CNN Smears RFK Jr. as "Quack"--JFK Records Again?

[John Cotter]

9 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

I never said it was ad hominem, John.  You misquoted me again.

I asked if it should be reported to the administrators as "abusive"-- in the same way that you (or someone else on the forum) accused me of being "abusive" for referring to your inaccurate post about President Biden as evidence of your "embarrassing ignorance about American politics."

My comment was accurate.

As for your comment about my "lack of credibility" on matters relating to immunology and virology-- it's ridiculous.

I'm a graduate of the top-ranked medical school in the U.S.

One of my old medical school classmates, Peg Hamburg, was Obama's FDA Director.

Good man, William.

So you’re an immunologist and a virologist as well as being a psychiatrist and a logician. Is there any end to your qualifications and accomplishments?

With your prodigiously extensive credentials, you should have no trouble identifying any flaws in the article I posted – the article you have been persistently ignoring.

I await your critique with great interest, as I am always keen to learn.

[Benjamin Cole]

15 minutes ago, Bob Ness said:

I see. Maybe. Courts are the only thing we've got apparently. The Pols aren't going to do it.

You do not think RFK Jr. would open up the JFK Records, and other records pertaining to the assassination of his own father? 

 

[Bob Ness]

23 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

You do not think RFK Jr. would open up the JFK Records, and other records pertaining to the assassination of his own father? 

 

Maybe. It may not be that simple. He would have pressure from the intel agencies and that pressure may be justified although we all doubt that here. It's also possible that it's much ado about nothing and any revelations may damage someone who is still alive. Even descendants of the actors involved have in some cases been harassed (no examples just my assumption) and that may play into it. I have no doubt that many of the people who have been questioned about their experiences are sick and tired of it (Ruth Payne for instance). 

IMO having yet another inexperienced Chief Exec isn't worth it. Been there, done that. Don't have the hat though hahaha.

[Bob Ness]

2 hours ago, John Cotter said:

William,

You’ve been persistently ignoring the Ethical Skeptic article I posted, “Vaccinials – the Betrayed Generation of Americans”, about children being damaged by vaccines.

If you could rebut any of its contents, your assertions might have some semblance of credibility.

https://theethicalskeptic.com/2018/01/14/vaccinials-the-betrayed-generation-of-americans/

 

I dunno. Maybe he feels he doesn't have to respond to anonymous "experts".

Have you thoroughly checked the credentials of the people you are quoting and their sources? Or do you think he should check your sources?

Here's part of his "science".

Quote

17 of 66 kids in a recent basketball tournament I attended, bore some variant of readily observable brain injury based disability. This was a random single observation and anecdote of course. But it is also science, and a part of the growing base of intelligence being assembled by the real scientists on this issue, parents.

What a joke. He could "observe brain injuries" at a basketball game! Amazing! Hahaha!

Edited April 11, 2023 by Bob Ness

[Matt Allison]

29 minutes ago, Bob Ness said:

What a joke. He could "observe brain injuries" at a basketball game! Amazing! Hahaha!

Like I said, it's BS. Total quackery.

All opinion, no science.

But really, when has that ever stopped the anti-vaxxers?

[W. Niederhut]

2 hours ago, John Cotter said:

Good man, William.

So you’re an immunologist and a virologist as well as being a psychiatrist and a logician. Is there any end to your qualifications and accomplishments?

 

John,

   Your sarcasm is simply ridiculous.  Do you mistakenly imagine that I didn't study immunology and virology in college and medical school, or that I didn't study philosophical logic in college?  (My years of psychiatric training occurred after college and medical school.)

    As for your article, what I have learned about "alternative" medical theories during the past 40+ years is that they sometimes have merit, and, when they do, they are eventually supported by peer-reviewed scientific analyses in the quality journals.

     And, as a college professor once told me, "Life is too short to waste on mediocre literature.  Read the good stuff."

      So, to reiterate, I'll continue to base my medical opinions on the high quality, peer-reviewed scientific literature.

[K K Lane]

On 4/9/2023 at 6:44 PM, Charles Blackmon said:

What would you be basing this conclusion [that there is no "smoking gun" in the unreleased JFK files] on?

• JFK files that have been withheld for decades and then released with useful info but no smoking gun.
• Work done by Vince P and others (especially Angleton researchers) showing a willingness of the feds to destroy evidence 

I believe that the unreleased JFK files are important but will not persuade a significant chunk of LNers to become CTers.   I welcome information that dissuades me from this viewpoint.

OP has tried to confine the scope of this thread to the JFK files.   Since we continue to wander into political banter, I'm tapping out.

[Bob Ness]

Deleted.

Edited April 11, 2023 by Bob Ness

[Bob Ness]

3 minutes ago, K K Lane said:

• JFK files that have been withheld for decades and then released with useful info but no smoking gun.
• Work done by Vince P and others (especially Angleton researchers) showing a willingness of the feds to destroy evidence 

I believe that the unreleased JFK files are important but will not persuade a significant chunk of LNers to become CTers.   I welcome information that dissuades me from this viewpoint.

That's about right methinks.

[John Cotter]

7 hours ago, Bob Ness said:

I dunno. Maybe he feels he doesn't have to respond to anonymous "experts".

Have you thoroughly checked the credentials of the people you are quoting and their sources? Or do you think he should check your sources?

Here's part of his "science".

What a joke. He could "observe brain injuries" at a basketball game! Amazing! Hahaha!

It's not about credentials. It's about facts and logic. Taking one detail out of context and ridiculing it is not a logical rebuttal.

[John Cotter]

5 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

John,

   Your sarcasm is simply ridiculous.  Do you mistakenly imagine that I didn't study immunology and virology in college and medical school, or that I didn't study philosophical logic in college?  (My years of psychiatric training occurred after college and medical school.)

    As for your article, what I have learned about "alternative" medical theories during the past 40+ years is that they sometimes have merit, and, when they do, they are eventually supported by peer-reviewed scientific analyses in the quality journals.

     And, as a college professor once told me, "Life is too short to waste on mediocre literature.  Read the good stuff."

      So, to reiterate, I'll continue to base my medical opinions on the high quality, peer-reviewed scientific literature.

William,

So we can reasonably conclude that despite all the academic credentials you boast about, you’re unable to logically rebut the article I posted.

Thank you for that validation.

As for the “high quality, peer-reviewed scientific literature” you allude to, as I’ve already indicated, what you’re really talking about is people protecting their comfortable positions in the highly corrupt authoritarian milieu of academia scratching each other’s backs.

See, for example, the following extract from a 2019 article in The Conversation, “When big companies fund academic research, the truth often come last”.

“Over the last two decades, industry funding for medical research has increased globally, while government and non-profit funding has decreased. By 2011, industry funding, compared to public sources, accounted for two-thirds of medical research worldwide…”

https://theconversation.com/when-big-companies-fund-academic-research-the-truth-often-comes-last-119164

Edited April 11, 2023 by John Cotter

[Karl Kinaski]

Kennedys vs CIA: RFK jr, summary starts at 53 min in the video.

He says that feud started with Jospeph Kennedy ...  

RFK jr is initiating an open debate about the US politics of the last 75 years which nobody can put back in the bottle.

 

Edited April 11, 2023 by Karl Kinaski

[Guest]

2 hours ago, John Cotter said:

So we can reasonably conclude that despite all the academic credentials you boast about, you’re unable to logically rebut the article I posted.

It’s a pattern. He’ll either pretend it doesn’t exist or call immunologists / vaccinologist’s he doesn’t agree with, ‘quacks’. I have been through this with him. 

 

2 hours ago, John Cotter said:

As for the “high quality, peer-reviewed scientific literature” you allude to, as I’ve already indicated, what you’re really talking about is people protecting their comfortable positions in the highly corrupt authoritarian milieu of academia scratching each other’s backs

This is correct. IMO he supports a racket and would rather die on that hill than face an uncomfortable reality. This is a very common position on the far-left. Their views become an extension of themselves, a phenomenon called ‘profilicity’. 

This is of course my opinion having analysed William’s retorts for getting on toward three years. This is not ‘ad hominem’, its backed by form. Its disappointing. 
 

He can’t even admit that he was wrong about the V stopping you catching the virus, stopping you spreading the virus and stopping you getting sick from the virus. He endorsed Biden & other world leaders propagating a lie. I said very early on that the V was less effective than a properly functioning human immune system. Its taken until 2023 to have that confirmed that it is at best equal to or worse than a healthy immune system. Any rational mind could see this when the ONS releases data confirming that the average C19 death age (82.5) was older than the average mortality (81) age in the UK. William also supported lockdowns, which stopped people exercising, getting vitamin D, and caused all manner of ills. Those who posit the we have to make sure that the cure isn’t worse than the virus are looking prescient right now.
 

I wouldn’t waste your time with it John. I got no apology or admission of him being wrong when I was right and other immunologists and Dr’s were right about the pandemic. William just acted like it never happened and kept clinging to the same falsified data, calling it gospel. Earlier in the pandemic I highlighted the way data was used to mislead the public and proved it, it came up in a White House press conference. The response here was silence and apathy. I just that people are so consumed with winning and their tribal pride, nothing else matters to them. 
 

PS any of you guys who want to crack on and keep on taking C19 V’s, its your choice. Do yourselves a favour and study the topic in any way you can, analysing those for and against it. Your health is on the line. Its worth noting that the UK has abandoned jabs for the young, based on the dangers. A year ago you were mostly all in support on injecting all and sundry with an experimental concoction. 

[Guest]

Regarding JFK Jr’s candidacy. 

—————————————————-

Would you rather have a leader who insists on regulation of products that may damage our health, whether environmentally or directly? 
 

or, a leader who prefers as closer relationship as possible between corporations and the state? 
 

—————————————————

Would you rather have a leader who seeks justice, scrutinises the rogue security apparatus and military industrial complex? 
 

Or, a leader who blindly supports those government entities, regardless of their actions?

—————————————————-

 

IMO the American empire is collapsing faster than a chain of dominoes, it is rotten to its core. You need to clean house and you need someone with the courage and appetite for it. Its the only chance you have. 

If you want justice for JFK & RFK Jr, this is just about your only hope. Its a choice. Sign up for the campaign, donate, help, do something powerful to force change. 
 

It’s maybe worth you all having a look in the mirror and asking yourself who you are? There are bigger things than our most own selfish immediate needs. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

[W. Niederhut]

3 hours ago, John Cotter said:

William,

So we can reasonably conclude that despite all the academic credentials you boast about, you’re unable to logically rebut the article I posted.

Thank you for that validation.

As for the “high quality, peer-reviewed scientific literature” you allude to, as I’ve already indicated, what you’re really talking about is people protecting their comfortable positions in the highly corrupt authoritarian milieu of academia scratching each other’s backs.

See, for example, the following extract from a 2019 article in The Conversation, “When big companies fund academic research, the truth often come last”.

“Over the last two decades, industry funding for medical research has increased globally, while government and non-profit funding has decreased. By 2011, industry funding, compared to public sources, accounted for two-thirds of medical research worldwide…”

https://theconversation.com/when-big-companies-fund-academic-research-the-truth-often-comes-last-119164

John,

      Please stop posting erroneous comments about my posts, and repeating things that I have explained to you, as if you had formulated the thought yourself -- as in the case of my explanation to you that criticism of someone's arguments is not the same thing as an ad hominem argument.  You seem to have a peculiar knack for that sort of thing.

   .  You also neglected to mention that I only referenced my academic credentials in response to your repeated, inaccurate slurs on that subject.  I was correcting your disinformation.

      As for the issue of corporate advertising and funding of medical research, it has long been a subject of interest to me.  I have even been quoted in the New York Times on more than one occasion as a critic of advertising by Big Pharma.

      But medical journals are not monolithic.  Some are highly reputable -- e.g., NEJM-- and some are heavily funded by pharmaceutical companies.  I once had a conversation with the late Dr. Arnold Relman, editor of the NEJM, in which he told me that physicians should never own stock in pharmaceutical companies.

      Meanwhile, I'm still waiting for you to post a critique of the U.S. CDC COVID morbidity and mortality data that I have shared with you in recent weeks.

      How do you explain the 14-fold increased risk of COVID deaths in unvaccinated U.S. adults compared to adults who had received vaccinations and boosters?

      How do you explain the significantly increased COVID death rates in U.S. counties that voted for Donald Trump in 2020, compared to counties that voted for Joe Biden?