The media lies SO MUCH - and stupid Americans chat the lies furiously

This guy criticizes the state of establishment science.

SCIENCE replaced by SCIENTISIM in schools Allan Savory

 

Here's a sarcastic remark about peer-review.

https://kirschsubstack.com/p/bhakdiburkhardt-pathology-results
(excerpt)
--------------------------------------------------------
Summary
The vaccines are bad news. Fifteen bodies were examined (all died from 7 days to 6 months after vaccination; ages 28 to 95). The coroner or the public prosecutor didn’t associate the vaccine as the cause of death in any of the cases. However, further examination revealed that the vaccine was implicated in the deaths of 14 of the 15 cases. The most attacked organ was the heart (in all of the people who died), but other organs were attacked as well. The implications are potentially enormous resulting in millions of deaths. The vaccines should be immediately halted.

No need to worry. It is doubtful that anything will happen because the work wasn’t published in a peer-reviewed journal so will be ignored by the scientific community. That’s just the way it works.
--------------------------------------------------------

 

This guy explains things pretty well.
https://www.google.com/search?q=Mik...QGYAgWgApkBmAMAkgcDNC4xoAfOBA&sclient=gws-wiz

 

In this video two scientists explain how scientists get squelched when their findings go against the interests of big business.

Is Science Dead? 'Cancelled' Drs. Chris Exley & Chris Busby's research challenges industrial lobbies
https://rumble.com/v54a3dq-is-scien...s-exley-and-chris-busbys-research-challe.html

 

Yes ours has been a fascist country for a very long time.

 

Some willful deceit has been found on a "Truther" site. Go to the 1:25 time mark of this video.

Japan Launches COVID mRNA Vaccine Taskforce To Investigate 'Crimes Against Humanity'
https://rumble.com/v58qfdf-japan-la...askforce-to-investigate-crimes-against-h.html


The picture in the video is from this old article.

Moms, students protest Japanese war-policy bills
https://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2015/aug/31/moms-students-protest-japanese-war-poli/

It was pointed out to me on this thread.
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...billion-people.590753/page-14#post-1074922433

 

More on the media...

http://whale.to/m/media.html
(excerpt)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Udo Ulfkotte, a former editor for the German main daily newspaper, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ), has first hand knowledge of how the CIA and German Intelligence (BND) bribe journalists to write articles free of truth, facts, and with a decidedly pro-Western, pro-NATO bent or, in other words, propaganda. In his bestselling book Bought Journalists ("Gekaufte Journalisten"), Dr. Ulfkotte explains in great detail the workings of the US and NATO’s propaganda campaign and how a lack of compliance with it, on the part of a journalist, can cost a career. Dr. Ulfkotte also provides a wealth of names!

 

Chomsky is an active denier of multiple genocides, including those in Bosnia and Cambodia. He's currently making excuses for why it's fine for Russia to perpetrate genocide in Ukraine.

By doing so, he aids those who perpetrate the genocides.

Chomsky is morally and intellectually on the same level as holocaust deniers. No decent person associates with him.

Chomsky isn't a leftist. He's just an America-hater and lover of communism/alt-right fascism. He never saw a Russian/communist atrocity that he didn't defend. If Chomsky is saying something, it's because it helps his genocidal fascist/communist pals in some way.

 

Can you link to something? Sometime when two groups of people disagree, it's because they believe different versions of what's happening even though they both have good intentions. Here's an example. We know the official version of why the US fought in Vietnam.

Here's Chomsky's version.

The Legacy of the Vietnam War
Noam Chomsky interviewed by Paul Shannon
https://chomsky.info/198210__/

If you base your opinions on the official version of what's going on on Russia, Chomsky sounds like a mental pervert. He's basing his opinions on info such as this.
http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/how-can-we-get-objective-info-on-russia.619407/

If that's what's happening, he seems quite sane.

Here's some stuff you should check out.
http://politicalforum.com/index.php...he-jews-part-2.610995/page-20#post-1074290299
http://politicalforum.com/index.php...he-jews-part-2.610995/page-25#post-1074357307

Those people don't say it didn't happen. They say it happened differently. They don't consider themselves to be deniers. They consider themselves to be revisionists and truth-seekers.

Chomsky has been saying some strange things lately. I think some government goons paid him a visit and made him an offer he couldn't refuse. Here's an example.

The Shame of Noam Chomsky & left gatekeepers: Zwicker (#3


I've been listening to other anti-establishment pundits lately because of this.

 

Also, check out the info in post #2 of this thread. Chomsky is not the only one.

 

Have to laugh at the ridiculous "explanation". The conspiracy hero Chomsky, a man of virtue, who "tells it like it is", says something the conspiracy theorists don't like and all of a sudden he's been "got at".

 

They can be credibly threatened. Look what happened to this guy.
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-official-story.514874/page-2#post-1073089437

 

Here's RFK Jr. talking about science journals.


http://whale.to/c/mercury78966.html
(excerpt)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
RS: You mentioned the science journals?


RFK, JR: The science journals are also corrupted. It's common for these journals to receive half or more of their income from pharma ads and reprint orders. Many of them are owned by drug companies. Dr. Marcia Angell, the former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine and Richard Horton, the current editor-in-chief of The Lancet, the world's two preeminent science journals, have both recently declared that half of their articles are untrue—concocted by authors compromised by "flagrant conflicts of interest." Pharma's stranglehold on the journals keeps independent vaccine safety science from ever getting published. Just this month, the Swiss journal, Frontiers in Public Health, cancelled publication of the first vaccinated/unvaccinated study. The study showed that vaccinated children had less measles and rubella, but four times as many neurological disorders—including autism –and 30 times the incidence of allergies. Frontiers panicked after it put up the abstract and got 78,000 views in a day and, presumably, a lot of heat from pharma. I could give you a parade of other examples of great studies that either can't find a publisher, or get published and then taken down as soon as the journals feel the heat. As it turns out, the people who run those journals are no Bravehearts. Self-preservation is the overriding motivation.

 

If you cannot see how absurd your argument is then you really are lost down the rabbit-hole. Chomsky makes a whole barrage of negative statements about the US, but for some reason they "threaten him" about the most ludicrous one of them all and allow him to freely continue with the rest of it. Totally absurd.

Uhuh, a jackass talking about something he has no qualification in. It's like this colossal self-supporting wall of crap that helps his antivax message. The implication on numbers of corrupt people would be staggering.

I find it nauseating in the extreme that in the world of "conspiracy research" everyone is dishonest, as opposed to the actual real dishonest people, the conspiracy "researchers"!

 

@Scott The publication of the study was actually cancelled in 2016 and it was absolutely not the first study of unvaccinated vs vaccinated. The study was removed for good reason. The study was an anonymous internet poll which anybody could answer honestly or otherwise. Anti-vaccination lobby groups were informed about it in advance and paid to conduct it.

https://retractionwatch.com/2016/11...m-pulled-frontiers-following-heavy-criticism/

In 2012, an article discussed how researchers were trying to get funding for this research —

https://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2012/11/29/fundraising-for-antivaccine-research

Here are some research studies/articles that compare vaccinated to unvaccinated children.

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-rel...-in-three-us-medical-practices-301068630.html

REDDING, Calif., June 1, 2020 /PRNewswire/ -- A new peer-reviewed study in the journal SAGE Open Medicine detailing the health outcomes of vaccinated versus unvaccinated children concludes that unvaccinated children have better health outcomes than their vaccinated peers within the conditions examined and suggests that further study is necessary to understand the full spectrum of health effects associated with vaccination.

https://healthfeedback.org/claimrev...r-comparing-disease-incidence-in-both-groups/

This analysis reviewed several studies and found that large-scale, reputable studies did not support the claim that unvaccinated children are healthier than vaccinated children. It highlighted issues with the metrics and methodologies used in some studies that suggested otherwise.

Here is an article that further debunks your misinformation that there are no studies related to vaccinated vs unvaccinated.

https://thoughtscapism.com/2015/04/...health-of-unvaccinated-and-vaccinated-people/

It is obvious your sources of information are full of misinformation. I have corrected your erroneous statements.

 

I never said that and you seem to be misrepresenting what RFK Jr. said. Go back and read what he said again.
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-lies-furiously.583345/page-5#post-1074976200

 

More info on what gets published...

http://whale.to/v/vaccine_research.html
(excerpt)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The conflict of interest (COI) among vaccine manufacturers is fairly obvious. Worldwide sales of pediatric vaccines alone were $11.5 billion in 2009, and it’s expected to reach $20 billion by 2014. The usual risk of lawsuits when products go bad and cause injury doesn’t help curb ineffective or unsafe vaccines because The National Childhood Vaccination Injury Act of 1986 indemnifies them in the event of injury. This waiver was given because pharmaceutical corporations were refusing to develop new vaccines, saying that they were not profitable.

The one arena in which pharmaceutical manufacturers express concern about safety is the potential loss of sales. DeLong tells the tale of Maurice Hilleman, a vaccine researcher for Merck. In an internal memo in 1991, he reported that some countries were considering a ban on thimerosal, a mercury-containing preservative. He said that he didn’t know if thimerosal is dangerous. However, he warned that public perceptions could affect sales. The one concern Hilleman expressed had nothing to do with investigating whether mercury was safe, but whether the company should reduce the amount of thimerosal in vaccines because of public perceptions.

The influence of vaccine manufacturers is ubiquitous. They sponsor research and researchers. A survey of the top US medical research institutions found that over two-thirds of the researchers received industry support. Unsurprisingly, studies have shown that researchers tend to get results that coincide with their financial interests.

Entire institutions are affected by pharma money. Whether it comes in the form of grants, endowed chairs, or other goodies, the results sway entire institutions to get on board with what pharma wants.

A more subtle form of control is pharma giving the bulk of their university-related money to senior and well-established researchers who played ball with them. A clear message is sent to younger researchers that they must play the same game.

Authors of research papers do not always disclose all their associations with pharma corporations, leaving the reader unaware of potentially worrisome connections. This echoes Big Tobacco’s ability to find researchers willing to compromise themselves by calling smoking safe.

Big Pharma’s influence is ubiquitous in every arena where it has an interest. As a result, most published vaccine-related research is questionable.

 

Holocaust revisionism?

Our days of not taking you seriously are definitely coming to a middle.

 

You said it because you posted it.

I didn’t go to the link because I don’t read RFK’s constant barrage of horseshit of which everything you copied is a lie. What you quoted is a lie except I didn’t realize he said that in 2016. I stand corrected on that. The rest of his statement is false. The study was removed for the reasons I said. It was a bad study and that is why it was removed, not because the publishers panicked. He tried to state the study was the first vaccinated/unvaccinated study which I debunked too — see below

It was not the ‘first’ as I adequately demonstrated. It is sad you are trying to prove what you believe are lies related to vaccines with misinformation about vaccines from a man known to spread lies.

 

(from post #113)

He makes it clear that there have been a lot of studies. It's only big pharma that hasn't done any objective studies. You seem to be trying to muddy the waters.

Have you watched the videos? (post #109)

Post something on that thread and I'll reply to it there. We can talk about the actual details.

 

He is a very dishonest person, if he was pro-vaccine you would never in a million years entertain the noise he generates!

Hogwash.

A generalized spam statement that doesn't mean anything. You seem to be "missing" 95% of the content in these posts. Try reading it all and the muddy part caused by antivax propaganda will disappear. Well, it should if you are objective!

 

More on media corruption...

RFK Jr Exposes The Dirty Secret Between TV News & Big Pharma
https://rumble.com/v5ct8rt-rfk-jr-e...en-tv-news-and-big-pharma.html?e9s=src_v1_upp

 

From RFK? You've got to be kidding! This guy is a major antivax noise machine and simply doesn't like his failures being exposed.