- This topic has 513 replies, 1 voice, and was last updated 4 years, 4 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Why is the lie that anti tetanus vaccines are laced with hCG still being discussed in these pages? This is something from 1994 when it caused a lot of damage by decreasing the uptake of anti-tetanus vaccine. False methodology was used to detect hCG in vaccines by using pregnancy test assays to look for hCG in vaccines, a test usually designed to detect the hCG which is raised in pregnancy, in serum or urine. Vaccines contain other agents which can interfere with assays and if you wish to detect hCG in vaccines you will need other tests. This has been proven way back in 1995 and is very clearly explained in this article.
Now if this misinformation continues to be made in this forum without a proper analysis why anyone who refutes this makes in a logical way, then I think that it amounts to willful misinformation and I invite the moderators to examine this as it seems that now this thread is attracting more anti-vaxxers, something that I believe is not very desirable, although it is not up to me to decide.
So a story from 1994 is still being repeated and used as evidence about the malevolent intentions of the WHO because of some faulty accusations. Also it is surprising, given how this is still used by anti-vaxxers that the only argument the use to support their claims is an assay carried out by the Catholic test, that was shown to use faulty techniques, and without any evidence that there is decreased fertility in this population of women that were targeted. Such evidence, if it exists, should be easy to produce if carried out properly. In the fertility literature there is no data to support this and the claims have not been renewed since 1995. Are we living in a time warp.
Paul put up or shut up.“…..assay carried out by the Catholic test, that was shown to use faulty techniques….”
Ooops. Meant to read assay commissioned by the Catholic church and carried out by what was shown to be a faulty technique.
But Catholic test sounds a good summation!
SA, have you read Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance by Robert M. Pirsig, 1974?
I think that this problem cannot be solved down here among the details, because Paul and others like him do not trust the process of scientific scrutiny among the scientific community in the scientific literature. That very process is distrusted, and that’s largely because it is almost completely omitted by the corporate media, making it easy to believe that there is nothing there but the rule of authority, as in almost every other organisation of people.
Suppression will merely entrench the problem. In this new era of peer-to-peer communication, in which everyone is a publisher and the corporate gatekeepers can be bypassed, we need to develop a new model by which claims can be checked. Making the matter worse, we have to develop our new bonds of trust in the midst of an information battlefield, upon which even certain words and phrases have become booby-trapped.
Like Persig, I propose an expedition away from this battlefield to the clearer air of the high country of the mind. It is the productive, fertile lowlands and foothills that are being fought over, and destroyed in the process. But the solutions lie not in science, but in philosophy. We need to climb, to a consideration of epistemology and language.
It will be cold and the air will be thin, but the view will be good, and we would all be stronger for it by the time we descend. Will you join me?
I am not arguing for censorship merely for the observation of some rules of logic when debating. There is an obvious lack of logic in this discussion when we find ourselves debating illogical false beliefs with logic. Why do we do it? I suppose because we are under the mistaken belief that truth will shine out. But to see people who purport to be anti imperialist align in argument with people like Trump in their systems of belief, is somewhat shocking.
I have not read Pirsig. What do you propose by way of philosophy?SA – “But to see people who purport to be anti imperialist align in argument with people like Trump in their systems of belief, is somewhat shocking.”
Yes. I saw this coming when Trump endorsed various conspiracy theories to further his presidential campaign, though I did not expect it to get as bad as it has. Then again, I wasn’t expecting covid-19; probably one of the worst things that could have befallen the people of the US with a conspiracy theorist as president.
Then again again, Trump has not initiated any military wars. I expect the US will not initiate military war upon China; too much Western manufacturing is outsourced to China for that; indeed, there is a Pentagon report that the US could not sustain all-out war against China for more than a month because the US military is dependent upon Chinese manufacturing. There will be further escalation in trade and propaganda warfare, economic sanctions etc., and probably some skirmishes in the ocean around China, and islands and shipping routes that China lays claim to. All pointless competition where cooperation is desperately needed.
I don’t really know any philosophy, but we have to ascend above science into the realms of how we reason and decide. See my comment to Paul at the bottom of the previous page. We have to ascend above the realm in which ideas have effects upon people’s lives, because these effects are the source of the conflict, the incentive for protecting the ideas.
I strongly recommend Zen and the Art. Goldacre makes a couple of oblique references to it in Bad Science, though you wouldn’t notice unless you’d read it.
@ SA
If I responded to you in like manner, my comment would be wiped.
You are not intimidating or dominating me.@ Clark
I do not want to get bogged down in semantics. I disagree fundamentally with many government activities (principally wars and policies against the working class), and with pprobably most corporate activities and agendas.
If the government or the UN or WHO come up with something I disagree with, and I state it, odds are it is put down as a ‘conspiracy theoory’. The number of high government officials, Presidents, Prime Ministers, Popes (yes, plural) and other dogs bodies who are on record welcoming, and claiming the time is right, for a ‘New World Order’ is staggering, yet some still dismiss the idea as a ‘conspiracy theory’. I truly wish that was all it is, but I know better.@ Social Proximity June 8, 2020 at 15:00
Thanks. It does seem at times I’m ploughing a lonely furrow.Many if not most scientists and doctors who go against the predominant ‘narrative’ get demonised and ‘discredited’ by the MSM and Establishment medical journals. I doubt if there is any branch of the Establishment as jealous of it’s inerrancy as Doctors, except perhaps the Papacy.
‘The 87-year-old doctor who invented the rubella vaccine now working to fight the coronavirus‘.
Wow, the ‘Godfather of Vaccines’, associated with four major vaccine manufacturers, working on Covid – 19. Sound great? Well, lets take a look at Plotkin:
‘Dr. Stanley “Human-in-Form” Plotkin, re: experiments on orphans/mentally retarded/prisoners‘.
Has he been demonised by the MSM? Or ‘discredited’? Has any of that appeared in the MSM? No, of course not. That kind of information isn’t in the public interest, is it?
Here’s some more on Plotkin (the first video doesn’t play, but I believe it is the same one as I linked above): ‘Dr. Plotkin Admits Fetal Cells Under Oath & Human DNA Fragments in Vaccines‘
‘…The US government has known about the dangers of human DNA from aborted fetal cell-lines since at least 2005. They set guidelines which are supposed to keep the DNA at a specific limit, which they hypothesize won’t cause cancer.
With no safety studies they regulated the amount of human DNA to no greater than 10ng. Unfortunately, Dr. Deisher’s team found the fetal DNA levels ranged from 142ng – 2000ng per dose, way beyond the guesstimated “safe” level. Dr Deisher’s work is available on the Academic Journals website…’Paul
“If I responded to you in like manner, my comment would be wiped.”Then maybe you should try to have a bit of humility and reflect why your comments are wiped and try to formulate a decent argument in answer.
Or is it that the mods are also blinded and just demonise those who want to expose the luciferian lizzards?Paul
Is any vaccination evil or useless? How many children’s lives have been saved by vaccines? Do you know? Do you and your circle of antivaxxers ever ask these questions? Do you care? How have some diseases like smallpox and polio (almost) been eradicated from the world, diseases that have killed many and have caused a lot of chronic disabilities and chronic health problems. How many cases of rubella, tetanus and diphtheria been prevented with benefits to children? How many cases of these diseases are now almost completely absent from the developed world and how many are still ravaging the third world?
Have you personally seen any child with any of these diseases? Have you experienced as an observer the effects these diseases have on children?
Some suspicion of how results are achieved is always important and some scepticism about extra profit that pharma makes out of these is important. But let us not throw the baby out with the bathwater. If you genuinely want to save children, as you say you do, you have to address these questions and address them genuinely and seek the truth for yourself, otherwise living in an antivaxxer echo chamber is just the flip image of living in a corporate led utopia where everything is rosy.Paul, you’re ignoring me, you’re ignoring SA, and you’ve ignored Dr Edd. You’re not debating, you’re treating your equals as inferiors by not engaging. You’re setting the agenda by repeatedly changing the subject. I object, at a personal level. I find these methods you are using abusive. Yes, abusive. You are not deploying insults, but your methods assume that my understanding is inferior to your own, and by refusing to engage you deny me any chance to change that, you deny me the chance of gaining your respect and thus being taken seriously. I object.
Clark
Worse than that. Paul is using this forum for his purposes to spread antivaxxer propaganda. Answering genuine questions is not part of his plan.SA, yes, but Paul believes that he’s saving lives by exposing truth, as do you and I. That is why I propose ascending to the higher realms of thought, because there we will find ourselves in agreement. If we can work things out there, we can then descend again into the practicalities of the foothills and plains, but hopefully no longer be in conflict.
Conspiracy theory is valid theory, indeed essential in a world rife with competition, collusion and deception. Without it we would all be dupes. But like all human theories its range of applicability is limited, and on its own it produces meaningless, untestable conclusions. Another example is the scientific method; it is excellent for investigating physical phenomena, but entirely useless for finding any meaning in life, and only of peripheral value in examinations of ethics and morality. Even within scientific theory we find partial theories incompatible with each other but mutually indispensable nonetheless, each with their own ranges of applicability, yet those ranges overlap considerably eg. the deterministic theory of general relativity, and the indeterministic quantum theory.
You have to balance the ‘benefits’ (some real, some not) against the ‘harm’ (some admitted, many not).
‘Did a Military Experimental Vaccine in 1918 Kill 50-100 Million People Blamed as “Spanish Flu”?‘
At the end of the 19th Century and beginning of the 20th, many major cities had deplorable sanitation and water supplies; these began to be seriously tackled at around the time vaccines were being rolled out for many diseases (though smallpox vaccine was invented at at the end of the 18th Century); the vaccine suppliers claimed the great advances in health were down to them, rather than a natural response to proper sewage control and clean drinking water.
If, as appears to be the case, a vaccine ‘failure’ caused 50 -100 million deaths (and that’s just one, though likely the biggest to date, vaccine ‘failure’) then they would have to ‘save’ a heck of a lot of lives to make the benefit/harm ratio anything like acceptable.
‘Scientists learn history of Spanish Flu at Fort Riley‘.
Notice they don’t say a word about ‘dodgy vaccines’; ‘…Over lunch at Demon Dining Facility, Smith presented the history of the Spanish Flu at Fort Riley, as well as background on the installation and living conditions of Soldiers at that time. With a smirk, Smith told the scientists that patient zero was an Army cook named Albert Gitchell.
“They thought it mutated from pigs and then infected some Soldiers, some draftees, from Pascal County, Kansas, and they came here to train at Fort Riley and then the first recorded flu case here was a cook of all people,” he said…’.
Mustn’t let the cat out of the bag, even 100 years later. The narrative must be adhered to.Epistemology: Definition & Examples
Epistemology is a study of knowledge that requires much attention. Because human beings rely on their thought processes, it’s helpful to understand how they work. This lesson will go over the three factors that contribute to knowledge acquisition.
Defining EpistemologyEpistemology is the study of knowledge acquisition. It involves an awareness of certain aspects of reality, and it seeks to discover what is known and how it is known. Considered as a branch of philosophy, epistemology addresses cognitive sciences, cultural studies and the history of science. Moreover, epistemology explains why our minds relate to reality and how these relationships are either valid or invalid. It is needed in order to distinguish between the truth and falsehood as we obtain knowledge from the world around us.
Epistemology encompasses the construction of concepts, the nature of conditions and the validity of the senses. Because the study of epistemology enables us to think about the way we think, it is a useful method for evaluating the world around us. Accordingly, without epistemology, human beings would have no reason to believe in their thoughts and actions. Teachers would have no reason to give tests or assign class work because there would be no difference between truth and error. We need epistemology in order to accept reality and live our lives in successful pursuit of truth.
One of the major questions that we ask is: where does knowledge come from? Many philosophers have supposed that knowledge comes from reason. Thus, humans have the ability to reason, and, therefore, they have the power to know. Conversely, other philosophers have contended that humans only become knowledgeable when they experience life situations, such as watching a movie or playing an instrument. These philosophers insist that man can only learn when he experiences life through his own senses. Further, there is a theologically-driven concept of knowledge, which suggests that knowledge is a God-given condition. This suggestion pertains to divine revelation and tends to blur the line between belief and knowledge, since there are many different religions.
Examples of Epistemology
There are three main examples or conditions of epistemology: truth, belief and justification….
Paul, please stop ignoring me; refusing to engage is a type of passive aggression. There is no further point in attempting to discuss vaccines. We need to discuss ways of knowing.
@ Clark June 10, 2020 at 13:28
I am not interested in a philosophy course, I am here interested in showing the flaws in the vaccine argument, and exposing that Big Pharma are a pack of vile crooks. Not just little venial sinners, but King-sized mortal sinners, to take a religious stance.
‘…There is no further point in attempting to discuss vaccines…’
On the contrary, that is the main point of my efforts here. If you are not willing to discuss vaccines, then so be it. I certainly am not interested in following someone else’s ideas about how I should think. You believe vaccines are good; I am extremely skeptical, and know that they can, at least on occasion, be extremely bad.
I post examples, that I hope are food for thought. You try to tell me how to think – thanks, but no thanks.I have not told you how to think. I wish to discus how we all think. To omit that is to omit calibration of the mind; presumption of one’s own pre-existing perfection.
– “You believe vaccines are good”
It seems that you are telling me WHAT I think. This is merely a belief you hold.
– “I am extremely skeptical”
I have seen you display no scepticism whatsoever; from my viewpoint, sceptical thought seems completely absent from your thought processes. Rather, you have chosen a conclusion, and you promote it, by any means you think might be effective, ie. your communication seems best characterised as propaganda.
Two of the premier medical journals in the world ‘Rock the boat’ (by blowing the whistle), and at the same time kow-tow to Big Pharma pressure:
‘Editors of The Lancet and the New England Journal of Medicine: Pharmaceutical Companies are so Financially Powerful They Pressure us to Accept Papers‘.
‘…In a videotaped interview on May 24, 2020, Dr. Douste-Blazy provided insight into how a series of negative hydroxychloroquine studies got published in prestigious medical journals.
He revealed that at a recent Chatham House top secret, closed door meeting attended by experts only, the editors of both, The Lancet and the New England Journal of Medicine expressed their exasperation citing the pressures put on them by pharmaceutical companies.
He states that each of the editors used the word “criminal” to describe the erosion of science…’
‘…Surgisphere, the company that provided the database for studies published by two of the world’s leading medical journals – The Lancet and The New England Journal of Medicine – based on Surgisphere data. The studies were co-authored the hydroxychloroquine studies.“Surgisphere’s employees have little or no data or scientific background. An employee listed as a science editor appears to be a science fiction author and fantasy artist. Another employee listed as a marketing executive is an adult model and events hostess… until Monday, the “get in touch” link on Surgisphere’s homepage redirected to a WordPress template for a cryptocurrency website, raising questions about how hospitals could easily contact the company to join its database.”..’
‘…The website, Science Defies Politics exposes numerous scientifically invalid studies that were essentially “hit jobs” against the use of hydroxychloroquine.
WHY are very powerful corporate-government stakeholders so intent on killing a drug with a 70 year track record? Because the drug works against the pandemic; it is readily available, and costs very little. Therefore, it poses a financial threat to both pharma companies and their partners in government and academia, those who are intent on profiting from the COVID-19 pandemic.
As uncovered by Science Defies Politics: 16 of the panel members selected by NIH to formulate the official COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines – including two of the three co-chairs – were paid by Gilead. They issued guidelines that raised fear, uncertainty, and doubt about the use of HCQ combined with AZ, while raising no fear, doubt, or uncertainty about using Gilead’s unproven, unapproved, drug remdesivir; a drug that has shown mediocre performance in clinical trials. Seven of the NIH panelists failed to disclose their financial ties to Gilead. They are listed here.
The medical scientific literature is infested with financially motivated, shoddy, studies aimed at promoting products and, when a life-saving, non-patentable product, proves effective, scientists are hired to author study reports that are designed to tarnish scientists’ reputations, and to proclaim findings that refute legitimate findings. In this case, studies designed to “debunk” the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine against COVID-19…’So Big Pharma and their cronies are trying to squash the use of a cheap drug that in combination with other cheap drugs and supplements (zinc) can have a dramatic effect on Covid 19 in many cases.
That should really infuriate anyone who cares about the victims, but some of you will ignore that and try to rubbish my attempts to put the record straight, and expose criminal malfeasance by governments and Big Pharma, and their MSM propagandists.@ Clark
‘…presumption of one’s own pre-existing perfection…’
Are you serious?‘– “You believe vaccines are good”
It seems that you are telling me WHAT I think. This is merely a belief you hold.Is it merely a belief I hold? You certainly give the impression that you believe vaccines are good. Am I mistaken in believing you believe vaccines are good?
If I am right, why bother to bring it up in the first place?I don’t want this thread to become nothing but a squabbling match, and for it to go the way of a previous thread, so I will keep ignoring Red Herring or hostile comments.
– “… but some of you will ignore that and try to rubbish my attempts to put the record straight”
You rubbish your own attempts by repeatedly putting the record crooked. On this occasion you cite “the editors of both, The Lancet and the New England Journal of Medicine”, but were the very same editors to tell you that Wakefield is a fraud and excellent evidence proves that MMR does not cause autism, you will simply turn against then, dismissing them as “pawns of big pharma”.
You claim “skepticism” yet you have claimed to derive your knowledge from your “crystal ball”, and anyone applying true scepticism to your claims you dismiss as “dupes of big pahrma and the MSM”. Your sense of self-superiority is unmistakeable; correct it!
– ‘…presumption of one’s own pre-existing perfection…’
Yes I am serious, though I should have written ‘infallibility’ rather than ‘perfection’.
– “Am I mistaken in believing you believe vaccines are good?”
Yes. The statement is simplistic; reality is a bit more complicated than that. There is an entire territory between “vaccines are good” and “vaccines are bad”. The use of any particular vaccine is appropriate or inappropriate. For example administering the oral polio vaccine in Europe and the US would be bad. Administering it where natural polio is endemic is good. However, the vaccine programme itself reduces incidence of natural polio, so there comes a time where natural polio prevented by the oral vaccine gets outweighed by the polio caused by the vaccine.
Taking the above facts and misrepresenting them to spread fear of vaccination is bad, and repetition of such misinformation is also bad.
Here we go, Paul fashion chasing new subjects when he has not bothered to answer my posts about vaccines. Stick to one subject at a time Paul.
You will keep ignoring comments that come to the heart of the matter. Have we finished discussing the catholic church and its expertise in vaccines then?
