- This topic has 513 replies, 1 voice, and was last updated 4 years, 4 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
@ Clark June 2, 2020 at 19:03
I provided you with a host of good solid references, the type of thing I thought you relished, the type of thing you kept asking me for, and all I get is the same old same old ad hominems.
Of course I crowed – you and a few others have been on at me over the links I posted, now you have solid ones, and you ignore them, because the as near as dammit prove I was right about the WHO and the likes. I can understand your upset, but play the White Man.@ Dr Edd June 2, 2020 at 20:20
Firstly, twice I have ask if you are actually a doctor, and you still have not told me.
—[ Mod: Kindly refrain from interrogating people about their personal or professional lives. Note the Fair Play rule which states “Address the argument, not the person. To do otherwise will be an immediate warning flag for deletion.”
The tactic of personalising arguments has been misused by a number of troublesome commenters (particularly Habbabkuk) in the past. Commenters have been banned for disregarding warnings about it. ]—
The fact that doctors, scientists, nurses or researchers who counter Big Pharma, government or MSM (often all three) get hammered in the press, lose their licence to practice and/or get ‘discredited’ – goes with the territory.
As we have seen with Julian Assange, though I don’t believe Big Pharma are concerned in that case. Though, just as in that case, no matter how many ‘Bastions of Who Should Be Demonised’ do all in their power to destroy him, does not make them right. Nor does it make similar ‘Authority’ figures right when they demonise (or stay silent, out of a fear that they too will be targeted) people who think differently to themselves.
‘Biosemiotic Entropy: Concluding the Series’by John W. Oller, Jr. indicates how Oller got involved with autism and vaccines – so your inference that there is no reason for him to be knowledgeable in autism or vaccines does not hold water – his professional fortes doubtless led him to the study of the toxins which he knew disrupted the smooth progress of speech etc which he was well qualified to teach.
Holding his Christian beliefs against him is perhaps overstepping the mark?
Bit like another commententer or two raising eyebrows about the Kenyan Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Kenyan Catholic Doctors Association not being competent enough to get laboratory analyses on their suspicions re the Tetanus vaccines – perhaps a little bit of racism mixed in with a disbelief in religion.
The link between vaccines and autism has NOT been disproved – a top CDC whistleblower doctor claimed information showing a definite danger to African/American babies was covered up.
The link has been up on this thread before, though it might be difficult to find.
Presumably you will show that the other six authors of the paper are also charlatans, or is it only Oller?For those new to this thread, the basic point being argued here is whether the WHO provided Tetanus vaccines secretly laced with anti-fertility hCG to Kenya (and other countries – Mexico, Nicaragua, Philippines).
Here is part of my argument that they did, or at least, on balance of probabilities (you need to download the pdf for the full articles):
‘..In 1993, WHO announced a “birth-control vaccine” for “family planning”. Published research shows that by 1976 WHO researchers had conjugated tetanus toxoid (TT) with human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) producing a “birth-control” vaccine. Conjugating TT with hCG causes pregnancy hormones to be attacked by the immune system. Expected results are abortions in females already pregnant and/or infertility in recipients not yet impregnated. Repeated inoculations prolong infertility. Currently WHO researchers are working on more potent anti-fertility vaccines using recombinant DNA. WHO publications show a long-range purpose to reduce population growth in unstable “less developed countries”. By November 1993 Catholic publications appeared saying an abortifacient vaccine was being used as a tetanus prophylactic. In November 2014, the Catholic Church asserted that such a program was underway in Kenya. Three independent Nairobi accredited biochemistry laboratories tested samples from vials of the WHO tetanus vaccine being used in March 2014 and found hCG where none should be present. In October 2014, 6 additional vials were obtained by Catholic doctors and were tested in 6 accredited laboratories. Again, hCG was found in half the samples. Subsequently, Nairobi’s AgriQ Quest laboratory, in two sets of analyses, again found hCG in the same vaccine vials that tested positive earlier but found no hCG in 52 samples alleged by the WHO to be vials of the vaccine used in the Kenya campaign 40 with the same identifying batch numbers as the vials that tested positive for hCG. Given that hCG was found in at least half the WHO vaccine samples known by the doctors involved in administering the vaccines to have been used in Kenya, our opinion is that the Kenya “anti-tetanus” campaign was reasonably called into question by the Kenya Catholic Doctors Association as a front for population growth reduction…’You mention Assange and other martyrs who have been persecuted for telling the truth. There’s an important distinction. Those people are whistleblowers with insider knowledge; they aren’t ideologically-opposed critics who make up stories to challenge the consensus of expert opinion. John Oller isn’t a whistleblower by any stretch of the imagination. He explicitly notes in the article that the conclusion is only an opinion; all he can add to the unreliable test data released by the Catholic Bishops is his own suspicion (and of course that of the other authors).
No, John Oller isn’t alone on that roll of dishonour. In the “Author’s Contributions” addendum to that article it says: “The bulk of the writing has been done by Oller with edits ranging throughout the development of the manuscript and reported findings by Shaw and Tomljenovic.” Now, if you scroll up to the top of the last link I provided you’ll see what the reviewer thinks of those two:
Here we go with the same old story that I’ve pursued for years – the one about University of British Columbia researchers, Christopher Shaw and Lucija Tomljenovic, who are amongst the most laughable anti-vaccine scientists (and I use the word “scientist” very loosely) to ply their pseudoscientific nonsense onto the world. Their articles are regularly retracted by even minor journals, but like zombies, those articles return to life in even more obscure, minor journals.
The Open Access journal has a minuscule impact factor of 0.2 (which is roughly on a par with the Beano). It’s rather “special” in a key regard: the authors pay to get their articles published – which of course is a major incentive to the publishers. And it seems that on this occasion one of the peer reviewers was the esteemed Dr John W. Oller.
Oller isn’t just a run-of-the-mill Christian: he’s a Biblical literalist. That puts him in some embarrassing company, and reveals a strong ideological motive to denounce certain aspects of medical science. I have no doubt he had his reasons to get involved with autism and vaccines, but it didn’t give him the requisite training to judge on the science. He didn’t have to pass exams in developmental pathology or immunology; he only had to read enough propaganda to cherrypick facts that suited his ideologically-inspired anti-vaxxer agenda.
We can evaluate the reliability of those 4 tests you rely on, tomorrow.
Paul, I’m sorry to have to say this, but in my opinion you are too arrogant to hold meaningful discussion with. Wakefield ordered invasive and surgical procedures to be performed upon ill children, including colonoscopy, and lumber punctures to obtain samples of spinal fluid. He did this not to improve their health which these procedures could not have done, but in the hope that the samples obtained would confirm his hypothesis. They did not, but he had literally used ill human children as experimental animals.
I tell you this but I know that you will ignore it, because you cannot overcome your own prejudice. I find that distasteful in the extreme; it is my duty as your equal before God to tell you my opinion of you and my reasons for it. I have no expectation that you will even show any concern.
There is very strong evidence against the proposed link between MMR and autism from several very large, public sector cohort studies and case control studies.
Fools rush in where angels fear to tread. I am saddened. Good bye Paul.
“For those new to this thread, the basic point being argued here is” whatever Paul Barbara changed the subject to most recently. Paul sets the agenda round here, and don’t no one forget it!
@ Dr Edd June 2, 2020 at 22:10
Just a reminder – you still have not said if you are a doctor or not. I’m not asking for your credentials, just a straight-forward yes or no.
I didn’t say any of these Tetanus case doctors were whistleblowers, but the CDC one I mentioned who did whistleblow on the CDC hiding the evidence for high risk of autism in Afro-American babies (or maybe Afro-Caribbean).
I made it plain that the link between doctors who dispute the ‘Consensus’ narrative get demonised, as do whistleblowers and others who upset the PTB.
The most vociferous and majority are not always right.
I have just started reading ‘Dissolving Illusions: Disease, Vaccines, and Forgotten History’ by Suzanne Humphries MD and Roman Bystrianyk. I would not be surprised if they too have been demonised, seeing as they both disagree with the ‘Medical Authorities’.
It promises to be immensely illuminating, and I have already learnt some startling facts I was completely unaware of, and I’m only on page 19 (plus Forward and Introduction).A final reminder to you, Paul Barbara, to stop pressing people to reveal personal details. (See the inline advice in your comment at 21:30.)
Kindly refrain from interrogating people about their personal or professional lives. Note the Fair Play rule which states “Address the argument, not the person. To do otherwise will be an immediate warning flag for deletion.”
You may inquire once if you’re curious, but if an answer is not forthcoming then continued reiteration of the question constitutes a form of personal harassment rather than argument, infringing the Fair Play rule. You have no right to know such details and commenters are under no obligation to answer.
The tactic of personalising arguments has been misused by a number of troublesome commenters (particularly Habbabkuk) in the past. Commenters have been banned for disregarding warnings about it. Accordingly, you’re now on final notice.
– “Suzanne Humphries MD and Roman Bystrianyk. I would not be surprised if they too have been demonised, seeing as they both disagree with the ‘Medical Authorities’. It promises to be immensely illuminating…”
(sigh)
– “Her claims are often misleading and at times outright deceptive. This post outlines the types of questionable tactics she uses to support her claims by examining the measles chapter of her book”
Without personal demonisation at all, Isabella B compares Suzanne Humphries’ claims to actual data, or follows them back to the scientific studies they were quote-mined from, or otherwise places them in context. I particularly liked this one:
– “Next, Dr Humphries speculates that measles antibodies (derived from vaccines) interfere with cell-mediated immune responses to the wild virus, leading to chronic measles infection and eventually immune related disorders later on in life:
[ … ]
– Her proof rests on a 1985 Lancer paper entitled “Measles Virus Infection without Rash in Childhood is Related to Disease in Adult Life”. This is a frequently misquoted paper because it is access restricted and has an obscure sounding abstract. After paying the $35.00 to access the full report, I realized that it did not study the effects of measles vaccination at all. It was a historical study done on individuals born in Copenhagen and Gentofte in the pre-vaccination era — specifically 1941 and 1947 onwards. It found that individuals who had contracted the wild form of measles (measured via antibody levels later on in life), without manifesting a rash (roughly 9% of the population), had a higher incidence of degenerative diseases later on in life.”
(sigh)
@ Mods June 3, 2020 at 04:13
I in no way meant it as an ‘attack’, I just wanted to know. I had not been warned before, and I shall not ask him again.Quoting Paul Barbara:
– “I made it plain that the link between doctors who dispute the ‘Consensus’ narrative get demonised, as do whistleblowers and others who upset the PTB.
– I would not be surprised if [anti-vaxxer Suzanne Humphries and Roman Bystrianyk] too have been demonised, seeing as they both disagree with the ‘Medical Authorities’.”
And June 2, 21:30 comment #54570 on the previous page:
– “The fact that doctors, scientists, nurses or researchers who counter Big Pharma, government or MSM (often all three) get hammered in the press, lose their licence to practice and/or get ‘discredited’ – goes with the territory.”
Ben Goldacre has written two whole best-selling books disagreeing with and criticising governments, pharmaceutical companies, and government regulatory agencies of the pharmaceutical industry, and he’s absolutely scathing of the so-called MSM. They are exquisitely well researched and detailed books. I suppose the reason that Paul Barbara won’t take Goldacre’s work seriously is because Goldacre hasn’t lost his medical licence or been demonised, and various quacks have made mostly empty threats to sue him – one libel case cost half a million to defend.
So this seems to be an argument against any kind of regulation of people claiming medical or technical expertise, or even an inversion – people may only practice medicine if they can demonstrate sufficient incompetence, though how they’d get started seems a bit mystifying; perhaps simple thuggery would suffice.
It is interesting to note that those who constantly warn us of an impending One World Government seem to be advocating merely a dictatorship of their own entrenched beliefs.
The Doctor Will Sue You Now by Ben Goldacre.
@ Clark
I’m rather disappointed you didn’t comment on the abstract of Oller’s paper, which began:‘In 1993, WHO announced a “birth-control vaccine” for “family planning”. Published research shows that by 1976 WHO researchers had conjugated tetanus toxoid (TT) with human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) producing a “birth-control” vaccine. Conjugating TT with hCG causes pregnancy hormones to be attacked by the immune system. Expected results are abortions in females already pregnant and/or infertility in recipients not yet impregnated. Repeated inoculations prolong infertility. Currently WHO researchers are working on more potent anti-fertility vaccines using recombinant DNA. WHO publications show a long-range purpose to reduce population growth in unstable “less developed countries”…’
As you see, my believing the WHO was involved in just such practices was in fact correct. As they were interested in the objective, is it such a stretch to believe that, in conjunction with a mega-donor like the Gates Foundation, they just might have tried to do it by an illegal, immoral and underhand way?
As I exolained in the comment to Dr. Edd, I have just started the book, so I will defer answering your comment till I have read more of it. But I will say ‘Isabella B.’, who is described (or describes herself) as:‘Isabella is a mom who became intrigued by the vaccine debate when she first had a baby. She can be reached on Twitter.’
certainly seemed to take a very intense interest and hostility to the good Dr. Suzanne Humphries, who quit her job because the Hospital protocols for treatment were killing her patients.
@ Paul Barbara – June 3, 2020 at 22:27
As they were interested in the objective, is it such a stretch to believe that, in conjunction with a mega-donor like the Gates Foundation, they just might have tried to do it by an illegal, immoral and underhand way?
That’s the point where you step through the Looking Glass into a fantasy world where a frisson of suspicion can suddenly warp official statements into their opposites, where consensus is conspiracy, where trust is inverted and offers of support and protection become whispered threats of injury or death. It’s a scary realm of the upside-down and inside-out, where friends are fiends and an angel’s gown hides a demon in disguise. If you construct your arguments in that topsy-turvy dimension, be aware they’ll morph back into their opposites when you re-emerge into the real world.
Is it such a stretch to believe that international health organisations and their benefactors are actually engaged in sinister worldwide conspiracies against humanity? Of course it is! It’s so much of a stretch that it starts to loop back on itself! It’s a Mobius strip where you keep trundling along the twisted line and end up standing under your starting position, wondering why everyone else is the wrong way up and left and right are the wrong way round!
Let’s see how that path of reasoning got twisted in the vaccine scandal.
You will note that every single paper cited by Oller as evidence of contraceptive effects, lists “G.P. Talwar” as an author. Prof. Gursaran Talwar was (and is) a pioneer in the study of contraceptive vaccines in India, a country that has long confronted the threat of overpopulation and consequent pollution and resource depletion. He was Head of the Indian Council of Medical Research from 1972-91. It’s true there was a joint research programme between the ICMR and the WHO (because the WHO co-ordinates and regulates the international development and monitoring of vaccines), but Prof Talwar’s research into contraceptive vaccines had nothing whatsoever to do with the WHO’s tetanus vaccination programme.
The only part of the contraceptive research that involved tetanus was the study published in 1994 which used part of the tetanus toxin protein (a “toxoid”) as a carrier for the hCG vaccine. The carrier is designed to antagonise the immune system to react against the appended hormone. As it happens, they alternately used a diphtheria toxoid as a carrier in the same study. The research made great advances into novel methods of contraception, for the reasons explained in the paper. It had nothing to do with tetanus vaccination programmes.
This 1994 study into contraceptive methods was mentioned, but misconstrued and misrepresented, at a church conference in Tanzania. The event gave rise to a sordid myth, casting Talwar as a Blofeld-type villain, which spread via the Catholic church to Kenya. The Kenyan Bishops’ Conference were up in arms about it and conducted their own ‘tests’ to find traces of hCG contaminants in tetanus vaccines. But the flaws in their methodology were readily apparent and were soon exposed by news media (inc. the Catholic Reporter). Far from being a triumph, the episode was an embarrassment for Kenyan Catholicism – as you’ll soon find out. Stay tuned.
@ Dr. Edd
‘…That’s the point where you step through the Looking Glass into a fantasy world…’
So do you believe that in the ‘real’ (as opposed to my ‘fantasy world’) governments, international organisations, corporations and ‘philanthropic foundations’ do not lie, cheat do anything else they can to attain their objectives, on occasion?
Bill Gates is alleged to have bribed Nigerian senators to push through a mandatory vaccine program against Covid – 19, even before one was available. Gate’s ‘Philanthropy’ is principally aimed at poor countries (the ones he would like to see with lowered populations) – his Foundation has created other organisations, which often set up joint programs in Third World countries, or even countries like India. In many of these countries, bribery is endemic (not that it isn’t in the West as well). Seeing as Gates has shares in many Big Pharma companies (and gives them tax-free ‘Grants’) his conflicts of interest are legion.
As is what some would call his Eugenics depopulation agenda and his philanthropic attempts to ensure strong, healthy children.‘…In an opinion piece published recently in Deccan Herald titled “New Vaccines: Gates Foundation’s philanthropy or business?”, Dr Gopal Dabade of the All India Drug Action Network said that GAVI had committed a $165-million grant for the phased introduction of Pentavalent in India and provides a subsidy of Rs 145 per injection for five years after which the government will have to pay the total cost of the vaccines. “BMGF is a founding partner of GAVI. Its initial grant helped establish GAVI and it continues to support its work. Some of the pharmaceutical companies have affiliation with BMGF to manufacture the vaccine,” Dr Dabade said….’
Bit like drug dealers – practically give the stuff away till you get the punters hooked, then charge what you like,
There is a lot about the illegalities used to test HPV vaccines on poor Indian students in the link, which rather goes against the Gates Foundation’s stated noble intentions.
Due to the general MSM love affair with Gates and his vaccines, and also the Social Media ‘censors’ like Youtube, it is difficult finding dirt on Gates without going to anti-vaxx sites, which only gets denounced here, but I’ll add one more point: Gates’ partner in crime Fauci’s mate Gallo has come up with a brilliant plan – to use oral polio vaccine as a possible temporary holding operation for Covid – 19!‘Can an Oral Polio Vaccine Help Stop the Coronavirus?’
It’s banned in the US and UK, because it can and has caused the very polio it is meant to stop – an example was Syria, where Syrian refugee children were given the oral vaccine and a number came down with crippling polio (whereas there had been no cases in Syria for some time).
A bit like the ‘Democracratic Headchoppers’ the West sent Syria (via their local allies).Paul, I wrote that I wasn’t going to discuss with you again, but since you’ve addressed your comment to me by name…
No, I’m not going to look into yet another “issue”. I must have looked into dozens of “issues” that you’ve raised, and you’ve been wrong about every one of them that depends on a scientific matter. In fact most of them aren’t even issues at all; remember the “special fuses of a type used in controlled demolition” that turned out to be perfectly ordinary mains electricity fuses, as I confirmed with a link the manufacturer’s catalogue (Littelfuse)? Remember Dane Wigington’s water cascade that appeared to levitate but was actually a demonstration of the stroboscopic effect? But you never, ever accept the point. You merely drop the subject and move on to another, sometimes with an excuse. The discussions are entirely unproductive.
I hoped that by reading Bad Science you would discover that the essence of scientific arguments is that they are based on reasoning about physical evidence. Goldacre is meticulous about that; he never relies on anyone’s qualifications or professional reputation. Instead he always examines their claims by considering evidence. However, you keep returning to arguments based on superficial plausibility concocted from a few cherry-picked phrases, supported by motives you impute to official institutions – these are the characteristics of what is called conspiracy theory. Not +a+ conspiracy theory. A type of reasoning called conspiracy theory, like harmonic theory or statistical theory.
Governments and corporations do many evil things, but they also do good things, neutral things, misguided things and stupid things too. And they have no monopoly on deception; our world is rife with scammers, charlatans, and ideologically misguided zealots, most of whom will spin plausible but misleading yarns to advance their objectives or as cover stories for former wrongs. So it gets us nowhere to say “so-and-so is opposed by the government, they’re demonising him therefore he must be right”.
So the only discussion I think would be worth having is about the methods we should use to determine the accuracy of any given claim. We could pick one specific claim, and stick to that subject until we reach a conclusion. Instead of trying to convince me, you should try to understand my reasons for the position I hold.
This is why I concocted my “diesel engine over-unity alternator scam” story; I know that you have sufficient technical understanding of engines to know that I was spouting nonsense. On that subject, you don’t need to resort to “Professor so-and-so says that diesels do work by burning fuel with air”. Instead, you can go straight to reasoning about the evidence; “but if the fuel in the tank runs out, the engine will stop”, and that’s that, my over-unity motor disguised as an alternator claim is blown out of the water, no matter how many PhDs I have, and no matter how evil General Motors are or what ridiculous suggestions have appeared in their sales literature.
So if you’re willing, I’ll discuss methods of reasoning with you.
@ Clark
‘…So the only discussion I think would be worth having is about the methods we should use to determine the accuracy of any given claim…’
Once you realise that the WHO most assuredly has produced Tetanus-linked anti-fertility vaccines, it becomes much less of a stretch to consider their use surreptitiously, to stop women conceiving by underhand means, without their knowledge or consent.
It doesn’t prove the charge, but it makes it much more credible.Once you realise that a diesel mechanic most assuredly has a vested interest in pretending to fix “diesel engines”, it’s much less of a stretch to believe that he might be working for the UN depopulation agenda.
With conspiracy theory, one can make a case for anything. Readers employing conspiracy theory to test those cases can “stretch” their suspicion to confirm anything, forcing them to resort to their “crystal ball”. Any suspicion can become lore. But if the authorities behave this way, it’s called a fit-up.
Hi Paul.
New participant here. Been watching the content on this thread for a while, and admire your steadfast resolution.
Finding myself in harmony with your views much of the time, and hope to actively contribute as we go along.:/
@ Clark
I did reply at length to your ‘Littlefuse’ business, but perhaps understandebly my post was nixed by the mods – probably for 9/11 content.‘…Governments and corporations do many evil things…’
Yes, indeed they do. Governments make war on other States, because they lust after their resources and the governments don’t kow-tow and allow the US and other Western Multinationals to come in and plunder them, and take a bribe to allow it. Tens, hundreds of thousands or millions DIE because of these wars.
‘…but they also do good things, neutral things, misguided things and stupid things too..’
PLEASE explain to me what good things governments do, that balance those abominations? Abominations might seem like an extreme word to you, in Essex, but to an Afghan, Iraqi, Syrian, El Salvadoran, Guatemalan, East Timorese, or countless others, it hardly covers their suffering.
Then there are the barbaric crimes against children in their own countries (which I don’t believe you have an inkling of the true scale, or of it’s Luciferian ramifications.
Remember, Hitler loved dogs – does that exonerate him?It’s not about balance. A good no more balances a wrong than two wrongs make a right. Wrong is wrong, no matter what.
But governments do some good things nonetheless. They fund infrastructure such as water supply and sewage treatment, they sponsor education and healthcare, some provide welfare, and they make laws and fund legal systems and enforcement that somewhat restrain the private sector; it’s inadequate, but better than nothing. They collaborate at the UN, preventing proliferation of nuclear weapons, and occasionally even enforcing international law. They fund science; publicly funded science is more open and less partisan than big pharma’s contribution.
All of the above are done imperfectly, sometimes even perversely, and examples could be cited of contraventions of each positive point I have named. But the fact remains that the public have more influence upon governments than upon the private sector. So for instance we have the Montreal Protocol that enforced the replacement of CFCs, and the nuclear test ban treaties. There are conservation areas and protected species.
No, abomination isn’t too strong a word for the warfare perpetrated by governments, but it’s not the whole picture either, and the private sector would make their war directly upon the people without the intervention of governments.
@ Clark
Sure, they fund infrastructure, from tax-payer money, then sell it off cheap to the corporations, who make bundles, and on top of that when the infrastructure starts to fall apart due to profits being used for mega-salaries for the bosses, and high pay-outs to shareholders, they get bailed out by the poor old tax-payer again.
They only try to stop ‘enemies’ or potential ‘enemies’ from getting nukes; they facilitated Israel getting them, and almost certainly Pakistan and India, and seem to be supporting Saudi Arabia. If Saddam’s Iraq had had nukes, it would not have been reduced to what it is now.
Ditto Qaddafi’s Libya. And if North Korea didn’t have them, they would long ago have been subjected to ‘Regime Change’ attack.‘…and occasionally even enforcing international law…’
But far more often breaking it; and where they ‘enforce it’, it is because they have instigated the process as it suits their agendas.
The Americans under T’rump are poised to break the nuclear test ban.
I know you covered your arguments with ‘All of the above are done imperfectly, sometimes even perversely, and examples could be cited of contraventions of each positive point I have named..’ but that pretty much undermines them.
And the general public’s influence on governments is just a tiny fraction of that of the Corporate and foreign lobbyists. Potentially it could be massive, but with the pied-piper MSM leading people up the garden path, or up the hill and down again, the ability for mass co-operative actions are pretty near gone. The NHS is about all that can come near to bringing people together.
Unions have been largely emasculated; and as someone on another thread pointed out, many Union leaders now hob-knob with the Bosses in their Lodges, which is how they came to foist Starmer on the ‘Labour’ Party.
The ‘virus’ certainly doesn’t do it – there are the two distinct camps, don’t end lockdown too soon, and the open up now before we all go bust.
I’ve been very pleased, and surprised, by BLM demonstrators, police (only a few, but I have only interacted with a few), NHS personnel (a lot), and some ordinary people, at their willingness to consider (in some cases they have been full-blown on board) the case for the virus being a bio-weapon False Flag, and also a healthy distrust for a ‘Gates Universal Vaccine’.
Did you make any of the BLM demos? There wasn’t a lot of ‘distancing’ going on there.I’d have liked to attend the Black Lives Matter protest but I didn’t find out about it until the afternoon, and I wouldn’t have been able to afford the train fare.
What is your objective? I can’t work it out. From the way you campaign, you seem to want there to be no governments, no WHO, no UN, no corporations or businesses or maybe none above some unspecified size, and you want science replaced by suspicions, presumably those which coincide with your own, which seem derived from short phrases plucked from public announcements and the relatively tiny body of work that would remain from the likes of Wakefield and Mikovits were the entire mainstream of science swept away.
And yet at the same time there are contradictions. From your June 8, 22:32 comment #54805, “…and the governments don’t kow-tow and allow the US and other Western Multinationals to come in and plunder them”, so even you are saying that all governments aren’t aligned. Yet these governments participate in the UN General Assembly, in fact they make up the majority of it, and the General Assembly often opposes the Security Council.
Forgive me, but you seem engaged in an attempt to sort people and institutions into “sheep and goats”, as if each person or institution were entirely good or entirely evil. Yet everything I see in the world suggests that the opposite is the case, and that alongside campaigning for improvements at scales larger than the individual, each of us also has a responsibility to refine ourselves, our objectives and our understanding.
Refining our understanding in the scientific fields is more easily done because the fundamental ethos of science is a type of honesty about evidence; faking data is grounds for expulsion from the scientific community. That underlying committent to reality is the very reason that scientific findings are so often dismissed by governments, mangled by the corporate media, and pursued in secret by corporations so that they hold control of which aspects get published and which suppressed. You have the likes of myself and SA who would work with you to understand the processes and the types of reasoning useful in assessing evidence; I think Dr Edd is also on the team, but with me and SA you have our writings on other matters especially foreign policy and war by which to judge our objectives. Yet you merely dismiss us as dupes, brainwashed by the corporate media, which neither of us are. You seem to have no interest in why, and more importantly how we have come to opposing conclusions to your own about, for instance, vaccines, chemtrails and the collapses of the Twin Towers. You seem to assume that we are merely too brainwashed to see. Yet I assure you that I spent weeks looking into those matters to reach my current positions; I have definitely not responded reflexively with opinions promoted by the corporate media. I have put in the work and come back to report – the corporate media has no monopoly on deception, misinformation and misdirection, and all humans are subject to error, and seem prone to becoming deceptive by fixing upon misleading conclusions and then promoting them using misleading techniques.
Humanity needs science and truthful dedication to reality more than ever now. Reasoning from suspicions about hidden motives of powerful entities is what I would call conspiracy theory. It is not without utility, but it is most often applied with extreme bias, and it needs to be balanced against critical thinking and rational examination of evidence.
@ Clark
‘What is your objective?…’
My objective is to get the truth out, as best I can. I am not an anarchist, I don’t want to do away with governments. It is just that Banksters, Corporations, foreign lobbyists, and foreign and domestic ‘Honey Trap’ blackmail has so thoroughly corrupted our governments and institutions, that they have become agents of the moneyed forces rather than of the people.
Until people realise that, they cannot begin to even try to rectify the situation.
Time and again you castigate ‘conspiracy theories’, yet history is full of successful False Flag Ops and very real conspiracies. Does anyone here raise a fuss about the alphabet ladies in the Alex Salmond case, and cry ‘conspiracy theory’? Or in the Julian Assange Swedish set-up? Or in Craig’s current predicament? Or the destruction of Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership of the Labour Party? Nobody is required to ‘prove’ these things are conspiracies – it’s bloody obvious.
No, we all accept that these are very real conspiracies, yet balk at he thought that virtually everything is decided through just that, conspiracies. If we had open, transparent governance, and a justice system with strictly applied ‘conflict of interest’ laws that were enforced, things would be immensely better for we, the people. But that is not the case, and sadly is never likely to come about now that the system is so corrupted.
Is everything led by conspiracies? Where money and power is involved, you would be hard pressed to find anything controversial and involving power and money that isn’t.
The same holds for Universities, prestigious Medical and other societies, Church hierarchies, many Charities, some major Human Rights organisations, and of course our old friend, the MSM.
I believe we are on almost the same page, there is not much that separates us, so don’t blow things up unnecessarily. We can disagree without hostility, surely.– “Time and again you castigate ‘conspiracy theories’…”
Please reassess what you think my position is, on two counts. Firstly, I wrote:
– “…what I would call conspiracy theory. It is not without utility”
Secondly, please also consider the difference between (1) +a+ conspiracy theory, or conspiracy theories, and (2) conspiracy theory. From yourdictionary.com:
– “The definition of a theory is an idea to explain something, or a set of guiding principles. Einstein’s ideas about relativity are an example of the theory of relativity. The scientific principles of evolution that are used to explain human life are an example of the theory of evolution.”
From merriam-webster.com:
– “in scientific reasoning, a hypothesis is an assumption made before any research has been completed for the sake of testing. A theory on the other hand is a principle set to explain phenomena already supported by data.”
So there are two different uses of the word “theory”:
(1) The one people usually tend to think of is “+a+ theory”, which means “a suspicion” or “a proposal”.
(2) The one people usually forget about is “theory” on its own, and it means a set of principles for guiding thought about a matter. Examples include the driving theory test, and music theory.
I think there is a lot of confusion around these two subtly different uses of the one word “theory”. Do you get the distinction I’m describing?
