Jump to content
The Education Forum

Conspiracy Theories & The Media: JFK & Beyond ....


Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

Should we be protecting Fauci and Dasik, is critic of scientists a ‘hate crime’ or, will this further increase a grasp on power, giving the public tax payer even less power to speak out? 

https://thenationalpulse.com/news/paper-calls-for-fauci-criticism-to-be-a-hate-crime/?fbclid=IwAR35p94Qp3NZuwMhwUN7fIOsb3xH5kKBYaxZhcCTjY5SNJl-DpVfUJJGnro

Edited by Chris Barnard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 395
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted (edited)

Still think it’s from bats in a wet market guys? Or are we rubber-stamping that conspiracy as real? If so, we might want to apologise to those who said it early and were insulted and abused. 
 

https://thenationalpulse.com/breaking/dni-ratcliffe-links-covid-to-wiv/?fbclid=IwAR0DzlNusK4Q-C0vo95mfRKkAyvftspN64yj6E56sOo2lgR8Dyruwabyyx8
 

Another conspiracy rubber stamped, back in April 20 videos were being censored that pointed out US interests had been funding the Wuhan lab, that was conducting ‘gain of function’ research on SARS Coronavirsus. 

https://thenationalpulse.com/breaking/nih-grant-database-revealing-fauci-wuhan-ties-down/?fbclid=IwAR2DsbSYM3cHW4l8OX14PYAyR5m7nH6QtmEvdwaSyaF7UDLiQbVRJRLKHc8

 

Edited by Chris Barnard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dennis Berube writes:

Quote

He posts a very brief Guardian article and pairs it with the comment above. This is how freedom ends, allowing this mentality to win the day. People who have never been sick, who simply want to have medical freedom are now endangering society and must be locked up.

That's a strange interpretation of the newspaper article, which referred to a prominent anti-vaxxer who seemed to be encouraging people to physically attack medical staff. That's why the police got involved, not because she or anyone else didn't want to get vaccinated or wear a mask or whatever other threat to 'freedom' these people get worked up about.

I wrote:

Quote

Wakefield tried to prove that the MMR vaccine caused autism, and failed miserably.

Dennis replied:

Quote

Go ahead, get wikipedia’s slander story copied and pasted for us.

This may be the Wikipedia article Dennis is thinking of:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Wakefield

It's a pretty devastating account, fully referenced, of Wakefield's activities. As far as "slander" goes, Wakefield sued a journalist and the TV company who broadcast the journalist's documentary, for defamation. He failed, and had to pay his opponents' legal costs. Here's what the judge said about Wakefield:

Quote
  1. Spread fear that the MMR vaccine might lead to autism, even though he knew that his own laboratory had carried out tests whose results dramatically contradicted his claims in that the measles virus had not been found in a single one of the children concerned in his study and he knew or ought to have known that there was absolutely no basis at all for his belief that the MMR should be broken up into single vaccines.
  2. In spreading such fear, acted dishonestly and for mercenary motives in that, although he improperly failed to disclose the fact, he planned a rival vaccine and products (such as a diagnostic kit based on his theory) that could have made his fortune.
  3. Gravely abused the children under his care by unethically carrying out extensive invasive procedures (on occasions requiring three people to hold a child down), thereby driving nurses to leave and causing his medical colleagues serious concern and unhappiness.
  4. Improperly and/or dishonestly failed to disclose to his colleagues and to the public at large that his research on autistic children had begun with a contract with solicitors which were trying to sue the manufacturers of the MMR vaccine.
  5. Improperly and/or dishonestly lent his reputation to the International Child Development Resource Centre which promoted to very vulnerable parents expensive products for whose efficacy (as he knew or should have known) there was no scientific evidence.

(Source: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2005/2410.html)

There is an overwhelming scientific consensus that no good evidence exists for a link between the MMR vaccine and autism.

Quote

Btw, what does your doctor think about the magneto protein?

Magneto protein, eh? That sounds all sciencey-like, doesn't it? You've convinced me! The medical profession is wrong, and the bleach drinkers are right!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chris Barnard writes:

Quote

What it shows me is that you zero understanding of how big business works or, how foundations and charitable organisations are used as tools of vast influence and power.

I understand all of that, thank you. So it was Bill Gates after all, wasn't it? I knew it!

Quote

I have never even heard of this Wakefield you refer to. ... this Wakefield, is it the same one as above? I haven’t mentioned this person, I don’t know of this person. Yet, you seem to be  trying attach him to my argument.

In your comment 445409 on page 16, you replied to my point about Wakefield's research being debunked. Your reply was:

Quote

Here is a question for you; how might you go about proving that to be the case and what parameters would you put in place to ensure its fair study?

I asked you to clarify what you meant by "proving that to be the case". Proving Wakefield's research was flawed? If that's what you meant, it has been done. I'd already given a link to the relevant article in the British Medical Journal: https://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.c7452.

Proving that vaccines cause autism? If that's what you meant, plenty of research has been done on that topic. Expert opinion is overwhelmingly against a link between vaccines and autism.

On the subject of 9/11, Chris writes:

Quote

views can be seen very easily in google searches, as the site ranks pretty highly

So you were actually trying to say that W. Niederhut doesn't want to provide evidence for his claim that some of the hijackers "were known to be alive after 9/11, having miraculously survived the 9/11 plane crashes" because it might come up if someone searches for his name. But he has made plenty of 9/11-related comments here. Why should that particular claim be so damaging to his online reputation?

His reluctance might in fact be due to his not having any strong evidence to support his claim, wouldn't you think? Nevertheless, if he does have any strong evidence, I'd be interested to see it, because it would go a long way towards undermining the official explanation.

Quote

If you think I am going to spend hours reeling it all out for you on threads

All I was asking you to do was provide a bit more than simple one-sentence talking points. If you want someone to discuss a topic of your choice, you can't expect them to do all the work. You need to set out the evidence and all the relevant arguments, for and against, if only to persuade us that you are not simply regurgitating stuff from some truther's YouTube channel.

One point I've been making that you haven't yet replied to is that, when confronted by a topic that requires expert knowledge, the only rational approach for a non-expert is to reflect the balance of expert opinion. This applies to vaccination as much as it does to the collapse of the World Trade Center towers.

Would you agree with that principle? If not, perhaps you could explain what's wrong with it. If you do agree with that principle, why do you not abide by it? Why do you align yourself with the opinions of a small minority of experts rather than the opinions of the large majority of experts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:
Quote

 

I understand all of that, thank you. So it was Bill Gates after all, wasn't it? I knew it!


What do you understand about it? 🙂 I see no evidence that you have any life experience to furnish you with an understanding, and you haven’t exhibited any signs you do understand such things.

Bill Gates did what? Monopolised the vaccine industry? Is the biggest private funder of the WHO? I think you are being inane again, childish. 

40 minutes ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

In your comment 445409 on page 16, you replied to my point about Wakefield's research being debunked. Your reply was:

No, I replied about the CDC challenges in the USA, including successful lawsuits in the US. I don’t know this Wakefield. Again, its plain English that you can’t understand. 

40 minutes ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

asked you to clarify what you meant by "proving that to be the case". Proving Wakefield's research was flawed? If that's what you meant, it has been done. I'd already given a link to the relevant article in the British Medical Journal: https://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.c7452.

Proving that vaccines cause autism? If that's what you meant, plenty of research has been done on that topic. Expert opinion is overwhelmingly against a link between vaccines and autism.

Again, you obviously subscribe to the adage that “if a lie is told enough times, then it becomes truth”. The best bit is, you can’t answer why autism is listed as a potential side effect to the vaccine. It shows a real weakness of character on your part. Even somebody at secondary school would understand the rudimentary technique of analysis between those vaccinated and unvaccinated as a means of understanding whether a treatment is safe. Or the basic fundamental right of the tax payer to data they have paid for via taxation. 

40 minutes ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

So you were actually trying to say that W. Niederhut doesn't want to provide evidence for his claim that some of the hijackers "were known to be alive after 9/11, having miraculously survived the 9/11 plane crashes" because it might come up if someone searches for his name. But he has made plenty of 9/11-related comments here. Why should that particular claim be so damaging to his online reputation?

His reluctance might in fact be due to his not having any strong evidence to support his claim, wouldn't you think? Nevertheless, if he does have any strong evidence, I'd be interested to see it, because it would go a long way towards undermining the official explanation.

The queens English is very clear in the previous two posts, Jeremy. It’s like I am talking to someone without the mental competencies to understand very basic language or communication. 

41 minutes ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

All I was asking you to do was provide a bit more than simple one-sentence talking points. If you want someone to discuss a topic of your choice, you can't expect them to do all the work. You need to set out the evidence and all the relevant arguments, for and against, if only to persuade us that you are not simply regurgitating stuff from some truther's YouTube channel.

One point I've been making that you haven't yet replied to is that, when confronted by a topic that requires expert knowledge, the only rational approach for a non-expert is to reflect the balance of expert opinion. This applies to vaccination as much as it does to the collapse of the World Trade Center towers.

Would you agree with that principle? If not, perhaps you could explain what's wrong with it. If you do agree with that principle, why do you not abide by it? Why do you align yourself with the opinions of a small minority of experts rather than the opinions of the large majority of experts?

Jeremy, the issue is, in any discussion there is a requirement each party to respond to each others questions, so that a conclusion can be reached. Quid pro quo. Your expectations that i’ll furnish you with talking points or information when you’ve flat out ignored 5-10 questions of mine. It shows a lack of courtesy and frankly a childishness i’d expect of someone lacking education and intelligence. Which, after reading your bio/website, I cringed a little because I am giving you the time of day here. It really means I am wasting my time typing to someone that is frankly beneath me. That may seem harsh but, it’s an honest characterisation based on your replies here. 
 

Cheers

Chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

This may be the Wikipedia article Dennis is thinking of:

Wrong again Jeremy. William Thompson is not the same name as Wakefield. He was a whistleblower who admitted the CDC manipulation in an attempt to discredit Wakefield. The CDC also hired a guy to go around the world publishing bs studies for the same thing until he stole millions and went on the run. His studies are still cited today by the pro-bigPharma crowd. But I assume you know all of this already and how i have it all wrong. Maybe Wikipedia doesn’t even bother with a Thompson entry, just delete him like they did to Mercola (under threat) today. This is tyranny folks, the Wellcome Leap brought to you by DARPA, Google and their central bank masters.
 

W, the propaganda/censorship is off the charts. No matter what I cite, there will be a hit piece on it, thats where we are at. They aren’t even taking down reliable data about who is vaccinated or not when they report a positive test. I know, I’ve called the DPH several times. They are actually removing data points that embarrassed the narrative. For instance, at last report (6/22/21) only 159 people without pre-existing conditions died of Covid in MA. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
58 minutes ago, Dennis Berube said:

W, the propaganda/censorship is off the charts. No matter what I cite, there will be a hit piece on it, thats where we are at. They aren’t even taking down reliable data about who is vaccinated or not when they report a positive test. I know, I’ve called the DPH several times. They are actually removing data points that embarrassed the narrative. For instance, at last report (6/22/21) only 159 people without pre-existing conditions died of Covid in MA. 

It is off the charts and in the UK the government are using the following:

Army Brigade 77 

SPI-B 

Tavistock Institute of Psychology 

They are running bots on Twitter and all sorts. Apparently, they’re carrying out this social experiment as it will help them with future more serious crisis, like climate change. 
 

There is a huge amount of detail in the book: “A State of fear: How the UK Government have weaponised fear during the Cov-19 pandemic.” by Laura Dodsworth. She has stuck purely to facts and focussed on the psychology and the weaponising of behavioural psychology. The quotes from government on the record, and including insiders are pretty staggering. Apparently New Zealand have done the same but, been much better at it. Collectivism gets a good mention too. 
 

https://www.audible.co.uk/pd/A-State-of-Fear-How-the-UK-Government-Weaponised-Fear-During-the-COVID-19-Pandemic-Audiobook/B095L2DGD4?source_code=M2M30DFT1Bk13109292002JW&&ipRedirectOverride=true&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIiKrutNSX8gIVDNPtCh2rpAkvEAAYASAAEgIJ2vD_BwE&gclsrc=aw.ds

 

The government has praised Susan Mickey, Psychologist as outstanding, in terms of her messaging. She praises China and is part of the communist party of Great Britain. She is a big advocate of collectivism. 
I know, you’re thinking WTF???!

 

The UK govt psychologists didn’t advocate the wearing of masks because they work, they wanted them because they enforced the idea of collectivism, that we are in it together. 

Edited by Chris Barnard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/3/2021 at 2:07 AM, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

W. Niederhut claimed on page 14 that some of the hijackers "were known to be alive after 9/11, having miraculously survived the 9/11 plane crashes". It's quite a claim to make, because if it's true it leaves a gaping hole in the official explanation. If it's not true, of course, it leaves a gaping hole in W. Niederhut's credibility.

I could understand if he hasn't provided the necessary evidence because he's been busy, or he has been taken ill, or his internet connection has gone down, or he has been abducted by creatures from the planet Tharg. But otherwise, you'd expect him to be keen to justify the statement he made. I'm starting to suspect that there probably isn't any solid evidence that any of the hijackers lived on after 9/11. Do you get that impression too?

 

Jeremy,

      I just read your comment above for the first time.  The truth is, I haven't followed this thread very closely after it veered into lengthy debates about the COVID vaccine issue.

     James Baldwin famously said, "I am not your negro."  I can kind of relate to that in the sense that, "I am not your 9/11 Truther."   It's not a role that I am comfortable with, for many reasons.

     My interest in 9/11 has mainly focused on studying the scientific evidence that the WTC was demolished by explosives, but I have also read some interesting material about the absence of evidence linking Bin Laden and "Al Qaeda" to 9/11.  Even Dick Cheney and Robert Mueller, ultimately, said that the U.S. government never found any evidence linking Bin Laden to 9/11.

     Imagine LBJ announcing in 1968 that "Oswald didn't kill Kennedy..."

     These were rather astonishing admissions by Cheney and Mueller, since blaming Bin Laden for 9/11 was the sole pretext for starting our 20 year U.S. war in Afghanistan!

     If you're interested, here are some references on the subject in question.

http://www.twf.org/News/Y2006/0608-BinLaden.html

https://www.opednews.com/articles/1/Was-America-Attacked-by-Mu-by-David-Ray-Griffin-080909-536.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chris Barnard writes:

Quote

you obviously subscribe to the adage that “if a lie is told enough times, then it becomes truth”.

That remark was in response to my comment about ex-Dr Andrew Wakefield's research being flawed and that "expert opinion is overwhelmingly against a link between vaccines and autism."

Which part of that comment contains the lie? That Wakefield's research was flawed, or that the balance of expert opinion is unfavourable to anti-vaxxers?

Perhaps Chris could explain why either or both of those statements is a lie. With luck, he'll use detailed evidence and nuanced argument, but I fear that all we'll get is the usual one-sentence talking points copied uncritically from some anti-vaxxer website.

Does Chris take seriously the idea that vaccines cause autism? Perhaps he does:

Quote

The best bit is, you can’t answer why autism is listed as a potential side effect to the vaccine.

Yet another one-sentence talking point! Chris had already answered this one himself on page 16, when he wrote:

Quote

The CDC website says in bold lettering, vaccines do not cause autism. But the disclaimer pamphlet with the vaccine lists autism as a potential side effect. The reason that is in there is so that the company making the shot can’t be sued.

Why would they need to pop that in the disclaimer?

Why? Obviously it's to keep the company's lawyers happy, in case some crazy anti-vaxxer tries to take the company to court. Note the use of the word 'potential'. I assume the company doesn't claim that its vaccine actually causes autism.

There's nothing suspicious about that pamphlet. Why did Chris even bring up that talking point, if not to suggest that the company was admitting that the vaccine might in fact cause autism?

Quote

childishness i’d expect of someone lacking education and intelligence ... I am wasting my time typing to someone that is frankly beneath me.

Someone with Chris's vast intellectual gifts shouldn't have any trouble making his points properly, by doing more than simply repeating one-sentence talking points from anti-vaxxers and 9/11 truthers.

What started all of this was Chris's preference for the views of a small minority of experts in the matter of the collapse of the World Trade Center towers. I pointed out that it was irrational for a non-expert to take this approach to a question that requires expert knowledge.

Chris doesn't seem to have found anything objectionable about the point I made. Evidently he agrees with me: the non-expert would be mistaken to accept one particular view when the majority of experts think that view is wrong.

So why does he do it? I assume he has no expertise in architecture or structural engineering. Would he care to tell us why he rejects the opinions of the majority of the relevant experts?

Would Chris by any chance be picking and choosing which experts to believe based on whether or not they reflect his view of the world?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the response, W. Niederhut!

I'm sure you can understand why a non-expert like me might not put too much trust in the claim that the scientific evidence is settled. The non-expert thinks: well, it could have been an inside job, you wouldn't rule it out in theory, but if the scientific evidence really is as conclusive as this guy claims, you'd expect a large proportion of experts to support it, and only a small number appear to do so.

And anyone who's familiar with some of the claims made about the JFK assassination will apply more than a pinch of salt to a claim that the hijackers lived on after the attacks. Inside job: wouldn't put it past them; fake hijackers and remote-controlled planes: hmm, not so sure about that. I suspect the evidence is far from conclusive, but I'm willing to be persuaded.

Having said all that, I'm keeping an open mind, and I'll check out those links when I get the chance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

I'm sure you can understand why a non-expert like me might not put too much trust in the claim that the scientific evidence is settled. The non-expert thinks: well, it could have been an inside job, you wouldn't rule it out in theory, but if the scientific evidence really is as conclusive as this guy claims, you'd expect a large proportion of experts to support it, and only a small number appear to do so.

Well for God's sake Jeremy, become an expert!  It won't take more than a day's reading before you realize the truth in "controlled demolition".  It doesn't take any trust -- the evidence is right there (unlike the JFK case).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Chris Barnard writes:

That remark was in response to my comment about ex-Dr Andrew Wakefield's research being flawed and that "expert opinion is overwhelmingly against a link between vaccines and autism."

Which part of that comment contains the lie? That Wakefield's research was flawed, or that the balance of expert opinion is unfavourable to anti-vaxxers?

Perhaps Chris could explain why either or both of those statements is a lie. With luck, he'll use detailed evidence and nuanced argument, but I fear that all we'll get is the usual one-sentence talking points copied uncritically from some anti-vaxxer website.

Does Chris take seriously the idea that vaccines cause autism? Perhaps he does:

Yet another one-sentence talking point! Chris had already answered this one himself on page 16, when he wrote:

Why? Obviously it's to keep the company's lawyers happy, in case some crazy anti-vaxxer tries to take the company to court. Note the use of the word 'potential'. I assume the company doesn't claim that its vaccine actually causes autism.

There's nothing suspicious about that pamphlet. Why did Chris even bring up that talking point, if not to suggest that the company was admitting that the vaccine might in fact cause autism?

Someone with Chris's vast intellectual gifts shouldn't have any trouble making his points properly, by doing more than simply repeating one-sentence talking points from anti-vaxxers and 9/11 truthers.

What started all of this was Chris's preference for the views of a small minority of experts in the matter of the collapse of the World Trade Center towers. I pointed out that it was irrational for a non-expert to take this approach to a question that requires expert knowledge.

Chris doesn't seem to have found anything objectionable about the point I made. Evidently he agrees with me: the non-expert would be mistaken to accept one particular view when the majority of experts think that view is wrong.

So why does he do it? I assume he has no expertise in architecture or structural engineering. Would he care to tell us why he rejects the opinions of the majority of the relevant experts?

Would Chris by any chance be picking and choosing which experts to believe based on whether or not they reflect his view of the world?

Thanks Jeremy. It’s interesting you have begun to address the gallery and not me personally. 🙂 I think we’re about done. You being obtuse, or unable to comprehend basic English, or acknowledge questions, leaves us no path forward. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...