to remain anonymous. Also it was published in 2004, yet this is the sort of thing you claim to be viciously suppressed.

        All you are doing is cherry-picking (or more likely, parroting some Right-wing US website’s cherry-picking), and what you lack in reason you make up for in aggression. Please either cite your qualifications and experience in toxicology and physiology, or learn to recognise your own ignorance.

        • #46573 Reply

          Paul Barbara

          @ Clark August 15, 2019 at 18:20
          ‘…Er, it is not a BMJ article. If you bother to look, it is written not by the BMJ editorial board, nor by a doctor, scientist or professor, but by a “Father of vaccine damaged daughter” who apparently wishes to remain anonymous…’
          It is a BMJ article insofar as it appears in their journal, and it is not written by someone who ‘prefers to stay anonymous’ but by Alan Challoner MA (Phil) MChS (certainly sounds like some kind of doctor to me, but I cannot find the meaning of the post-nominal letters, other than they seem to refer to some kind of surgeon).
          The ‘father of a brain damaged daughter’ is the reference No. 5, which the author refers to in part of his article.
          And you still haven’t commented on the WHO statement that ethylmercury in vaccines is not a health hazard.
          Re who is more corrupted, the CDC or the WHO, I suspect the CDC, but they are both corrupted, as are the OPCW and many UN ‘Peace Keeping’ Operations (Haiti; Balkans; Congo).

          • #46574 Reply

            Clark

            You are right that the response was written by Alan Challoner MA (Phil) MChS, retired; I apologise, I had failed to notice the author’s name at the top right. However, “Father of vaccine damaged daughter” is not one of the references; Alan Challoner seems to have included it as a “competing interest” as part of his letter, with the BMJ adding “No competing interests” as defined by them.

            The letter seems a good one for 2004. Nothing it contains justifies your insistence upon spreading irrational fear and lies about vaccinations, doctors and medical institutions. If you really cared about such matters and children’s health you would undertake the discipline of academic study, but since you are motivated only by feelings of superiority you won’t even read the books I recommend.

            I do not know enough to comment about ethylmercury in vaccines. Clearly you know even less than me, but you won’t let that stop you. Far from conspiring to cull the human population the WHO are working to eradicate polio, but the sort of irrationality you insist upon promoting may well defeat them; bully for you and your ilk, Paul.

          • #46635 Reply

            Paul Barbara

            @ Clark August 16, 2019 at 01:52
            Thanks for acknowledging your fault.
            ‘..I do not know enough to comment about ethylmercury in vaccines…’
            That is really not good enough. Ethyl and methyl mercury, indeed any kind of mercury, is acknowledged as a neurotoxin.
            One does not need to be a specialist in medicine or biology to conclude mercury is NOT a good element to inject into anybody’s bodies, let alone new-born babies and young children, and pregnant women.
            But leave commonsense by the wayside; you seem to have convinced yourself you are right.

          • #46648 Reply

            Clark

            “Thanks for acknowledging your fault”

            No problem; correction is what the scientific mindset constantly strives to do. Why didn’t you acknowledge your error, eh?

            “you seem to have convinced yourself you are right”

            No, I have acknowledged my ignorance, something which you seem very reluctant to do. It is you that has “convinced yourself you are right” and you seem to be psychologically projecting it onto me. You have essentially no expertise in toxicology, biochemistry etc.; neither do I, yet one of us presumes to prescribe for all humanity, and the other says “I don’t claim to know”.

            Everything is toxic, at some concentration, even water; remember Leah Betts? If I asked you “which is more toxic, water or tetradecafluorohexane”, you’d have a hard time believing the answer was water, because water is “natural” whereas tetradecafluorohexane sounds like some scary man-made “chemical”. But you can’t even drown in tetradecafluorohexane.

            Always “new-born babies and pregnant women”, isn’t it? Tip; learn to recognise dog-whistles rather than just reacting to them.

          • #46682 Reply

            Paul Barbara

            @ Clark August 20, 2019 at 09:18
            ‘..Always “new-born babies and pregnant women”, isn’t it?…’
            Tip: they are by far the most susceptible people to vaccine damage.
            If I was canine, I’d recognise dog whistles – as a human, the sound frequency is out of my hearing range.

      • #46551 Reply

        Clark

        Paul, look, I’m sorry, but it’s just impossible to hold any reasoned, technical discussion with you; you just don’t have the background. What you do seem to have is oodles of self-righteous zeal. You believe that you know and understand, and that you’re doing the ignorant masses a great favour, but you don’t even have sufficient knowledge to assess your own lack of understanding.

        This is called the Dunning-Kruger effect, it is common, and it has been studied:

        “the Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which people mistakenly assess their cognitive ability as greater than it is. It is related to the cognitive bias of illusory superiority and comes from the inability of people to recognize their lack of ability. Without the self-awareness of metacognition, people cannot objectively evaluate their competence or incompetence”

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

        It is closely related to illusory superiority, but the impression it gives is that of arrogance.

        Really, the best way to make progress would be for you to read Bad Science.

  • #46651 Reply

    Clark

    So, to summarise…

    Whale.to:

    “Satellites are purely science-fiction. All supposed images of satellites in orbit show fake CGI “satellites” orbiting a fake CGI “ball-Earth.” First conceived by Freemason science-fiction writer Arthur C. Clarke in 1945, they claim satellites became science-fact soon after. This is impossible for many reasons outlined in the following video, however, including the fact the melting points of the metals used in satellites are far lower than the temperature in the “thermosphere” where satellites supposedly are. Satellites, space stations, the Hubble telescope and space travel in general are absolutely the biggest hoaxes of the century, and NASA the most successful propaganda organization in history”

    On the basis of one reference from the website above, contrasted with one, deliberately simplified, non-technical public statement from the WHO website, we can conclude with certainty that the “murderous” World Health Organisation is deliberately encouraging neural damage to children through vaccinations on behalf of a secret cabal of international financiers, as a prelude to killing 95% of the human population.

    Corollaries: Right-wing US lawyers do NOT stand to gain if vaccine compensation is fought case-by-case rather than administered through the Federal Vaccine Court; there can be NO incentive for any anti-vax “conspiracy theory”, and big corporations and the US Right have NO incentives to discredit the United Nations.

  • #46680 Reply

    Paul Barbara

    ‘Americans Can Handle an Open Discussion on Vaccines—RFK, Jr. Responds to Criticism from His Family’:

    Americans Can Handle an Open Discussion on Vaccines—RFK, Jr. Responds to Criticism from His Family


    ‘…HHS (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services) partners with vaccine makers to develop, approve, recommend, and pass mandates for new products and then shares profits from vaccine sales. HHS employees can personally collect up to $150,000 annually in royalties for products they work on. For example, key HHS officials collect money on every sale of Merck’s controversial HPV vaccine Gardasil, which also yields tens of millions annually for the agency in patent royalties. Furthermore, under the 1986 Act that created the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, HHS is the defendant in Vaccine Court and is legally obligated to defend against any claim that a vaccine causes injury. Despite high hurdles for recovery, HHS pays out hundreds of millions of dollars annually (over $4 billion total) to Americans injured by vaccines. Hence, if HHS publishes any study acknowledging that a vaccine causes a harm, claimants can use that study against HHS in Vaccine Court. In June 2009, a high-level HHS official, Tom Insel, killed a $16 million-dollar budget item to study the relationship between vaccines and autism by the Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee. Insel argued that petitioners would use these studies against HHS in vaccine court.

    Such conflicts are a formula for “agency capture” on steroids….’
    There is a large part of the answer as to why there is little evidence of vaccine/autism links.

    • #46685 Reply

      Clark

      …from a website called “The truth About Vaccines”. I suppose the scientific literature is not worth looking at, or only when it’s been appropriately cherry-picked.

      I see human reproduction features again… As it does so often; a favourite US-Right theme… Why don’t you recognise this stuff for what it is?

  • #46687 Reply

    Paul Barbara

    ‘A group of CDC scientists point at a criminal conspiracy within the agency’:
    https://www.honeycolony.com/article/cdc-corruption-a-betrayal-of-public-trust/

    ‘YOUR Children. YOUR Choice’: https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=2325821697679985

    How much evidence are pro-vaccine aficionados willing to ignore?
    The FDA requires newborns not exceed 5 micrograms of aluminium per Kg. per day by IV. The average newborn of 3 1/2 Kg shouldn’r receive more than 17 1/2 microgrames of aluminium per day by IV; yet one dose of HEP B vaccine (advised for all children at birth) contains 250 micrograms.
    I wonder what Goldacre would make of that little conundrum?

    • #46688 Reply

      Clark

      Well if you’d read him you’d find out.

      Of course, you could assume he’s part of the conspiracy, and thereby be relieved of thinking about complex issues. Oh but you did that already….

      So let’s see, you’re opposed to MMR vaccine, Hep B vaccine, HPV vaccine, a couple of others. It’s all vaccination you’re determined to spread propaganda against, right? So you’re propagandising for polio, smallpox, tetanus, testicular atrophy and cervical cancer etc? GOOD on you, Paul; that’s a really noble thing to do.

      • #46704 Reply

        Paul Barbara

        @ Clark August 22, 2019 at 23:21
        You are jumping to conclusions – I have never said I am against all vaccinations. I assume when vaccines were first tried, they were for good medical reasons. It was only later they became viewed as money-spinners and covert birth control scams.
        RFK Jr. is not anti-vaccine, just some, and adjuvants like mercury and aluminium, and also the age at which they are administered.
        As I’m not about to read Goldacre (he obviously won’t have the specific answer to that particular conundrum in his book, anyway), why don’t you tell me how the two conflicting recommendations can be reconciled?
        The only way you can maintain your pro-vaccine argument seems to be by refusing to deal with contrary evidence.
        Many instances of gross manipulation and fraud by the ‘Regulatory Authorities’ has been quoted by me, you even agree in part that there is corruption on their part, yet you still use their statistics and statements to back your stance.

    • #46690 Reply

      Clark

      “How much evidence are pro-vaccine aficionados willing to ignore?”

      OK, since you’re unwilling to read someone who’s studied such matters his whole professional life, and who’s a vicious critic of the pharmaceutical industry, let’s see if you can scientifically investigate your own question.

      First, what are the effects of aluminium toxicity? From a scientific source please, not marginal cherry-picking off whale.to

      • #46707 Reply

        Paul Barbara

        @ Clark August 22, 2019 at 23:35
        ‘Scientists in Canada Being Censored from Covering Dangers of Aluminum in Vaccines’:

        ‘…Further data showed that a significant correlation exists between the amounts of aluminum given to preschool children and the current rates of autism in seven Western countries. Those countries with the highest level of aluminum-adjuvanted vaccines had the highest autism rates.

        They revealed:

        The observed correlation between the number of aluminum-adjuvanted vaccines and ASD was further tested using Hill Criteria and met eight of nine of these indicating that vaccines containing aluminum are highly likely to be at least partially causal for autism.

        Professor Shaw and Dr. Tomljenovic continued their paper by adding:

        There are other links between aluminum exposure/toxicity and ASD. These include the following: A pilot study showed higher than normal aluminum levels in the hair, blood and/or urine of autistic children; children are regularly exposed to higher levels of aluminum in vaccines per body weight than adults; practically, nothing is known about the pharmacokinetics and toxicodynamics of aluminum in vaccines in children; and aluminum in vaccines has been linked to serious neurological impairments, chronic fatigue and autoimmunity….’
        Notice ‘Hill Criteria’?
        ‘Hills Criteria of Causation’: http://www.drabruzzi.com/hills_criteria_of_causation.htm
        Scientific enough for you?

        • #46711 Reply

          Clark

          No, the Health Impact News website is not scientific source, rather, it tends very much towards conspiracy theory, and that article deals with conspiracy not science. Please see my 13:01 comment.

          • #46743 Reply

            Paul Barbara

            @ Clark August 23, 2019 at 13:01
            Vaxxed is not conspiracy theory, it exposes very real, health-destroying (and sometimes murderous) conspiracies, which you have as good as accepted regarding some Pharma Corporations in the past.
            So the ‘Hills Criteria of Causation’: http://www.drabruzzi.com/hills_criteria_of_causation.htm is not scientific?
            Scientific principles CAN be written in Popular Mechanics, but are often not when they try to save the establishment’s butt by buttressing some baloney that breaks accepted laws of physics (and please don’t try to get this comment section closed down as you did another one).
            Re the Citroen driver, it depends on his level of knowledge. I have often been in that position, with Peugeots. Sometimes I chose one, sometimes the other. If the part is difficult to replace, or takes a long time, I have generally opted for the maker’s parts, but where it is not too difficult to replace, or is not too expensive labour-wise, then I usually plump for the cheaper part. I was quite competent in working on cars in the 60’s and 70’s, but particularly with diesels they got too complicated for me later on.
            Again, it would be helpful if you didn’t keep bringing ‘conspiracy theories’ into the equation, when what I try to show are genuine, died-in-the-wool conspiracies, if not out of the mouths of the perps, at least clearly evident by their actions.

          • #46748 Reply

            Clark

            Ah, you want to argue about collapsing buildings again, another subject about which you know nothing. I did the Twin Tower calculations myself; I didn’t even need any accuracy to see that they collapsed just as they’d be expected to.

            It seems pointless trying to reason with you. You prove Mark Lewis right. Thank goodness my hostility kept you at a distance that day at the High Court. With friends like you, Craig barely needs enemies.

          • #46749 Reply

            Clark

            “Re the Citroen driver, it depends on his level of knowledge”

            Right. But you know better than the vast majority of doctors, toxicologists, epidemiologists, and in particular, Ben Goldacre.

            So, please list your qualifications and experience in the above fields. If none, please write “none” for the sake of other readers; you know, the ones you are trying to sway…

  • #46689 Reply

    Paul Barbara

    Catch this documentary whilst it’s still available (I had to go to Yandex to get it):
    ‘Vaxxed’: https://yandex.com/search/?text=vaxxed%20%20full%20documentary&lr=10393#/videowiz?filmId=14198001379660086214
    Instead of telling me how ignorant I am, why not watch and read the evidence I provide, then provide counter evidence, if you can?

    • #46710 Reply

      Clark

      I already watched and commented about Vaxxed the last time you went through this ignorant and misleading dance. It is merely Wakefield’s self-justification for his unethical use of children as test subjects, bolstered by emotive cherry-picked interviews with distressed parents. As such it is disgustingly selfish and exploitative.

      Vaxxed is conspiracy theory not science, and our whole communicational problem is that you can’t recognise either, and thus can’t tell them apart. The tools for doing so are in Bad Science, but you refuse to read it and insist upon continuing to preach from ignorance.

      The massive differences between conspiracy theory and science are NOT about which conclusions are reached, but about HOW the conclusions are reached. Paul, you don’t know how to reason and discuss scientifically, and you refuse even to recognise that there is a false mode of reasoning known as conspiracy theory; you see that term itself merely as an insult concocted to discredit “The Truth”. Until you rectify this deficiency in your knowledge it is impossible to hold a science-orientated conversation; you will continue to cherry-pick, bolstering with emotive rhetoric, and allegations of conspiracy of unquantified relevance.

      My previous experience suggests that I am wasting my time and effort, but here is an example to illustrate my point.

      A driver of a Citroen car suffers timing-belt failure and consequent engine damage. He goes to a Citroen main dealer and is advised that all damaged parts must be replaced with original Citroen parts, at large expense.

      He mentions the massive estimate to an amateur mechanic, who tells him that main dealerships always recommend only original parts because they are required to do so by the manufacturer, for reasons of profit. This mechanic presents a much lower estimate, but is offering to fit various used and pattern parts that would cost much less, but could be badly worn or of poorer manufactured quality than the originals.

      So the driver is in a quandary between a high price and the chance of a poor repair. How should he make a choice?

  • #46712 Reply

    Clark

    The masses of time you are spending commenting here would be better spent reading Bad Science; then you would possess at least some of the tools necessary for a sensible discussion. You might discover why I am unwilling to discuss on the basis of little snippets extracted from the multitude of non-scientific websites that have proliferated across the ‘web in recent years.

  • #46731 Reply

    Clark

    Paul, you linked to and embedded an extract from “Scientists in Canada Being Censored from Covering Dangers of Aluminum in Vaccines”.

    I have now had the chance to read that article more carefully, and it really is dreadful. It doesn’t even establish its central claim of censorship, despite the big red “CENSORED” banner above the article. On the contrary, it reports the publication of a paper by researchers at the University of British Columbia. Neither does it establish its other sensational claim of an attempt to “destroy [the] credibility” of the authors of the paper. And it clearly has some political axes to grind.

    I could go through the article you linked to point by point, but it would take considerable time and I have reasons for suspecting that I’d be wasting my effort; I am sure that you harbour suspicions that I’m some sort of “agent for the forces of evil”, and as a consequence you’d use any excuse to dismiss each point out of hand. In any case, my experience is that you’d then just pick a different example of such nonsense and throw that one at me instead; rinse and repeat ad infinitum, as has already happened several times on this thread alone. It is simply impossible to keep pace with this technique; there are thousands of such articles that you can pick from and post a link to in a matter of seconds, but each requires a response that takes me an hour to write. So you win, but not by science.

    This is why specific procedures apply within the scientific community, and why scientific disagreements should be debated in the scientific literature, and NOT presented directly to the public in the ‘mainstream’ media, as the article you linked to argues.

    Maybe you can suggest a way to proceed? I certainly can’t think of any more than I have already suggested.

    • #46745 Reply

      Paul Barbara

      @ Clark August 24, 2019 at 15:42
      You are right that the article does not appear to show the two scientists are being censored in Canada, but regarding the ‘Banner Headline’, that refers to a separate article re the Vaccine Court in the US.
      ‘..Neither does it establish its other sensational claim of an attempt to “destroy [the] credibility” of the authors of the paper…’
      I disagree there. The newspaper report certainly does try to destroy the credibility of the two researchers, by not covering their actual research papers’ contents, and by wrongly praising other reports, like the WHO (‘..World Health Organization (WHO), funded primarily by pharmaceutical companies..’ well, some more ammo for my campaign – I never knew that before), which did not negate the researchers’ reports. In short, faced with contrary (though not diametrically opposed) reports, the MSM reporter chose the ‘Establishment’ view without giving credence to the researcher’s reports.
      Just like the MSM and Establishment rounded on Dr. Wakefield, David Noakes, Gilles-Eric Seralini and his team of researchers at France’s Caen University, Arpad Pusztai.
      Don’t bother to trot out the ‘Official Narrative’ of how breathtakingly flawed all their work was, they were hounded because of what they exposed.

      • #46823 Reply

        Clark

        Here is the article you accuse of trying “to destroy the credibility of the two researchers”:

        I have read through it, and I cannot find a single sentence criticising the scientific reputation of the researchers. There is, however, criticism of their conclusions in that particular paper; is that what you’re unhappy about?

        “Don’t bother to trot out the ‘Official Narrative’ of how breathtakingly flawed all their work was, they were hounded because of what they exposed”

        OK. So no scientific analysis is necessary. Since “Paul is virtually always right”, any contrary position is merely “The Official Narrative” and can be discounted.

  • #46742 Reply

    Clark

    Excerpt from Bad Science by Ben Goldacre; Chapter 10 “Is Mainstream Medicine Evil?”; second section “The pharmaceutical industry”; paragraphs 1 and 2:

    The tricks of the trade which we’ll discuss in this chapter are probably more complicated than most of the other stuff in the book, because we’ll be making technical critiques of an industry’s professional literature. Drug companies thankfully don’t advertise direct to the public in the UK – in America you can find them advertising anxiety pills for your dog – so we are pulling apart the tricks they play on doctors, an audience which is in a slightly better position to call their bluff. This means that we’ll first have to explain some background about how a drug comes to market. This is stuff that you will be taught at school when I become president of the one world government.

    Understanding this process is important for one very clear reason. It seems to me that a lot of the stranger ideas people have about medicine derive from an emotional struggle with the very notion of a pharmaceutical industry. Whatever our political leanings, everyone is basically a socialist when it comes to healthcare: we all feel nervous about profit taking any role in the caring professions, but that feeling has nowhere to go. <b>Big pharma is evil: I would agree with that premise.</b> but because people don’t understand exactly how big pharma is evil, <b>their anger and indignation get diverted away from valid criticisms</b> – its role in distorting data, for example, or withholding life-saving AIDS drugs from the developing world – and channelled into infantile fantasies. ‘Big pharma is evil,’ goes the line of reasoning, ‘therefore homeopathy works and the MMR vaccine causes autism.’ This is probably not helpful.

    • #46744 Reply

      Paul Barbara

      ‘…‘Big pharma is evil,’ goes the line of reasoning, ‘therefore homeopathy works and the MMR vaccine causes autism.’ This is probably not helpful.’
      No, indeed that line of reasoning isn’t helpful; but it does fortify the original reason I gave for not reading Goldacre – I told you I used to read his regular column in the Guardian (pretty sure it was the Guardian) and I was not impressed.
      He has set up a straw-man argument, and an extremely poor one at that. None of the doctors or parents in the articles and videos I linked use that argument.
      They give solid reasons for what they claim, including parents who noticed a dramatic change in their babies/children immediately or very shortly after vaccinations.
      I’m really surprised you gave me such a sloppy bit of ‘reasoning’ to show Goldacre’s ‘wisdom’.

      • #46750 Reply

        Clark

        “None of the doctors or parents in the articles and videos I linked use that argument”

        No, but he wasn’t replying to that article you fool, and it is essentially your argument; “they are conspiring to kill us all, so every anti-establishment position is more true than theirs”.

        • #46752 Reply

          Paul Barbara

          @ Clark August 26, 2019 at 17:01
          As a Christian I have very good reason to believe that those in power are essentially evil; Jesus on at least three occasions referred to the Devil as the ‘Prince of this world’. I do not, however, expect you to believe that, just because it is in the New Testament. However, having that as an anchor, I am much more sure of the evil nature of our ‘Leaders and Betters’ when I see the results of their actions – not just selfish and self-serving, but in so many cases downright evil.
          Here is another ‘anchor’ from the New Testament: ‘And the devil led him (Jesus) into a high mountain, and shewed him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time. And he said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them. If thou therefore wilt adore before me, all shall be thine.’ Luke lV : 5-7
          It is my faith (and like I say, I don’t expect you to share it) which bolsters what otherwise would seem to be a cock-sure overconfidence in my assessments. It is also the result of a long life (I sense it coming to a close before long) largely campaigning against literally murderous, barbarous regimes, all too often supported by the so-called ‘Western Democracies’. Nowadays, they hardly bother to even profess to be ruled by treaties and agreements – take the false invasion of Iraq for non-existent WMD’s, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Venezuela, the reversion to good old Piracy by the ‘Royal Navy’ over the boarding and holding of the Iranian tanker.
          International Treaties? Only till they don’t serve their pro-Western purposes.
          Yes, I do tend to see evil surrounding us on all sides, but not from ‘conspiracy theories’ or paranoia, but from very real conspiracies and murderous crimes: Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: ‘..I think this is a very hard choice, but the price–we think the price is worth it..’ (Re 500,000 dead children due to Western sanctions, just like they are applying now against Syria, Iran, Venezuela).
          And the nuking of Japan, not as claimed to speed up the end of the Pacific War, but to frighten and threaten Russia.
          Neither we nor our cousins across the pond are, and probably never have been, the ‘good guys’, though Hollywood and the MSM might not agree.

          You carry on, giving the PTB the benefit of the doubt.

        • #46757 Reply

          Paul Barbara

          @ Clark August 26, 2019 at 17:01
          Did Goldacre teach you the ‘straw-man’ technique, or did you teach him?
          ‘…“they are conspiring to kill us all, so every anti-establishment position is more true than theirs”.’ is not my argument, as should be clear to you.

        • #46822 Reply

          Clark

          “You carry on, giving the PTB the benefit of the doubt.”

          I think you should ask yourself why you assume that’s what I’m doing. My argument is not “the governments of the world are probably good”. My argument is “Paul Barbara and the websites he trusts are illiterate in science”. Assuming I’m a sheeple merely demonstrates your arrogance.

          “Did Goldacre teach you the ‘straw-man’ technique, or did you teach him?”

          In other words, have I conspired with Goldacre? No I haven’t. I quote him because his arguments make more scientific sense than yours, and because he has a much more convincing explanation for your behaviour than you have for his.

  • #46746 Reply

    Paul Barbara

    Forcible vaccination has a rather unsavory history – ‘The American History Of Compulsory Vaccination and its Ties to Eugenics’: https://healthimpactnews.com/2015/the-american-history-of-compulsory-vaccination-and-its-ties-to-eugenics/
    People tend to forget, if they ever knew, that American history is, like most, a ‘can of worms’, from genocide of the indigenous Indians, through expansion and armed interventions into Mexico, Cuba, Hawaii, Philippines, and many other areas, through a Fascist coup plot in the 1930’s, to supporting the rise of Hitler by US banks and corporations, to it’s present slew of ‘Regime Change’ military wars and trade wars. And, of course, it’s takeover of the ‘Regulatory Agencies’ and government by the corporations, banksters and foreign and domestic lobbyists and criminal blackmailers.
    And it is getting worse.

    • #46751 Reply

      Clark

      Yeah, it’s all a big conspiracy.

      Can I go home now Sir?

      • #46753 Reply

        Paul Barbara

        @ Clark August 26, 2019 at 17:02
        Only after completing 100 lines: ‘I confess Paul is virtually always right’.

        • #46825 Reply

          Clark

          If you can’t see your own ego at work here then you must be blind to it. Maybe Jesus was tempted by the Devil, but you have clearly succumbed.

  • #46754 Reply

    Paul Barbara

    ‘March 2015 Settlements in Vaccine Court: 117 Vaccine Injuries and Deaths’:

    Look through the list of vaccine injuries, and notice not one case mentions autism.
    I wonder what the reason could be? Oh, I wonder if it could possibly be because: ‘…That fund, the Vaccine Injury Compensation Trust Fund, is currently over $3.5 billion, largely because the U.S. Government refuses to even hear cases related to autism which would quickly deplete the fund. (See: How the Government has Earned $3.5 BILLION from the Claim that Vaccines Don’t Cause Autism.)…’
    Crafty lot, aren’t they? But megabucks at stake…
    One of the agencies (I believe it was the CDC) even admitted only about 1% of vaccine injuries even get reported.

    • #46826 Reply

      Clark

      “Look through the list of vaccine injuries, and notice not one case mentions autism. I wonder what the reason could be?”

      It could be that there is extremely strong scientific evidence that the MMR vaccine does not cause autism.

      Would you know where to look for such evidence? Would you know how to assess its accuracy? Those are questions, Paul; if you’re attempting discussion rather than ideological bludgeoning, please attempt to answer them.

  • #46755 Reply

    Paul Barbara

    And here come the cavalry!
    ‘Nonprofit Drug Maker Produces TB Antibiotic After Private Companies Wouldn’t’:
    Nonprofit Drug Maker Produces TB Antibiotic After Private Companies Wouldn’t
    There are still decent people who work to truly cure or assist sick people, whose primary care is not filthy lucre.
    And I’m sure they earn a decent living.
    Companies need to make a profit, but not obscene profits at the patients’ or taxpayers’ expense, and by shady and dangerous illegalities.

  • #46784 Reply

    Paul Barbara

    Very good interview, showing just how evil the Big Pharma Corporations are, and how they infiltrate and/or bribe government regulatory agencies (as well as assassinating doctors they see as problems):
    ‘The Persecution of David Noakes & Lyn Thyer’: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PpHFkhIBiR8
    I’ve known the presenter for years, and have met David Noakes.

    • #46828 Reply

      Clark

      Oh, so David Noakes isn’t a millionaire who tried to gain political power then?

      I thought you claimed to have a distrust of the ‘elite’?

      • #46852 Reply

        Paul Barbara

        @ Clark September 3, 2019 at 12:25
        No, David Noakes isn’t a millionaire, he’s been robbed of everything.
        He is not one of the ‘Elite’, he was a well-meaning entrepreneur (in the mold of Aaron Russo).
        Just en passant, Prof. Leroy Hulsey’s report is out, in case your interested. I’m not proposing we discuss it, just letting you know things are moving on that front.

        • #46870 Reply

          Clark

          What’s this “everything” he’s been robbed of? He was operating out of Guernsey; there ain’t no paupers there; I’ve seen for myself!

          He’s not a scientist or an academic. He worked for the MSM and JP Morgan Chase Bank.

          “Prof. Leroy Hulsey’s report is out…”

          If you remember what I actually wrote on the 9/11 Thread, I suspect that WTC7 may have been subject to emergency demolition, prompted and undertaken by some very brave and determined fire-fighters, a decision made just before the WTC7 exclusion zone was enforced; there are multiple strands of circumstantial evidence which point that way. The bottom-up collapse of WTC7 tells us nothing about the top-down collapses of the Twin Towers.

  • #46794 Reply

    Paul Barbara

    ‘JAMA Study: Flu Shots Are Killing Elderly Citizens In Record Numbers’:
    https://web.archive.org/web/20190501073703/https://newspunch.com/jama-study-flu-shots-killing-elderly/
    ‘..Inquisitr.com reports: In her blog, Attkisson cites a buried JAMA study from almost a decade ago which showed that there was no improvement in mortality rates among senior citizens with a flu vaccine, even after greatly increased vaccination rates. The study “got little attention,” she says, “because the science came down on the wrong side.”
    Whereas the researchers had set out to prove that the push for massive flu vaccination would save the world, the researchers were “astonished” to find that the data did not support their presupposition at all. The data actually shows that deaths increased, not decreased, among seniors following vaccination…’

    ‘A nursing home near Atlanta, Georgia, now reports a devastating outcome to such a policy, according to Health Impact News. All of the residents of the Hope Assisted Living & Memory Care were given a flu vaccine on Friday, November 7. Every one of the senior citizens developed an immediate fever. Within the week following, five of them died. The source reports that the facility’s typical pattern is one or two losses every six months, frequently due to Alzheimer’s.
    Questions must be asked, then, such as: do the benefits of getting a flu vaccine outweigh the risks, especially among vulnerable senior citizens? Or would they be better off choosing to reject the shot? Who benefits if evidence showing the harm of the vaccine is buried?..’

    The evidence builds up (good enough for me, anyhow. I don’t take the flu, shingles or pneumonia jabs, despite being ‘advised’ to due to my age.

    • #46827 Reply

      Clark

      “do the benefits of getting a flu vaccine outweigh the risks?”

      I don’t know; how would you find out? What evidence would you have to assess, where might you find it collated, and what other matters should be taken into consideration?

      Maybe the best thing would be to compile every bad occurrence that might have been caused by a vaccination, ramp up the rhetoric and try to scare everyone off vaccination – never, ever mentioning the millions of preventable illnesses every year. After all, “Paul is virtually always right”.

      Science = “whatever Paul says”.

      • #46853 Reply

        Paul Barbara

        @ Clark September 3, 2019 at 12:23
        If you check the list of payments for ill effects by the Vaccine Court (that I put up here previously) you will note that most of the payments are re the Flu Vaccine. Do you take it? I don’t.

  • #46839 Reply

    Clark

    Paul, the arguments you have presented on this page are very unfocussed; first it’s Zuckerberg and Facebook, then it’s Google. Then mercury in vaccines, and then glyphosate. Then the Adkins family. Then Wikipedia. Then the “human culling” theory. Then Craig’s mods are conspiring against you (retracted, thankfully!). Next it’s the ‘suppression of GcMAF, Goldman Sachs and the ‘persecution’ of millionaire and UKIP hopeful David Noakes. Then the ‘persecution’ of Wakefield, Seralini and Pusztai.

    As best I can make out, your argument goes like this:

    “I have presented so many examples that there must be corruption. As corruption has been proven, all my examples are almost certainly true”.

    This is not a scientific argument. Scientific arguments examine evidence relevant to a specific scientific claim, and only that; eg. “Merck covered up vioxx side effects” (which they did) is not evidence that fish oils increase intelligence.

    And you have a very odd idea of what is ‘natural’ and what isn’t. Drinking colloidal silver (as advocated on about half the sites you promote) is not natural, and neither is injecting anything, let alone GcMAF. Vaccines do prime the genuinely natural immune system, yet you promote the campaign of spreading fear of them.

    If you really want to know what Big Pharma get up to, you need to read Goldacre’s Bad Pharma – more than 400 pages about pharmaceutical scams with the collusion of the industry regulators. But before you could understand it you’d need to read Bad Science.

    • #46855 Reply

      Paul Barbara

      @ Clark September 3, 2019 at 13:32
      I don’t agree with Noakes’ politics; I voted out, but like Craig believe some kind of deal like I think Norway has with the EU would be fine. The one thing I don’t want to see is us as under the thumb of the US and it’s ‘Trade Deals’, forcing all manner of junk down our throats like GMO’s, chlorinated chicken, hormone-filled beef and dairy and pesticides, herbicides and 5G for afters. And of course, bye bye NHS.
      I wanted out because I saw the EU as a massive building block of the NWO; I still see it that way, but I had not understood we would be putting ourselves at the mercy of the Yanks and their ‘Deals’ that we couldn’t refuse (at least, they wouldn’t be refused by the Tories).
      Sure, I tie in a lot of different things in this thread, because the issues are linked by the bad results they will have for the majority, and the vast profits they have for the PTB.
      If your Goldacre has spent 400 pages informing you and anyone else who reads his book just how evil Big Pharma is, I’m surprised it hasn’t percolated through to you yet.

      • #46869 Reply

        Clark

        “I’m surprised it hasn’t percolated through to you yet”

        Again, please try to read what I actually write, rather than what you think I mean. On this thread I have repeatedly expressed my distrust of the big pharmaceutical companies. I quoted Goldacre; “Big pharma is evil: I would agree with that premise”, and I even criticised a passage that you yourself cited, because it equivocates and pulls its punches.

        But I don’t think MMR causes autism etc., and so you filter out what I’m trying to tell you. You thereby confirm Goldacre’s criticism:

        “‘Big pharma is evil,’ goes the line of reasoning, ‘therefore homeopathy works and the MMR vaccine causes autism.’”

    • #46856 Reply

      Paul Barbara

      @ Clark September 3, 2019 at 13:32
      “I have presented so many examples that there must be corruption. As corruption has been proven, all my examples are almost certainly true”.
      That is broadly my position – I give so many examples that it hopefully becomes apparent that these big corporations are corrupt and evil – any exception (if you can find any) will prove the rule.
      And these same evil, corrupt corporations, as well as foreign governments, bribe and/or blackmail the eminently corruptible politicians who rule us. So they easily gain effective control of ‘Regulatory Agencies’, which are often infiltrated by ‘revolving door’ corporation plants, or emasculated by corporation lobbying of the government.
      Yesterday, I more-or-less politely declined the kind offer of electric and gas ‘Smart’ meters, another killer.
      When asked why, I replied ‘Because I’m not stupid’. 5G, Fracking, GMO’s, Regime Change wars – when are people going to wise up?

      • #46871 Reply

        Clark

        “when are people going to wise up?”

        You imagine yourself to be wise. I have bad news for you; what you call the Devil is more insidious than you give credit for. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn:

        “If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?”

        You blame the world’s problems on some evil, essentially unidentified elite, but it is far worse than that; some of the problem resides within each and every one of us. Part of it is the feeling we each have that we know better than nearly everyone else.

        • #46888 Reply

          Paul Barbara

          @ Clark September 5, 2019 at 13:44
          Don’t worry, I’m fully aware how insidious the Devil is, he runs the world.
          And yes, he has power over all of us, to an extent, generally working through our subconscious.
          But many people actively collaborate with the Devil, effectively selling their souls for wealth and power on this earth.
          I believe that the Devil is an actual entity, and he has armies of demons at his command.
          I don’t expect you to agree, but that is what I believe, literally.
          @ September 5, 2019 at 13:22 you state:
          ‘…But I don’t think MMR causes autism etc.,..’ Just how scientific is that? You don’t think so, so you must be right. Exactly the kind of thinking you accuse me of! Essentially, you accept the ‘Official Narrative’, and dismiss all alternative views and evidence.
          And it is not an isolated occurrence. You have preferred your own inexpert opinion over experts in other fields.

          • #46890 Reply

            Clark

            Here is some of the sort of evidence I base my view on:

            https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD004407.pub3/abstract

            “We included five randomised controlled trials (RCTs), one controlled clinical trial (CCT), 27 cohort studies, 17 case‐control studies, five time‐series trials, one case cross‐over trial, two ecological studies, six self controlled case series studies involving in all about 14,700,000 children and assessing effectiveness and safety of MMR vaccine”

            I have linked to it in a previous discussion. I have also mentioned cohort studies and case-control studies in this thread.

          • #46893 Reply

            Paul Barbara

            @ Clark September 5, 2019 at 23:33
            And here is an example of an info source I get my opinions from:
            ‘Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. Nails the Vaccine Argument’:

            Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. Nails the Vaccine Argument…


            ‘..Now, all of the vaccines on the schedule, and all medical products, are required to list whatever safety testing they do. Not one of these has ever used a placebo. But some of them do safety testing anyway, like the polio vaccine, for maybe 48 hours.

            The hepatitis B vaccine that is given to every child in this country on the day it’s born, they observe for 5 days. That means if a child dies on day 6, it never happened. If a child has a seizure on day 6, it never happened. If the baby gets food allergies and is diagnosed three years later, or autism or an auto-immune disease, it never happened. That way they can say it’s safe.

            The weird thing is that there was one vaccine, the MMR vaccine, that all of this hoopla is about, it’s the only vaccine that has no safety testing listed on the insert. And for many years, Del [Bigtree] and I have been saying, “that’s weird.” Do any exist? What happened? So we sued HHS. We said, “where is it?”

            Three weeks ago they gave us the safety testing. There were 800 kids. Normally you have 20,000 kids or subjects in one of these. There were 800 kids in 8 different categories. For a drug they are going to give to billions of people. The testing lasted only 42 days.

            But 50% of the kids who were involved in that study had gastro-intestinal illnesses, serious ones, some of them for the full 42 days. 50% had respiratory illnesses, some of them for 42 days. This is a product that is worse, according to its own record, than the illness it’s pretending to prevent….’
            Seems some disconnect between your sites figures and RFK Jr.’s. I trust his.
            I shall try to send RFK Jr. the ‘evidence’ you quote, and I shall try to send RFK Jr.’s article to Cochrane, askinf them respectively to critique the other. It will take some time, I should imagine, before I get responses, if I do.

          • #46901 Reply

            Clark

            “Not one of these has ever used a placebo”

            It would be unethical to give a placebo, because the doctors would be withholding preventative treatment while convincing the parents otherwise.

            Surely RFK has had this explained to him; even I know it. It is therefore dishonest of him to suggest that omitting placebo is underhand. Dishonesty is the devils work, and you need to think more carefully; doctors are more intelligent and caring than you are giving them credit for.

          • #46894 Reply

            Paul Barbara

            @ Clark September 5, 2019 at 23:33
            When I tried to find your quote on the link you provided, I could not find it.
            Can you please check if you sent me the right link, and if so, explain where your quote is?
            I intend to send it to RFK Jr., with a request to comment on it (as I explain below in another comment).

            ‘…Here is some of the sort of evidence I base my view on:

            https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD004407.pub3/abstract

            – “We included five randomised controlled trials (RCTs), one controlled clinical trial (CCT), 27 cohort studies, 17 case‐control studies, five time‐series trials, one case cross‐over trial, two ecological studies, six self controlled case series studies involving in all about 14,700,000 children and assessing effectiveness and safety of MMR vaccine”

          • #46899 Reply

            Clark

            It’s the first paragraph in the sixth section “main results”. I opened the page from your copy of the link.

          • #46907 Reply

            Paul Barbara

            @ Clark September 6, 2019 at 01:30
            Thanks for pointing out the quote. I’ll send it tomorrow (too tired now).

          • #46916 Reply

            Clark

            Good on you Paul for giving RFK the information, and the opportunity to argue his case.

            If he now attacks the reputation of Cochrane or the researchers, rather than addressing the evidence they present and the methods they employ, then you will know that he’s not arguing scientifically.

  • #46895 Reply

    Paul Barbara

    I have now contacted Cochrane; here is a copy of my email (via web form):
    How do you reconcile your claims of the safety of the MMR Vaccine against the information RFK Jr. gives re the absolute minimalistic 800 children ‘Safety Test’?
    Basically, I am not medical/technical minded, just an average Joe, and I’m asking if you would give me a critique of what RFK Jr. has written, or of the transcript of his talk, which I forward here, because the two attitudes to MMR safety differ so fundamentally:
    ‘Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. Nails the Vaccine Argument’:

    Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. Nails the Vaccine Argument…


    I must add I favour RFK Jr.’s take.

    • #46905 Reply

      Clark

      The Cochrane authors already answered you; it’s in the section “Authors conclusion”:

      “The design and reporting of safety outcomes in MMR vaccine studies, both pre‐ and post‐marketing, are largely inadequate.”

      Why did you not see it? Had the devil blinded you to good works?

      • #46906 Reply

        Clark

        How did Satan manage that, Paul? Had he tricked you into looking only for the confirmation of falsity?

      • #46928 Reply

        Paul Barbara

        @ Clark September 6, 2019 at 02:29
        ‘…“The design and reporting of safety outcomes in MMR vaccine studies, both pre‐ and post‐marketing, are largely inadequate.”…’
        How come you never saw it? If you did, how do you still accept that the MMR is safe?

        • #46940 Reply

          Clark

          I did see it. It was me that pointed it out to you.

          Grief, this is like banging my head against a brick wall!

          I have never claimed that MMR is safe. I have claimed to accept the expert consensus that MMR is safer than the diseases it prevents.

          You keep alleging a massive cover-up, but you are not a reader of scientific literature. I show you the discussion, right out in the open, and instead of becoming interested in where you might have gone wrong you just fight, fight fight.

  • #46897 Reply

    Paul Barbara

    ‘The True Purpose of California Vaccine Bill SB276’:
    https://www.collective-evolution.com/2019/09/05/health-the-true-purpose-of-vaccines-bill-sb276/
    ‘…According to a MedAlerts search of the FDA Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) database, as of 2/5/19, the cumulative raw count of adverse events from measles, mumps, and rubella vaccines alone was: 93,929 adverse events, 1,810 disabilities, 6,902 hospitalizations, and 463 deaths….’
    And these bought ‘Legislators’ want a child’s right to education reliant on playing their ‘Russian Roulette’?
    And that is without taking autism into account, because the Vaccine Court refuses to even look at cases of autism, never mind compensate them. It pretends that vaccines can’t cause autism.
    Knocked over by a car? But the car was only going at 20 MPH, so you obviously died because you had a thin skull. Act of God!

    • #46900 Reply

      Clark

      The adverse events, disabilities, hospitalizations and deaths from vaccination must be weighed against the adverse events, disabilities, hospitalizations and deaths from measles, mumps and rubella. Note that the figures are cumulative, so these are since records of MMR began.

      You make a false case if you promote only one side of the data. These official figures also show that the repeated claim of anti-vaccination sites that “the authorities pretend that vaccines are perfectly safe”, and which you enthusiastically repeat, are also false. Falsity is, I think, what you would call “the work of the devil”.

      • #46931 Reply

        Paul Barbara

        @ Clark September 6, 2019 at 01:41
        ‘..The adverse events, disabilities, hospitalizations and deaths from vaccination must be weighed against the adverse events, disabilities, hospitalizations and deaths from measles, mumps and rubella. Note that the figures are cumulative, so these are since records of MMR began…’
        So where are the lists of the adverse events, disabilities, hospitalizations and deaths from measles, mumps and rubella?
        And notice the CDC’s own investigation which they funded showed only about 1% of adverse reactions gets reported, which caused the CDC to cut the funding and stop the investigation continuing:
        ‘It’s True, Less Than 1% of Vaccine Adverse Effects Are Reported’:

        It’s True, Less Than 1% of Vaccine Adverse Effects Are Reported


        ‘…This was clearly alarming and would have rocked the entire industry if given the light of day. Vaccine adverse events are supposed to be rare; they shouldn’t occur in over 2 percent of shots. So, the CDC buried the study and cut ties with the researchers.

        The report states: “Unfortunately, there was never an opportunity to perform system performance assessments because the necessary CDC contacts were no longer available and the CDC consultants responsible for receiving data were no longer responsive to our multiple requests to proceed with testing and evaluation.”…’

        • #46936 Reply

          Clark

          “So where are the lists of the adverse events, disabilities, hospitalizations and deaths from measles, mumps and rubella?”

          Obviously, there is no list of adverse outcomes from diseases that were prevented. By vaccination. Stop fighting and start thinking, with that God-given brain thing in your skull. You keep shooting the allies.

          • #46939 Reply

            Clark

            You keep shooting the allies because they are <b>not</b> shooting back. A bit like the US and its attitude to “countries with weapons of mass destruction”.

            They’re not shooting back because they have their faces buried in academic journals, diligently trying to make sense of the vastly complex world we find ourselves in. But just dismiss them as either agents or sheeple; the real heroes are political hopefuls, members of US political dynasties, and businessmen. Scientists are all scum.

  • #46904 Reply

    Clark

    This is all a massive distraction.

    In a humane, just society, parents of autistic children would get support no matter what caused the autism. But the US is not a humane, just society; it is a viciously capitalist society, so parents have only the chance of “compensation”. And they can only get that if they can prove that the autism was caused by some entity that has enough money to pay them.

    Consequently lobby groups develop, and some people, maybe mistaken but possibly unscrupulous, amplify or even exploit the distress and poverty of parents to become figureheads and ‘heroes’, and sometimes to gain an income for themselves.

    The fundamental evil is capitalism, which sets everyone in competition with everyone else.

    • #46932 Reply

      Paul Barbara

      @ Clark September 6, 2019 at 02:17
      ‘..This is all a massive distraction….’ Not for those affected.
      ‘..The fundamental evil is capitalism, which sets everyone in competition with everyone else…’
      So what to do? End capitalism?
      Much easier to campaign for no mandatory vaccines, and proper vaccine testing and accountability from the Big Pharma Corporations.
      Or just stand around, wringing our hands and tearing our hair, and letting the murderous Big Pharma and their government and media cronies carry on poisoning us and our children?

      • #46937 Reply

        Clark

        “Not for those affected”</em

        You have forgotten those affected by preventable illnesses. Again. Or do they not matter, because natural diseases are a Gift from God? Rubella <b>is</b> known to cause autism, but I suppose you might regard that as good, natural autism.

        “Much easier to campaign for no mandatory vaccines, and proper vaccine testing and accountability from the Big Pharma Corporations”

        Oddly enough, that’s exactly what Ben Goldacre does. His work forced a parliamentary review. And no, he doesn’t consider the matter closed by that, not by a long way.

        It’s NOT what you are doing, no matter that you think it is. By spreading FUD and promoting propaganda (albeit contrarian propaganda), you are increasing the push towards mandatory vaccination.

        Contrarian propaganda is just as bad as establishment propaganda. It’s like trying to fight for peace. There’s only one formula:

        TRUTH, Justice, Peace.

  • #46930 Reply

    Paul Barbara

    Here’s Cochrane’s (very speedy) answer:
    ‘Thank you for your message.

    Cochrane is a global independent network of researchers producing reviews of health evidence. As such, the organisation does not take a stance on the findings of individual research papers. We simply support evidence-based decision-making by clinicians and patients.

    For information from Cochrane on the evidence regarding the MMR vaccine you would need to search for relevant reviews in the Cochrane Library: https://www.cochranelibrary.com .’
    So they pass on commenting on RFK Jr.’s speech/transcript. Pity they couldn’t stretch their parameters a bit to indicate where they think he is wrong. Hopefully I’ll get a better response from RFK Jr.

    • #46938 Reply

      Clark

      You could have read that paper properly before zapping off an e-mail. And then some of their other papers on the same subject. The page I linked to was only the abstract; the full work is a systematic review, which means it’s based on a host of other papers. You could read them. In fact, you could probably spend an entire lifetime in the Cochrane Library. But you obviously have promotional activities that you find more rewarding.

      • #46948 Reply

        Paul Barbara

        @ Clark September 6, 2019 at 14:16
        You’re right, I do have better things to do than combing through a stack of reports I mostly probably wouldn’t understand.
        But given they admit the MMR was inadequately tested (rather a mild way of putting it), as you pointed out, why do you still support it?
        Given most testing is done by the Corporations, or paid for by them, the fact that Cochrane claim no funds are received from Big Pharma (but they do admit government and NGO funding, which can effectively be the same, ‘guided’ by Big Pharma), and all Cochrane does is evaluate these test papers, then Cochrane just seems like a higher-class Media propagandist for what the governments (and their paymasters, Big Pharma among others) want them to publicise.
        What is required is real testing, on animals (something I am generally against, but accept in cases like this that do not cause intentional pain and trauma (like making rabbits smoke cigarette smoke, or putting caustic products in their eyes).

        • #46954 Reply

          Clark

          I haven’t exactly supported MMR. I have said that the way the websites you promote go about attacking it is entirely misleading. They undermine public understanding of the very nature of science.

          If there are problems with the science, the Cochrane library looks like an excellent starting point for examining papers because researchers submit reviews of so many papers to the Cochrane library.

          If you’re just going to dismiss all science as corrupted or even actually reversed by big money, then you should confine your arguments to ideology (“vaccination is unnatural”) and politics (“capitalism corrupts everything”), or straightforward conspiracy theory (“they’re out to kill us all!”).

          What you shouldn’t do is cherry-pick science as if science supported your position, because you don’t yet possess enough understanding of science to do that with honesty so instead you inadvertently turn scientific material into propaganda. That is entirely the wrong direction; please read Goldacre, he definitely looks like a decent sort to me. You’ll be surprised by Bad Science; more than anything it’s a very powerful criticism of the corporate media.

  • #46933 Reply

    Paul Barbara

    Food for thought:
    ‘Germany ‘among worst in Europe’ for vaccinating children’:
    https://www.thelocal.de/20170113/german-children-insufficiently-vaccinated-against-measles
    ‘..”It is sad that Germany comes in last in Europe in terms of eliminating measles,” said President of Berlin’s Robert Koch Institute (RKI) Lothar Wieler in a recent report…’
    ‘..However, despite lagging behind the desired vaccination rate, 2016 saw a dramatic drop in reported cases of measles…’
    Ah, but….’11 Countries with the Highest Rates of Autism in the World’:
    https://www.insidermonkey.com/blog/11-countries-with-the-highest-rates-of-autism-in-the-world-357960/
    ‘…This theory fails to explain the low autism prevalence in countries like France, with 5 cases in 10,000 people or Germany, with just 1.9. Germany’s neighbor Denmark has an autism rate of 68 cases in 10,000 people, which is a staggering difference…’
    I wonder if there isn’t a link between Germany’s low rate of vaccination, and there very low number of autism cases?

    ‘Measles death in Germany prompts calls for mandatory vaccinations’:
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/23/german-health-official-mandatory-measles-vaccinations-child-dies
    Possibly because the child wasn’t vaccinated – I admit.
    But, what is more dangerous? The vaccine, or the measles?
    ‘Measles Vaccines Kill More People than Measles, CDC Data Proves’:

    Measles Vaccines Kill More People than Measles, CDC Data Proves


    ‘…Parents concerned about their vaccinated children potentially contracting measles from unvaccinated children may want to consider the fact that the bigger health threat is technically the vaccine, not the disease itself. Comparative data provided by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) reveal that nobody has died from measles in more than 10 years, while at least 108 deaths reported in VAERS during the same time frame have been linked to measles vaccines….’
    And of course, we know that VAERS reporting of adverse reactions is extremely low….

    • #46941 Reply

      Clark

      “what is more dangerous? The vaccine, or the measles?”

      Congratulations on at last asking the right question. Nearly. It should be “what is more dangerous? The vaccine, or the adverse effects from the <b>resultant higher levels of measles plus mumps plus rubella?”

      “…technically…”

      This really is the operative word here, because they have compared the low (in fact zero) measles deaths in a mostly vaccinated population against the deaths attributed to vaccination.

      “we know that VAERS reporting of adverse reactions is extremely low”

      For God’s* sake think here. Yes, reporting of “adverse reactions is extremely low”, but most adverse reactions are fevers and other minor matters that parents are prepared for and thus often don’t bother reporting. But how low is it for the serious reactions – hospitalisation, disability and death? All of these would show up in health records, and researchers, independent and otherwise, use health records to study vaccine safety.

      * “For God’s sake” – literally. God is truth, the devil is falsity. Stop doing the devil’s work by failing to think!

  • #46957 Reply

    Paul Barbara

    ‘…If you’ve been following the global vaccine debate you’ll likely know Del Bigtree, whose recent testimony we’re so pleased to be sharing with you today.

    It takes serious courage to stand up to the most powerful lobby in the world, but that’s exactly what Del has dedicated himself to since learning several years ago of the coverup by Center for Disease Control (CDC) of a study proving a link between the MMR vaccine and autism.

    Del’s explosive testimony reveals a staggering lack of scientific testing on vaccines and the alarming rate at which more vaccines are being added to the schedule. Meanwhile levels of childhood disease and behavioral problems are soaring, and the medical establishment can provide no answers as to why that might be…’
    ‘Expert Witness Testimony from Del Bigtree’:

    Expert Witness Testimony from Del Bigtree

    • #46959 Reply

      Clark

      “Del’s explosive testimony reveals a staggering lack of scientific testing on vaccines…”

      Well that has to be untrue, because just above I linked for you a systematic review of “five randomised controlled trials (RCTs), one controlled clinical trial (CCT), 27 cohort studies, 17 case‐control studies, five time‐series trials, one case cross‐over trial, two ecological studies, six self controlled case series studies involving in all about 14,700,000 children”.

      “Expert Witness Testimony from Del Bigtree”

      Well it must be about film and television production then, because that’s what he’s an expert in.

      • #46961 Reply

        Paul Barbara

        @ Clark September 6, 2019 at 17:55
        That was why I wanted to get each to answer to the other’s claims – because there was such a big gap. But even Cochrane admits the MSM testing is inadequate, as you pointed out. Given the 14,000,000-odd children they seemed to claim ere included altogether, why do they say the testing is inadequate?
        No testing was done with placebos – and contrary to what you claimed, that kind of testing would NOT require the testers to lie to parents – they would be told the truth – that it was a vaccine v placebo, but would not be told which their child had been administered. The one test the agencies and Big Pharma fear like the Devil is supposed to fear ‘Holy Water’ (I believe that is baloney) is a large test of vaccinated children versus completely unvaccinated children, because just because some children may not have had the MMR vaccine, they could have had others which had adjuvants or where harmful in their own right.
        So there we go again – where there is a discrepancy, you assume Del’s statement to be untrue, whereas I believe it is Big Pharma, the government and their ‘Regulatory Agents’ and the media and other propagandists who are lying and/or covering up.
        That the PTB and the Corporations have no compunction in killing or poisoning us with pesticides, herbicides, GMO’s, lead (known as a danger long before it was removed from household water pipes and petrol, and toothpaste tubes – remember the black ring round the top of the toothpaste? They quietly switched to plastic tubes, without an explanation), Climate Change, killing us and others in wars based on lies or False Flag operations, spending vast amounts on arms and neglecting health, social services and so on you probably agree, yet you persist in having a misplaced trust in a Big Pharma and Regulatory Agencies you admit are crooked. I really don’t understand it.

  • #46965 Reply

    Clark

    ” that kind of testing” [with placebo] “would NOT require the testers to lie to parents”

    Sorry, that’s unlikely to work. The parents on the anti-vax side are going to want to know that their children aren’t getting vaccine, and those on the more conventional side are going to want to know that they are. You’re going to end up with a tiny subset that aren’t representative of the population at large because of other quirky behavioural differences they have from the two major groups.

    “But even Cochrane admits the MSM testing is inadequate, […] why do they say the testing is inadequate?”

    Cochrane don’t admit that; Cochrane was set up specifically to examine and criticise medical science.

    I don’t know what you mean by “MSM testing”; typo?

    The paper doesn’t say the testing is inadequate, it says that “the design and reporting of safety outcomes in MMR vaccine studies, both pre‐ and post‐marketing, are largely inadequate.” That is not the same as “a staggering lack of scientific testing on vaccines”.

    To discover the difference it would help to read the paper, plus probably several of the papers it reviews, to find what the criticisms actually consists of. You would presumably need to learn some epidemiology, statistics and some technical terms.

    But instead you turn to a smattering of political hopefuls, entrepreneurs , “nutritionists”, “naturopaths”, ex-newspaper men and film producers, and treat their word literally like gospel, like a message that will save its believers. This bunch share some striking similarities. Firstly, hardly any of them are scientists or academics, or have any scientific background. But more importantly none of them are active in the scientific literature, they all communicate directly with the public or even market directly to them, and they all act as if the scientific literature is so hopelessly corrupted that it’s worse than useless. This is anti-science, popular among US Republicans.

    We see this enthusiasm for directly swaying the public and disdain for debate in the scientific and academic literature in other subjects – most notably in climate change denial, but also militaristic “security consultants” with their objectionable views on “terrorists”, and politicians’ advocacy for economic policies that benefit only the rich.

    “…you assume Del’s statement to be untrue, whereas I believe it is Big Pharma, the government and their ‘Regulatory Agents’ and the media and other propagandists who are lying and/or covering up. That the PTB and the Corporations have no compunction in killing or poisoning us…”

    I din’t assume Bigtree’s statement to be untrue; I cited evidence that it’s untrue. And just because a government does something doesn’t automatically make it evil. Governments fund education, benefits, the NHS and road safety campaigns. You already know this, because you compare EU regulation against more lax and corporate-friendly US regulation eg. food standards and pesticides. In the US, pharmaceuticals can be marketed directly to the public whereas in the EU this is very much against the law. Pharma respond in the EU by funding and influencing patient lobby groups, to get their message into the corporate media by the back door.

    But we are going over point after point that are covered much better by Goldacre; you’re using up oodles of my time by refusing to read his books.

  • #47027 Reply

    Paul Barbara

    ‘2 Month Old Baby Dies 12 Hours After Receiving 8 Vaccines – Pediatrician Denies Link’:

    The medics wouldn’t even report the death to VAERS. Who, in their right minds, thinks a 2-month old baby should have 8 vaccinations in one visit to pediatrician?

    ‘…I hear case after case of babies dying after vaccines and the parents supposedly falling prey to what the establishment terms “the coincidence dragon” (see slide from Smith 2013 PMID: 23654058)…’ (Dr. Suzanne Humphries).

    • #47034 Reply

      Clark

      Many millions of vaccinations are given each year. One unconfirmed story tells us nothing, and promoting this stuff, particularly the gross exaggerations and lies (eg: ‘Measles Vaccines Kill More People than Measles, CDC Data Proves’), amounts to fear-mongering – you know, like the ‘Islamic terrorism’ agenda.

      Learn how to make a proper case or stop fear-mongering.

      • #47037 Reply

        Paul Barbara

        @ Clark September 9, 2019 at 16:50
        ‘…One unconfirmed story tells us nothing…’
        But what I copied out was ‘…‘…I hear case after case of babies dying after vaccines and the parents supposedly falling prey to what the establishment terms “the coincidence dragon” (see slide from Smith 2013 PMID: 23654058)…’ (Dr. Suzanne Humphries)…’. We have a well respected medical doctor here, and she started out believing in vaccines, and giving them to her patients and there children. She realised the obvious truth, and although she doesn’t counsel people against vaccines, she does believe they need to know the truth about there dangers.
        You seem to have no empathy for the baby or it’s parents.
        ‘..one unconfirmed story…’ tells me plenty – a healthy 2-month old baby, parents who trusted the CDC and their guidelines, but unlike you, I or Goldacre, they didn’t know just how corrupt the CDC and others were.
        Again, do you honestly believe it makes sense to give 8 vaccines in one session to a 2-month old baby?

      • #47100 Reply

        Paul Barbara

        @ Clark September
        I’m actually not mistaking the info for anything – I know damn well what it is, the human baby detritus from the evil, insatiable Big Pharma Profit Maw.Mercury and aluminium are neurotoxins, and should not be injected into a human being, never mind day-old babies. If you have learnt otherwise from Goldacre or any other source, you have learnt wrong.
        There are scientists and scientists, doctors and doctors. Don’t believe in the likes of Mengele; putting neurotoxins into babies’ bloodstreams would be par for the course for him, but your local GP or paediatrician should be highly averse to it, unless he/she is being paid very handsomely to commit this heinous crime.

        • #47121 Reply

          Clark

          Paul, I expect you know hardly any toxicology. Neither do I, but at least I’m aware of my ignorance.

          A quick search shows that aluminium is the third most common element in Earth’s crust. We all ingest aluminium every day, even babies. It’s in food, and it is used in the water purification process. It’s in toothpastes, and cooking utensils are made from it.

          But what difference does it make? You’re only using mercury and aluminium as a stick to beat vaccines with. Even if some vaccines were proven perfectly safe, you’d still spread as much FUD about them as you could dredge up. I’ve told you and shown you where to find more information, but you apparently came to your conclusions years ago and it’s pointless to ask you to reconsider. It’s simply believe Paul, and anyone who disagrees must be either stupid or evil. Well bully for you; you’re really clever and righteous.

    • #47038 Reply

      Clark

      I don’t even know to what extent the story is true; as usual it’s highly emotionalised, and it’s obviously about blaming vaccines no matter what, no question of rational enquiry. There’s masses of this sort of stuff and it usually turns out to have been highly exaggerated, like the “108 Deaths from MMR” above.

      If there are court cases, there are presumably court records, with evidence and scientific theory presented. Those would provide much more reliable information than this sort of thing.

  • #47065 Reply

    Clark

    Paul, the basic problem here is that whether vaccination confers more good than harm is a scientific question, but the websites you link to make either emotive arguments eg: “look at my baby. It was vaccinations I tell you”, or political arguments like “taxpayers shouldn’t have to pay for this; pharmaceutical companies should pay out for all the autism but the government covers it up for them”, but there’s no analysis as to whether it really was vaccines that hurt the baby, or whether vaccines really do cause autism.

    The stories sometimes refer to science. A bit. An article maybe mentions one specific scientific paper, or maybe quotes some scientist or academic – as if science was determined by their authority rather than evidence. There is hardly ever a link to the academic discussion of any paper mentioned, no attempt to put those snippets in context. For instance it’s never explained why the vast majority of relevant experts have dismissed the MMR-autism theory, never a link to a systematic review at, for instance, the Cochrane Library. The counter-evidence is barely mentioned at all, except to dismiss it out of hand as “part of the cover-up”.

    Paul, if you’ve mistaken this stuff for scientific discussion, I can’t really blame you because that’s what the MSM has been priming you for all your life. It looks sciency but it isn’t science, just like in the MSM. You do realise that it was the MSM that hyped Wakefield’s baseless MMR-autism scare in the first place, using exactly the same techniques? About 3400 stories from 2001 to 2004, over 1200 stories in 2002 alone. The Telegraph pushed it really hard.

  • #47154 Reply

    Paul Barbara

    ‘Captured Agency’ PDF: https://ethics.harvard.edu/files/center-for-ethics/files/capturedagency_alster.pdf
    Whilst about the Telecommunications business, it is the same as the Big Pharma and Big Agri businesses.
    How can anyone side with such a crooked bunch of heinous sociopaths?
    The only thing that could bring about change is if people became aware of the very real dangers of these technologies, pseudo-medical procedures and Frankenfoods, which the Corporations, MSM and most government agencies do there level best to prevent, alongside their useful idiots in social media who parrot their lies.

    • #47158 Reply

      Clark

      “The only thing that could bring about change is if people became aware of the very real dangers…”

      I agree. So don’t kick up a smokescreen for them by amplifying imaginary ones, it just makes their opposition look stupid.

  • #47156 Reply

    Paul Barbara

    “We now live in a nation where doctors destroy health, lawyers destroy justice, universities destroy knowledge, governments destroy freedom, the press destroys information, religion destroys morals, and our banks destroy the economy.” (Chris Hedges).
    Jolly accurate quote I came across by accident; though he states ‘nation’, he could almost as well said ‘world’.

    • #47165 Reply

      Clark

      The whole of Chapter 2 of Bad Science is about how teachers, or rather education authorities, helped destroy education by buying and promoting a US course of classroom exercises called Brain Gym. Nearly every chapter has examples of how the corporate media destroys understanding.

      While Hedges’ statement resonates with me, strictly speaking it is overstated and misattributes blame; eg. it’s less doctors and more the pharmaceutical companies that are responsible when people’s health is damaged by their products.

  • #47159 Reply

    Clark

    Here’s the MSM:

    https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/suppressed-report-shows-cancer-link-to-gm-potatoes-436673.html

    Can you see anything wrong with that? Is it a scientific article, ie. is there any evidence to assess (scientific), or is it just a report about conflicting claims by people (like in politics)? Who was the article written by, and were they a science journalist or not? Does the article accurately reflect the paper it refers to? How useful is the experiment described in the original paper?

    http://www.gmfreecymru.org.uk/pivotal_papers/feedingrats.htm

    • #47171 Reply

      Paul Barbara

      @ Clark September 15, 2019 at 01:33
      The Russian trials were claimed to be badly flawed, as indeed was there serious attempts to hide the results they had come up with.
      I supported Dr. Puztai at the time, and still do.
      Would you eat GMO foods if you had a choice?
      Do you have your annual flu jab?
      Do you accept that the roll-out of 5G is benign, and would you welcome a Smart Meter?
      Remember John Gummer who infamously fed his daughter a hamburger at the height of the mad cow disease scare?
      As it happened, she did not come down with it, but that was more by luck than judgement.

      • #47172 Reply

        Clark

        “The Russian trials were claimed to be badly flawed”

        I linked to the paper right there; you can assess it for yourself, you don’t need anyone to tell you, and you can assess whether the Independent covered it scientifically, or as a political slanging match. If you look at the Independent link, you’ll see it was in the Lifestyle section, not the Science section, and the article makes no consideration of the science.

        “I supported Dr. Puztai at the time, and still do”

        Science isn’t about who we “support”. It isn’t football. It’s about whether results support conclusions, and Puztai’s didn’t.

        “Would you eat GMO foods…?”

        No, but that’s because I’m boycotting them, not because I’m selfishly scared for my personal health; they’re no more dangerous than other crops, which for decades haven’t had only “natural” DNA either. GM crops deprive farmers of autonomy and thereby place the global food supply at risk, and that’s why I boycott them.

        “Do you have your annual flu jab…?”

        I’m not yet old enough to be in the “risk group”. But I’d know how to research my personal choice, whereas you repeatedly demonstrate that you don’t know where to start, and refuse to find out.

        “Do you accept that the roll-out of 5G is benign…?”

        It’s driven by profit, and the health effects of the higher frequency bands are inadequately tested. But it isn’t a conspiracy to install death rays in every town, and making that claim just loses us credibility with the thousands of engineers, just everyday workers, who design, test and install it.

        “…and would you welcome a Smart Meter?”

        I have repeatedly turned down a “smart” meter. But again, that’s because it’s an intrusion into privacy and because it enables remote disconnection of supply, not because there’s some death ray hidden in it. Such claims just lose us credibility, because they are not consistent with evidence.

        • #47420 Reply

          Paul Barbara

          @ Clark September 15, 2019 at 12:22
          Thanks for your concern for my health, as I hadn’t posted for a while. I’m still alive (much to many people’s chagrin).
          ‘..“I supported Dr. Puztai at the time, and still do”
          By that I meant I realised he was being pilloried because he was calling into question the Big Agri ‘Frankenfood’ business. His experiments, though flawed, gave ample reason to follow them up, using better practices.
          ‘..No, but that’s because I’m boycotting them, not because I’m selfishly scared for my personal health…’
          Selfishly scared for your personal health? What a strange thing to say. So all those who eat what they consider are healthy foods, are selfish in your eyes, and should selflessly eat poisons?
          ‘..they’re no more dangerous than other crops…’ Many people disagree, but Monsanto and their propaganda MSM agree with you.
          ‘..you repeatedly demonstrate that you don’t know where to start, and refuse to find out..’
          On the contrary, I have all the anecdotal and medical information I need to have made my decision to avoid the mercury-containing flu shot like the plague.
          ‘..But it isn’t a conspiracy to install death rays in every town, and making that claim just loses us credibility with the thousands of engineers, just everyday workers, who design, test and install it…’
          More straw-man stuff. Have I ever said it was a ‘death ray’? I do say it is very harmful, and I believe it will intentionally be used for nefarious purposes.
          ‘I have repeatedly turned down a “smart” meter. But again, that’s because it’s an intrusion into privacy and because it enables remote disconnection of supply, not because there’s some death ray hidden in it. Such claims just lose us credibility, because they are not consistent with evidence.’
          More straw-man attacks. I haven’t said, nor implied, it is a ‘death ray’ machine, but that it is very dangerous, and has killed many people, and will kill many more.
          I am also against it for the reasons you share, and also the fact that a great many people have said their bills rise instead of fall after they are installed (I believe that is another strong reason the the Utility Companies are keen to push them out – they allow easier surreptitious manipulation of the price.

          And here is a new article on polio vaccines, and here I go further than the article, in believing this is a deliberate spreading of the disease: ‘WHO Admits Polio Vaccines Are Causing Polio’:
          WHO Admits Polio Vaccines Are Causing Polio
          Bush Sr. and Cheney discussed the use of artificial pandemics to be used to practice genocide against Black people (Bush used the ‘n’ word) in East and West Africa, and Haiti, according to Cathy O’Brien in her two books, ‘TranceFormation of America’ and ‘Access Denied: For Reasons of National Security’.

          • #47434 Reply

            Clark

            “…I realised [Dr. Puztai] was being pilloried because he was calling into question the Big Agri ‘Frankenfood’ business. His experiments, though flawed, gave ample reason to follow them up, using better practices”

            His experiments were followed up, and continue to be; the scientific consensus is that genetically modified foods must be tested for safety on a case-by-case basis. But the same goes for anything potentially edible, and our present-day lists of what is edible and what is poisonous are based on millennia of trial and error. In this respect, GM foods are no different to any others; they are merely newer.

            “So all those who eat what they consider are healthy foods, are selfish in your eyes […] ?”

            I’m not saying they’re particularly selfish people; we are all selfish people, selfishness is in the nature of us that we should be striving to overcome. But yes, I am saying that it’s a selfish concern; a concern about the self.

            We should remember that globally, the major danger around food and nutrition is not getting enough of it; famine and malnutrition. When genetic modification can improve nutritional security it should be praised and welcomed, not demonised with ungrounded fears and emotive sound-bites such as ‘frankenfoods’.

            “I haven’t said, nor implied, [that “smart meters” are] a ‘death ray’ machine, but that it is very dangerous, and has killed many people, and will kill many more”

            I take it you mean that the communication components are deadly, which is what I meant by “death ray”. At present this is very unlikely to be true, because they use the same communications infrastructure as the rest of the various communications networks; there is no health basis for singling out “smart meters”. 5G however uses much higher frequencies than before, and health testing of those higher frequencies is insufficiently public.

            “WHO Admits Polio Vaccines Are Causing Polio”

            It’s not an “admission”; it is a problem with the oral vaccine that was known and anticipated. The article merely adds misleading anti-vax spin to the health institutions’ own monitoring reports.

          • #47436 Reply

            Paul Barbara

            @ Clark September 25, 2019 at 13:45
            ‘…I take it you mean that the communication components are deadly, which is what I meant by “death ray”. At present this is very unlikely to be true, because they use the same communications infrastructure as the rest of the various communications networks; there is no health basis for singling out “smart meters”…’
            You don’t seem to know much about radiation. Radio waves, X-rays, light waves are all forms of radiation, but have vastly different characteristics regarding safety or danger to life, human, animal, insect, plants, trees, according to their frequency and power, and whether they are regular straight-forward waves or pulsed and modulated ones.
            So different frequencies can cause different, specific damage to cells, and to specific organs.
            This is known to military (and ex-military) microwave specialists such as Barrie Trower.
            UVA can be beneficial to humans, forming vitamin D in the body, but too much can cause sunburn or even cancer.
            Similarly X-rays can detect broken bones or diseases, but can also cause cancers.
            Most so-called ‘Smart Meters’ use very high-power, frequent pulsed bursts, which can go through walls (and human tissue) and cause cell death and mutation.
            ‘..5G however uses much higher frequencies than before, and health testing of those higher frequencies is insufficiently public…’
            That is rather an understatement – Microwave Communications spokesmen have admitted that there is NO testing showing 5G is safe. But advanced militaries are fully aware of 5G’s use as weapon frequencies, though the MSM will try not to report on that. Idiotic ‘thermal tests’ for previous generations of microwave communication is known to be useless, and was insisted on because it was known that the use of that benchmark would allow virtually all commercial frequencies and powers to be utilised.

          • #47439 Reply

            Clark

            “You don’t seem to know much about radiation”

            I expect I know considerably more about electromagnetic radiation than you do, Paul. I have been dabbling in electronics for forty years. I have built a couple of radio receivers, and for several years I repaired CRT television sets.

            “Most so-called ‘Smart Meters’ use very high-power…”

            That isn’t even possible. “Smart” gas meters run on batteries because they are not connected to the mains electricity supply. High power transmission would soon exhaust the battery.

          • #47440 Reply

            Clark

            All radio communications equipment has to meet government licensing requirements, which means you can look up their frequency and power. As best I have been able to determine so far, “smart” meters use either the existing cellphone network, or frequencies 1GHz or lower, similar to wireless LAN, and all are less than 1 watt.

            You’re picking up erroneous ideas by uncritically accepting the word of people like Trower. Anyone can claim anything, especially on the Internet, but that doesn’t make it true. Uncritically propagating such stuff just adds to the fog of confusion, which hinders people’s ability to understand.

          • #47444 Reply

            Paul Barbara

            @ Clark September 25, 2019 at 16:42
            I made a crystal set in the late 1940’s, very early 1950’s. I certainly did not follow up my interest to the extent of being able to fix TV sets, so apparently I was wrong about your level of knowledge. But you certainly don’t show it in your comments; as for dissing Barrie Trower (on what basis?) it reminds me of your dissing 3,000 + Architects and Engineers, whilst having no qualifications in those areas.
            Professor Hulsey and his team from University of Alaska Fairbanks have just put out their 4-year investigation into WTC 7; lots of new developments coming up on that front, but apart from clueing you in, I’ll let you search it out as it is verboten here.
            Regarding the gas ‘Smart Meters’, you are almost certainly correct, so I’ll stand corrected.
            I went to a very good, and packed, public meeting in Chelsea Old Town Hall last night (Weds. 25th.), and despite my hearing difficulties was very encouraged by the quality of the panel, and the audience:

            Start-Live


            It’s a pity you don’t check these issues out, instead of relying on MSM, government, Mick West and Corporate propaganda. You would soon realise that the general public, including yourself, are under serious attack.
            You accept Global Warming is real, and support the ER business. The reason that is allowed through by the gatekeepers is because some big Corporations can make a bundle by manipulating innocent dupes, like was done in the so-called ‘Arab Spring’. Am I wrong? Which of these ‘Arab Spring’revolutions has worked out well for the ‘Soros Revolutionaries’?
            Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Syria? Only the latter has not worked to the Soros/NED plan (and Ukraine isn’t working out too well, but that of course isn’t ‘Arab’).

          • #47452 Reply

            Clark

            “…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.

  • #47250 Reply

    Clark

    Paul, you haven’t commented for a few days; is all well with you?

    • #47431 Reply

      Clark

      Paul, I am glad you are well, but I do wish you would learn how science is done and where it is discussed so that you would stop spreading ungrounded fears, and instead start alerting people to the real dangers, which would be far more constructive. At present you embody the attitude to science promoted by the so-called “mainstream” media, and you can’t cleanse yourself of that attitude merely by “changing sides”. So, well motivated though you are, you repeatedly add to the problem rather than alleviating it. You repeatedly miss the mark:

      The English Biblical terms translated as “sin” or “syn” from the Biblical Greek and Jewish terms sometimes originate from words in the latter languages denoting the act or state of missing the mark; the original sense of New Testament Greek ἁμαρτία hamartia “sin”, is failure, being in error, missing the mark, especially in spear throwing; Hebrew hata “sin” originates in archery and literally refers to missing the “gold” at the centre of a target, but hitting the target, i.e. error. “To sin” has been defined from a Greek concordance as “to miss the mark”

      • #47536 Reply

        Paul Barbara

        @ Clark September 25, 2019 at 12:37
        ‘..stop spreading ungrounded fears, and instead start alerting people to the real dangers, which would be far more constructive. At present you embody the attitude to science promoted by the so-called “mainstream” media…’
        On the contrary, I hardly ever read the MSM (apart from the Evening Standard on the Underground), never mind use their methods.
        They try to cover up and obfuscate, outright deny or ignore the truth about very real and important issues.
        You accuse ME of spreading disinfo, when you do it all the time (albeit you obviously believe what you write).
        Your invitation to meet up in London where you would convince me with a few diagrams that the Towers came down because of planes and fires is a non-starter – I know a damn sight better, so we shall have to await more evidence.
        Very glad you’re reading the Hulsey Reprt.
        You will be pleased to know your badgering has eventually born fruit – I have just ordered Ben Goldacre’s ‘Bad Science’.

        • #47543 Reply

          Clark

          The attitudes promoted by the corporate media diffuse into the alternative media – like I said, they’re a contagion, and deadly to detached, objective analysis.

          Good on you for ordering Bad Science. I hope you enjoy it. I’ll be in London from Monday, somewhere around Westminster. If it’s anything like April, our Rebellion should be very good fun!

          Oh, one point:

          “…that the Towers came down because of planes and fires”

          I don’t rule out explosives, planted (probably post-impact) at the damaged zones. It’s the ensuing progressive collapse that the maths shows to be certain.

          • #47583 Reply

            Paul Barbara

            @ Clark October 2, 2019 at 10:24
            ‘…I don’t rule out explosives, planted (probably post-impact) at the damaged zones..’
            When the building was still full of people??
            And many people, including William Rodriguez (who was given a medal by Bush for saving so many people) reported explosions even PRE-‘impct’.
            ‘..It’s the ensuing progressive collapse that the maths shows to be certain.’
            Amazing, you must be a genius, clearly seeing and being able to demonstrate a maths problem which is dismissed by 3,000+ A&E’s, and millions of other people around the globe.
            Old Chinese proverb, when your stuck in a hole, stop digging.
            Have fun on the Demos – you might find this of interest ‘Greta Thunberg and Big-Biz’ Climate Charade’

            Greta Thunberg and Big-Biz’ Climate Charade


            There are a number of good articles on Extinction Rebellion on Global Research.
            I personally believe man’s activities have caused the problem, and welcome ER. I just hope (though doubt) that the activism spreads to similar activities against wars, illegal unjust sanctions, arms sales, pesticides/herbicides etc., which won’t, of course, garner corporation and MSM support.

          • #47590 Reply

            Clark

            We go by XR rather than ER.

            Yeah, I’ve read stuff about Greta; the allegations you linked to originated with Cory Morningstar. I’m sure Greta herself is entirely genuine, but of course there is big money trying to make a bandwagon of it. As you’ve said yourself, not everyone making money is necessarily evil, but the love of money is the root of all evil nonetheless. There’s a good MediaLens article up. Here’s what she told the United Nations:

            “People are suffering. People are dying. Entire ecosystems are collapsing. We are in the beginning of a mass extinction. And all you can talk about is money and fairy tales of eternal economic growth. How dare you! […] How dare you pretend that this can be solved with business-as-usual and some technical solutions.”

            http://www.medialens.org/index.php/alerts/alert-archive/2019/912-how-dare-you-the-climate-crisis-and-the-public-demand-for-real-action.html

            “Amazing, you must be a genius…”

            Actually, you’ll be surprised how simple it is. I was, after the years of befuddlement.

          • #47594 Reply

            Paul Barbara

            @ Clark October 3, 2019 at 19:43
            I wish you well with the demos; it appears the police are planning new restrictions.
            Rather than trying to explain the maths to me (I did all right with algebra and geometry, but gave up on square roots and logs, to say nothing of trigonometry), why don’t you present your findings to A&E? It can’t do any harm, and it would not be difficult to email them.

          • #47597 Reply

            Clark

            I expect I’ll e-mail David Chandler when I get the chance, but in videos Richard Gage seems angry and unpleasant to me, and I think I’d have trouble maintaining the conversation. Chandler, in contrast, seems very calm and rational.

            Regarding maths, nothing more complicated than multiplication and division is required, and even those don’t need to be accurate because most of the margins are huge. The main thing is to have paper for sketching the structure, so you can visualise what happened.

            Thanks for your kind wishes. Do come and visit some of the sites; the atmosphere of calm, peaceful determination is incredible. The activists are all sorts of people, from science academics to Christians to shamans. There’s free food and hot drinks (voluntary contributions), and public performance of music, art and poetry. Love is the theme of the site I’ll be on, behind Downing Street.

          • #47601 Reply

            Paul Barbara

            @ Clark October 4, 2019 at 01:04
            I’ve met Richard Gage about four times, and drank in the pub with him. He certainly never seemed angry to me, but he was a bit discomfited when I handed out leaflets at one of his talks which he had not vetted.
            Where exactly ‘behind Downing Street’ will you be? Is it Horse Guards Road?
            By the way, you seem to have overlooked my questions above:
            ‘@ Clark October 2, 2019 at 10:24
            ‘…I don’t rule out explosives, planted (probably post-impact) at the damaged zones..’
            When the building was still full of people??
            And many people, including William Rodriguez (who was given a medal by Bush for saving so many people) reported explosions even PRE-‘impct’.

          • #47609 Reply

            Clark

            “Is it Horse Guards Road?”

            That’s where the groups from my area will be, but any of us could be doing anything elsewhere around Westminster. Iain Orr says he’ll be visiting our camp at some point; I’ll ask him to forward you my mobile number.

            “Richard Gage […] certainly never seemed angry to me”

            Yeah, but you were in agreement with him! I may be wrong; it’s just an impression I gained from some YouTube videos that I’m having trouble finding again. It’s my own emotional problem; I have to take precautions against getting dispirited.

            “When the building was still full of people??”

            Take a look at this:

            http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:tPMErvl9AX4J:www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp%3Fentity%3Dventon_hollifield_1

            That’s from Google’s cache. Sorry I can’t link to historycommons.org directly; they had an appeal for funds and now their server seems to be not responding. I really hope we don’t lose History Commons; it’s a brilliant resource:

            https://wikispooks.com/wiki/History_Commons

            There are absolutely masses of stuff about 9/11 that we either don’t know, or of which there’s tragic under-awareness, eg. there’s that report of a van full of explosives heading for the George Washington Bridge (if I remember correctly), but I’ve never been able to find any follow-up. Lots of people associate it with Urban Moving Systems and the dancing Israelis, but I’ve never been able to confirm that and it seems to be a different incident.

            If it was a different incident, then there were even more entities contributing to the attacks, so looking for THE perpetrators might be a false lead in itself. Grief, there can’t be any shortage of people or groups with reason to resent the US, and such groups might also be manipulated. This is why non-violence is so essential; it is very dangerous to attempt God’s work with the Devil’s tools. The same goes for embellishing the truth to promote its popularity, or overlooking things because they contradict the position we currently favour – it seems harmless or even helpful, but we must beware the echo-chamber, we are all prone to promoting the sensational, and thus spreading distraction from the vital details.

            William Rodriguez acted heroically and was lucky to survive, but I find his earlier testimony more consistent with the big picture.

          • #47651 Reply

            Paul Barbara

            @ Clark October 4, 2019 at 12:35
            Yes, I met Iain Orr at Blackburn when I was campaigning for Craig in 2005. I pulled a beautiful ‘double-entemble’ on him (I suspect he will remember!).
            Might as well ask him to forward your email as well.
            That ‘middle eatern’ looking teddy-bear ‘terrorist’ is a complete new one on me, and I have been avidly researching the issue since 2004. Thanks for making me aware of it – talk about ‘Red Herrings’! I can’t respond in length, as I have just come back from the pub after a good session (in both respects), but when I get round to sending the ‘teddy bear’ baloney (not an attack on you – I am really pleased you have informed me of this) round to the rest of the Truthers I am in contact with, they will burst their sides!
            2 AM, I’m pissed and have a virtually all-day Latin America Conference starting at 10 AM. I am going to be late!

          • #47688 Reply

            Clark

            “That ‘middle eatern’ looking teddy-bear ‘terrorist’ is a complete new one on me, and I have been avidly researching the issue since 2004”

            Well this is the trouble. Demolition theory and the like have all but completely drowned out other matters. For instance, have you heard of Richard Blee? Do you know of the series of articles (Sunday Times I think) about Sibel Edmonds’ account of Gladio B operations that were cancelled due to pressure from the CIA?

            What seems to happen is that people see a story, see that it doesn’t support or isn’t concerned with demolition, and so they ignore or discount it. Whether by accident or design, demolition theory has to be one of the most effective red herrings around. As soon as I’d disentangled Chandler’s error my attitude to 9/11 changed. Without wanting to get too conspiralogical about it, healthy scepticism is always warranted; demolition theory could be a second line of defence after the “official story”, and I’m nearly certain it was used that way against Susan Lindauer.
            – – – – – –

            I texted Iain yesterday but I haven’t heard back from him yet. You should have my e-mail address somewhere because he copied both of us in on some of his e-mails, but my ISP deleted all my e-mails about six months ago so I’ve probably lost my copy of yours.

          • #47731 Reply

            Paul Barbara

            @ Clark October 5, 2019 at 11:12
            Again you jump to conclusions – I hadn’t ‘dismissed’ the crazy teddy-bear ‘terrorist’ because it wasn’t about demolition, I just never came across it, and it was never brought to my attention, which for such a bizarre and ridiculous narrative is very surprising.
            I wasn’t aware of Blee, but that is not surprising, as there is really nothing strange about the CIA blocking any articles about Gladio.
            I expect to go to a Venezuela talk near Farringdon Underground tomorrow (Monday), in case you’re interested:
            https://mailchi.mp/81ce6f64389c/httpswwwmondediplofriendsorguk-venezuela-in-crisis-kashmir-with-dr-jeffrey-webber-1706793?e=34e72a74fe
            I couldn’t find the email from Iain Orr with your email. I don’t have a mobile.

          • #47740 Reply

            Clark

            “I couldn’t find the email from Iain Orr with your email. I don’t have a mobile.”

            Thanks for the info; I haven’t heard back from Iain so I’ll try calling him this evening.

            The police have already started arresting Extinction Rebellion. They raided the warehouse with the kitchen stuff and spare bedding etc., with a battering ram, no less. Ten arrested on “conspiring to cause a public nuisance”, which sounds about as serious as conspiring to walk on a cycle path. And apparently, we’re a conspiracy!

            “Again you jump to conclusions…”

            I didn’t mean that you personally had dismissed it. I meant you’d never heard of it because other hadn’t mentioned it, due to generalised assumptions that have spread throughout the Truth Movement. It’s called “confirmation bias” – our human minds tend to favour evidence that confirms what we and those around us already believe, and it has been demonstrated in numerous psychological experiments.

            Blee was to do with the CIA’s Alec Station; I know of nothing tying him to Gladio B, but of course, that would be secret anyway. Try a search on “SecrecyKills”. He was an influential character in the background in the CIA; apparently an officer rather than an agent or an asset. His photo keeps cropping up with top CIA department directors and the like, but there’s very little information about him. But I think it was Blee who illegally stopped the reports that the alleged hijackers were in the US, which is why the FBI didn’t know until too late.

          • #47747 Reply

            Paul Barbara

            @ Clark October 6, 2019 at 18:33
            Hope you don’t get yourself arrested.
            Re Blee, I checked the info you gave me: ‘SecrecyKills.org Statement on the Delay in Releasing “Who is Rich Blee?”:

            SecrecyKills.org Statement on the Delay in Releasing “Who is Rich Blee?”


            It also refers to Sibyl Edmonds.
            For my part, as you probably know, I don’t believe there were any ‘hijackers’, and that the whole thing was an elaborate albeit bumbling attempt to set up a false narrative.

            Though I’m sure you’re preparing for your Demos in London tonight (are you camping there?), now that you seem to be to accept Barrie Trower as genuine, check this out: (let me know if you can open it OK):
            ‘Wi-Fi – A Thalidomide in the Making. Who Cares?’:
            ‘https://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/emerging/docs/emf_117.pdf
            As you can see, he gives all the references, and is himself an expert, having been trained in the British Army in the latest microwave warfare techniques.

  • #47750 Reply

    Clark

    Paul I am indeed busy, and entering self-imposed ‘radio silence’ now. Hopefully see you in London.

  • #47752 Reply

    Paul Barbara

    This is a particularly informative video, and is of course linked in to the Climate Changes:
    ‘Chemtrail conspiracy theory’:

  • #47899 Reply

    Clark

    Paul, in case you’re interested in Extinction Rebellion and how its autonomous groups self-organise, Lambeth Council have ‘informally’ offered safe haven in Vauxhall Pleasure Gardens right behind MI6 Headquarters, and the police are not well pleased! Workshops, discussion groups, public talks and more. All welcome. “We need everyone, and everyone is crew”.

    • #47971 Reply

      Paul Barbara

      @ Clark October 13, 2019 at 20:22
      I have only just seen this. I might have a look, if it is still on.

  • #48158 Reply

    Paul Barbara

    ‘VACCINES – MUCH WORSE THAT YOU THINK’: A TALK BY DIETRICH KLINGHARDT, MD, PHD

    Vaccines – Much worse that you think


    Unfortunatel it is in video format, and the bveggining of each line of text is off-screen.
    This makes it difficult to check out the studies.

  • #48195 Reply

    Paul Barbara

    ‘HPV VACCINE – A DANGEROUS FRAUD’:

    HPV Vaccine – A Dangerous Fraud


    Black is white – ‘Perfectly safe’ yet warnings on patient information in medicine packs gives the lie to that statement by the chief Medical Officer of Ireland.

Reply To: Vaccine contaminants and safety
Your information: