- This topic is empty.
August 13, 2019 at 20:20 #46383ClarkGuest
– “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.August 13, 2019 at 22:22 #46384Paul BarbaraGuest
@ 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).August 13, 2019 at 23:00 #46386ClarkGuest
– “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.August 14, 2019 at 16:46 #46397Paul BarbaraGuest
@ 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-healthAugust 15, 2019 at 09:21 #46540ClarkGuest
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?August 15, 2019 at 10:18 #46541ClarkGuest
I have a reason for placing little weight upon the handful of links you’ve posted; what do you think it is?August 15, 2019 at 12:51 #46543Paul BarbaraGuest
When I said ‘tell me something’ I missed out, ‘tell me what you think of that statement from the WHO’.August 15, 2019 at 13:07 #46544Paul BarbaraGuest
@ 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:
How can anyone trust these puppet organisations?August 15, 2019 at 14:51 #46545ClarkGuest
– “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?August 15, 2019 at 16:49 #46547Paul BarbaraGuest
@ 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’:
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.August 15, 2019 at 18:20 #46550ClarkGuest
– “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.August 15, 2019 at 19:11 #46551ClarkGuest
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”
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.August 16, 2019 at 00:25 #46573Paul BarbaraGuest
@ 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).August 16, 2019 at 01:52 #46574ClarkGuest
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.August 19, 2019 at 23:19 #46635Paul BarbaraGuest
@ 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.August 20, 2019 at 09:18 #46648ClarkGuest
– “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.August 20, 2019 at 09:56 #46651ClarkGuest
So, to summarise…
– “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.August 22, 2019 at 10:23 #46680Paul BarbaraGuest
‘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.August 22, 2019 at 13:21 #46682Paul BarbaraGuest
@ 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.August 22, 2019 at 18:49 #46685ClarkGuest
…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?August 22, 2019 at 20:31 #46687Paul BarbaraGuest
‘A group of CDC scientists point at a criminal conspiracy within the agency’:
‘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?August 22, 2019 at 23:21 #46688ClarkGuest
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.August 22, 2019 at 23:26 #46689Paul BarbaraGuest
Catch this documentary whilst it’s still available (I had to go to Yandex to get it):
Instead of telling me how ignorant I am, why not watch and read the evidence I provide, then provide counter evidence, if you can?August 22, 2019 at 23:35 #46690ClarkGuest
– “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.toAugust 23, 2019 at 10:54 #46704Paul BarbaraGuest
@ 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.August 23, 2019 at 11:21 #46707Paul BarbaraGuest
@ 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.
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?August 23, 2019 at 13:01 #46710ClarkGuest
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?August 23, 2019 at 13:08 #46711ClarkGuest
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.August 23, 2019 at 13:14 #46712ClarkGuest
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.August 24, 2019 at 15:42 #46731ClarkGuest
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.August 26, 2019 at 11:27 #46742ClarkGuest
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.August 26, 2019 at 12:17 #46743Paul BarbaraGuest
@ 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.August 26, 2019 at 12:31 #46744Paul BarbaraGuest
‘…‘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’.August 26, 2019 at 13:30 #46745Paul BarbaraGuest
@ 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.August 26, 2019 at 14:50 #46746Paul BarbaraGuest
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.August 26, 2019 at 16:52 #46748ClarkGuest
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.August 26, 2019 at 16:57 #46749ClarkGuest
– “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…August 26, 2019 at 17:01 #46750ClarkGuest
– “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”.August 26, 2019 at 17:02 #46751ClarkGuest
Yeah, it’s all a big conspiracy.
Can I go home now Sir?August 26, 2019 at 19:54 #46752Paul BarbaraGuest
@ 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.