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

[Benjamin Cole]

1 hour ago, Karl Kinaski said:

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.

 

The first thing RFK asked CIA Director McCone after the JFKA: "Was it your guys that did this?" 

Anyone think the CIA will let his son into the White House? 

[W. Niederhut]

4 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

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?

 

Addendum:  Also, how do you and Chris Barnard (and RFK, Jr.) explain the data indicating that COVID infections cause a higher risk of myocarditis in young people than vaccines?

Edited April 11, 2023 by W. Niederhut

[Bob Ness]

6 hours ago, John Cotter said:

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.

One detail out of context? How about every detail he states in the two sentences I read before realizing whoever wrote what you posted (as your evidence) has no idea what they're talking about?

Was he abducted by aliens who gave him the ability to diagnose brain defects at 100 feet (30 1/2 meters)?

And you want people to read through that garbage? I'm not investing my time in that. It's limited enough as it is. You're asking me, a person willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, to consider an argument on a complex issue written by a person who doesn't have the conviction of his ideas enough to add his name to his assertions.

It's not "taking one detail out of context". And yes. It is about credentials.

Edited April 11, 2023 by Bob Ness

[Michael Griffith]

17 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/

That is a fascinating article. I am a total layman when it comes to this stuff, so I will withhold judgment. Speaking for myself, I still get vaccinated against tetanus when my doctor says it's time to do so. I got the COVID-19 vaccine and the shingles vaccine. Anyway, I do notice that the article is not arguing that all vaccination should cease forever but that vaccination should be made safer and that the issue of harmful side effects should be studied more objectively. 

I do know that there is some basis for reasonable caution about some vaccines. For example, in April 1955 more than 200,000 children in five states received a polio vaccine in which the process of inactivating the live virus was defective. Within days there were reports of paralysis and within a month the first polio vaccination program had to be abandoned.

Even the CDC admits that from 1955 to 1963 "an estimated 10-30% of polio vaccines administered in the US were contaminated with simian virus 40 (SV40). The virus came from monkey kidney cell cultures used to make polio vaccines at that time. Most of the contamination was in the inactivated polio vaccine (IPV), but it was also found in oral polio vaccine (OPV)."

I remember the resistance to the anthrax vaccine while I was in the Army. I heard and read many stories about servicemembers who experienced serious side effects from the vaccine. I had two friends who suffered severe side effects soon after their final dosage. One of them got a giant rash on his head and the other began suffering short-term memory loss. When my friend with the head rash went to the medical clinic, the doctor refused to identify the rash as a side effect of the vaccine. As of the last time I saw both of them, the one still had the rash and the other still suffered from short-term memory loss. 

In any event, I say again that RFK Jr. needs to explain his previous comments about vaccination and make clear his current position on the subject. The establishment will hang this issue around his neck until he credibly addresses it. 

 

 

Edited April 11, 2023 by Michael Griffith

[John Cotter]

58 minutes ago, Bob Ness said:

One detail out of context? How about every detail he states in the two sentences I read before realizing whoever wrote what you posted (as your evidence) has no idea what they're talking about?

Was he abducted by aliens who gave him the ability to diagnose brain defects at 100 feet (30 1/2 meters)?

And you want people to read through that garbage? I'm not investing my time in that. It's limited enough as it is. You're asking me, a person willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, to consider an argument on a complex issue written by a person who doesn't have the conviction of his ideas enough to add his name to his assertions.

It's not "taking one detail out of context". And yes. It is about credentials.

Do you know how autism is diagnosed?

[John Cotter]

39 minutes ago, Michael Griffith said:

That is a fascinating article. I am a total layman when it comes to this stuff, so I will withhold judgment. Speaking for myself, I still get vaccinated against tetanus when my doctor says it's time to do so. I got the COVID-19 vaccine and the shingles vaccine. Anyway, I do notice that the article is not arguing that all vaccination should cease forever but that vaccination should be made safer and that the issue of harmful side effects should be studied more objectively. 

I do know that there is some basis for reasonable caution about some vaccines. For example, in April 1955 more than 200,000 children in five states received a polio vaccine in which the process of inactivating the live virus was defective. Within days there were reports of paralysis and within a month the first polio vaccination program had to be abandoned.

Even the CDC admits that from 1955 to 1963 "an estimated 10-30% of polio vaccines administered in the US were contaminated with simian virus 40 (SV40). The virus came from monkey kidney cell cultures used to make polio vaccines at that time. Most of the contamination was in the inactivated polio vaccine (IPV), but it was also found in oral polio vaccine (OPV)."

I remember the resistance to the anthrax vaccine while I was in the Army. I heard and read many stories about servicemembers who experienced serious side effects from the vaccine. I had two friends who suffered severe side effects soon after their final dosage. One of them got a giant rash on his head and the other began suffering short-term memory loss. When my friend with the head rash went to the medical clinic, the doctor refused to identify the rash as a side effect of the vaccine. As of the last time I saw both of them, the one still had the rash and the other still suffered from short-term memory loss. 

In any event, I say again that RFK Jr. needs to explain his previous comments about vaccination and make clear his current position on the subject. The establishment will hang this issue around his neck until he credibly addresses it. 

 

 

Thank you for that measured response, Michael.

[Bob Ness]

11 minutes ago, John Cotter said:

Do you know how autism is diagnosed?

Thanks John but I'll go back on subject.

[John Cotter]

11 hours ago, Chris Barnard said:

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. 

 

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. 

You’re right, Chris. As you say, it’s not ad hominem, it’s @W. Niederhut,s online behaviour.

It’s worth quoting a passage from Ben Goldacre’s 2012 book, Bad Pharma: How Drug Companies Mislead Doctors and Harm Patients. And I may as well add that the author’s academic credentials are second to none.

“Drugs are tested by the people who manufacture them, in poorly designed trials, on hopelessly small numbers of weird, unrepresentative patients, and analysed using techniques which are flawed by design, in such a way that they exaggerate the benefits of treatments. Unsurprisingly, these trials tend to produce results that favour the manufacturer. When trials throw up results that companies don't like, they are perfectly entitled to hide them from doctors and patients, so we only ever see a distorted picture of any drug's true effects. Regulators see most of the trial data, but only from early on in a drug's life, and even then they don't give this data to doctors or patients, or even to other parts of government. This distorted evidence is then communicated and applied in a distorted fashion. In their forty years of practice after leaving medical school, doctors hear about what works through ad hoc oral traditions, from sales reps, colleagues or journals. But those colleagues can be in the pay of drug companies – often undisclosed – and the journals are too. And so are the patient groups. And finally, academic papers, which everyone thinks of as objective, are often covertly planned and written by people who work directly for the companies, without disclosure.” (p xi)

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, John Cotter said:

You’re right, Chris. As you say, it’s not ad hominem, it’s @W. Niederhut,s online behaviour.

It’s worth quoting a passage from Ben Goldacre’s 2012 book, Bad Pharma: How Drug Companies Mislead Doctors and Harm Patients. And I may as well add that the author’s academic credentials are second to none.

“Drugs are tested by the people who manufacture them, in poorly designed trials, on hopelessly small numbers of weird, unrepresentative patients, and analysed using techniques which are flawed by design, in such a way that they exaggerate the benefits of treatments. Unsurprisingly, these trials tend to produce results that favour the manufacturer. When trials throw up results that companies don't like, they are perfectly entitled to hide them from doctors and patients, so we only ever see a distorted picture of any drug's true effects. Regulators see most of the trial data, but only from early on in a drug's life, and even then they don't give this data to doctors or patients, or even to other parts of government. This distorted evidence is then communicated and applied in a distorted fashion. In their forty years of practice after leaving medical school, doctors hear about what works through ad hoc oral traditions, from sales reps, colleagues or journals. But those colleagues can be in the pay of drug companies – often undisclosed – and the journals are too. And so are the patient groups. And finally, academic papers, which everyone thinks of as objective, are often covertly planned and written by people who work directly for the companies, without disclosure.” (p xi)

Yep.

Whoever sets the conditions of the experiment controls the outcome. 

Why most public research findings are false, by John P A Ioannidis. 
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8e/Ioannidis_(2005)_Why_Most_Published_Research_Findings_Are_False.pdf

[W. Niederhut]

     I don't know about other people on this forum, but I've just about had it with these puerile, inaccurate, libelous commentaries by Chris Barnard and John Cotter.  Lately, these two have taken to posting bogus, ad hominem attacks on my professional medical judgment, while repeatedly misquoting and misrepresenting what I have actually posted about vaccines. 

      Basta, per Dio...

     And, meanwhile, Barnard and Cotter have actually complained to the administrators here about my recently pointing out (in response to their faux criticisms of President Biden) that they seem to be "embarrassingly ignorant" about American politics.  Other forum members have posted similar, accurate observations about Barnard and Cotter.

     As for the subject of COVID vaccines, I have, on a few occasions, posted some CDC morbidity and mortality COVID data on this forum -- on our original Journal of the Plague Year thread and elsewhere-- which Barnard and Cotter have persistently ignored, even in response to some direct questions on the subject.

     You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.

     You can lead a man to data, but you can't make him think.

     As for Cotter's Goldacre reference on "bad pharma," I will refer Barnard and Cotter to some New York Times articles in which I have been referenced as a critic of the pharmaceutical industry.

      Barnard and Cotter actually believe that they are "educating" me on the subject of Big Pharma and medical papers that I have been studying and analyzing for the past 40 years.

https://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/12/washington/12psych.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/21/health/ketamine-depression-veterans.html

 

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

     I don't know about other people on this forum, but I've just about had it with these puerile, inaccurate, libelous commentaries by Chris Barnard and John Cotter.  Lately, these two have taken to posting bogus, ad hominem attacks on my professional medical judgment, while repeatedly misquoting and misrepresenting what I have actually posted about vaccines. 

      Basta, per Dio...

     And, meanwhile, Barnard and Cotter have actually complained to the administrators here about my recently pointing out (in response to their faux criticisms of President Biden) that they seem to be "embarrassingly ignorant" about American politics.  Other forum members have posted similar, accurate observations about Barnard and Cotter.

     As for the subject of COVID vaccines, I have, on a few occasions, posted some CDC morbidity and mortality COVID data on this forum -- on our original Journal of the Plague Year thread and elsewhere-- which Barnard and Cotter have persistently ignored, even in response to some direct questions on the subject.

     You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.

     You can lead a man to data, but you can't make him think.

     As for Cotter's Goldacre reference on "bad pharma," I will refer Barnard and Cotter to some New York Times articles in which I have been referenced as a critic of the pharmaceutical industry.

      Barnard and Cotter actually believe that they are "educating" me on the subject of Big Pharma and medical papers that I have been studying and analyzing for the past 40 years.

https://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/12/washington/12psych.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/21/health/ketamine-depression-veterans.html

 

I would have thought you would have read Stanford’s Dr John Ioannidis’ ‘scholarly’ paper? 
 

It’s sort of funny that your idea of ‘analysis’ is the New York Times. 
 

[W. Niederhut]

2 minutes ago, Chris Barnard said:

I would have thought you would have read Stanford’s Dr John Ioannidis’ ‘scholarly’ paper? 
 

It’s sort of funny that your idea of ‘analysis’ is the New York Times. 
 

Chris,

     You, obviously, misinterpreted my comment, again.  It's a bad habit of yours.

     I was talking about my training and many years of experience reading and analyzing medical papers.

     Do you and Cotter even know what p values are in medical research?

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

  You, obviously, misinterpreted my comment, again.  It's a bad habit of yours.

Maybe if you cut down the emotive stuff and deflection, it would be easier for decipher what you are trying to say, if you are indeed offering anything up of value. 
 

21 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

     I was talking about my training and many years of experience reading and analyzing medical papers.

How long ago did you actually stop working in this industry? Following your own announcements, you seem to have worked in a psychiatrist role for some time and then retired. Is that correct? 
 

Is it possible to deceive you with data?
 

Do you agree with Dr Ioannidis’ paper? 
 

23 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

  Do you and Cotter even know what p values are in medical research?

Yes, I do. Why do you ask? Are you doing the Michael Bolton clone thing in “Good Will Hunting”? 

[Michael Griffith]

12 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

     I don't know about other people on this forum, but I've just about had it with these puerile, inaccurate, libelous commentaries by Chris Barnard and John Cotter.  Lately, these two have taken to posting bogus, ad hominem attacks on my professional medical judgment, while repeatedly misquoting and misrepresenting what I have actually posted about vaccines. 

      Basta, per Dio...

     And, meanwhile, Barnard and Cotter have actually complained to the administrators here about my recently pointing out (in response to their faux criticisms of President Biden) that they seem to be "embarrassingly ignorant" about American politics.  Other forum members have posted similar, accurate observations about Barnard and Cotter.

     As for the subject of COVID vaccines, I have, on a few occasions, posted some CDC morbidity and mortality COVID data on this forum -- on our original Journal of the Plague Year thread and elsewhere-- which Barnard and Cotter have persistently ignored, even in response to some direct questions on the subject.

     You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.

     You can lead a man to data, but you can't make him think.

     As for Cotter's Goldacre reference on "bad pharma," I will refer Barnard and Cotter to some New York Times articles in which I have been referenced as a critic of the pharmaceutical industry.

      Barnard and Cotter actually believe that they are "educating" me on the subject of Big Pharma and medical papers that I have been studying and analyzing for the past 40 years.

https://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/12/washington/12psych.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/21/health/ketamine-depression-veterans.html

Sheesh, you are just totally full of yourself, aren't you? If someone disagrees with you, they're the enemy; they're evil; they're ignorant; they're haters; they're slandering you; etc., etc., etc. How dare anyone disagree with you! How dare they!

The problem is that you are an extremely intolerant, closed-minded ultra-liberal. Not all ultra-liberals are intolerant and closed minded, just as not all ultra-conservatives are intolerant and closed minded. But you take partisanship and ideology to extreme levels and view anyone who disagrees with you as a dastardly enemy who hates all that is good and right. 

 

[W. Niederhut]

 

Michael Griffith thinks I'm a close minded "ultra liberal."

And all this time I thought I was an intellectually curious M.D. and a rational centrist on the Political Compass rating scale.

I never realized how controversial the scientific method is to many conservatives (and some liberals, apparently) until the COVID pandemic occurred.

Republican opposition to climate change science should have been a clue.

 

Some experts fear rise in medical misinformation following RFK Jr.'s presidential announcement - ABC News (go.com)

April 12, 2023

Edited April 12, 2023 by W. Niederhut