This might be worth a discussion in the 'Enduring problems in philosophy' thread.
I don't know if you realise it, but this is exactly the view of postmodernist relativism.
Are you vaccinated for Covid-19
- Thread starter SlowUpTake
- Start date
This might be worth a discussion in the 'Enduring problems in philosophy' thread.
I don't know if you realise it, but this is exactly the view of postmodernist relativism.
o2b
Permanent Fixture
What is your point? Guilt by association?
As for me, what I wrote seems obvious to me and I had no awareness that postmodern relativism or Focault believed such.
o2b
Permanent Fixture
o2b
Permanent Fixture
I anticipated someone would write the above.
Please keep in mind the context within which I made my claim. It was under the condition that each container held an ounce of gold.
I appreciate your point. A peer reviewed journal is more likely to contain these ounces of gold. But that does not mean other literary sources have no possibility of containing ounces of gold (metaphor for papers of a high level of veracity) or that peer-reviewed papers may contain steaming piles of crap and also looking elsewhere is critical. Especially when money and power are involved.
What I am reading here seems to me to bely a high level of naivete and a lack of street smarts, street savvy.
Money and power can be incredibly persuasive. Scientific journals are very much the provenance of multi-million and multi-billion dollar corporations, governments, and academic institutions that vie for funding. Right off the bat, you can bet studies are allocated according to corporate desires and conclusions.
If anyone can't see fertile ground for deception, I have ocean front property in Nevada to sell them.
I'll give two examples.
Aspartame
Searle, manufacturer of aspartame was highly interested in making bundles with aspartame (nutrasweet). If you examine two demographics (papers sponsored by Searle versus papers with no such bias) you'll see that there is a compelling difference in their conclusions. Searle papers see no harm, the others very much do. I just did a quick internet search. Easy to verify.
Hemp
Hemp was outlawed in a coordinated campaign between corporations, media, and the government. DuPont wanted it declared illegal because hemp was more cost-effective as clothing than nylon. Hearst interests wanted it illegal because the newspaper magnate had paper manufacturing facilities using wood and hemp is more cost-effective than wood for paper.
So, they linked hemp with its close cousin, cannabis. There was a study that showed that cannabis was fatal to mice. Just another one of those high caliber studies in some nice shiny container.
It was determined later that the mice did not die of cannabis toxicity, they died of asphyxiation. So much cannabis smoke was drilled into the mice that they were oxygen deprived.
Then you have tobacco in the early days.
It is not only recommended to also examine material in blogs and other sources outside of the corporate-government-university nexus, it is essential.
Unless you want to buy a bridge.
I tried to just take a quote out of your initial thread and failed miserably.
I would adjust your assertion that things get dicey when power and money are involved. Not only is this about power and money it is also about peoples lives, this is about tens of millions of peoples lives.
I would adjust your assertion that things get dicey when power and money are involved. Not only is this about power and money it is also about peoples lives, this is about tens of millions of peoples lives.
o2b
Permanent Fixture
I contend that killing the children is a child of the psychopaths who lust for power. It is a natural consequence of their hunger for and use of power.
If you're not convinced by the standards of a peer-reviewed paper, why don't you look elsewhere in another peer-reviewed paper? Or many other peer-reviewed papers, for that matter.
We're lucky to live in an age where there are hundreds of such papers. If you should find that all such papers converge on the same position, it might just be that the position in question is scientifically uncontroversial.
The real deep issue here, it seems to me, it not about the "truth behind the vaccine", but about the extreme level of distrust we see in the US towards any official institution of any kind, on any topic whatsoever.
It's a problem that should be taken seriously—but the vaccine question is only the visible part of the iceberg.
Last edited:
Links to outside sources must include points for discussion.
https://gab.com/Brn2Wander/posts/107264531696591575
In the never ending saga of rules applications, I most certainly did not know that I HAVE to offer verbiage to links. As I stipulated earlier I am NOT looking for an argument. This is a post about the CDC admitting they have no documentation of an unvaxxed person with immunity (they have already had the virus) passing the virus. (This has been edited).
In the never ending saga of rules applications, I most certainly did not know that I HAVE to offer verbiage to links. As I stipulated earlier I am NOT looking for an argument. This is a post about the CDC admitting they have no documentation of an unvaxxed person with immunity (they have already had the virus) passing the virus. (This has been edited).
Last edited:
I'm not sure that copy pasting links to Gab posts without context is going to have any argumentative force here.
There aren't words for that. I guess thanks..........and that is what was found..........
So much for eating today..........
I've been trying to get someone to tie it all together into a narrative, or to explain why this is happening, what is the conspiracy? but alas .. I don't think they even know what's going on in their own conspiracy. Because if anyone could explain what is happening, they would have to think about it and then they'd begin to question the conspiracy. ( Is it aliens? Extra dimensional Lizard people? Super rich elitists? And why? What do they gain? Transhumanism was mentioned, like the vaccine is to prime us for that but it was not explained what the thinking on why that is, who is doing it and what is to be gained.) But you're right that it's a matter of people not being able to trust credible sources. I'm not sure what that stems from. But I think it perpetuates by tossing out various links and pieces of information (often misinformation or out of context info) until it all piles up into an overwhelming amount of information that you can't possibly break down to understand. That's why there's no narrative, no end game. No understanding just link after link of Twitter source or blog or Gab post. It's just a wild goose chase leading to nowhere but more and more outrageous claims. If you challenge someone on a claim, they respond by tossing another one at you. There's a spiraling disinformation problem especially in the US.
Last edited:
o2b
Permanent Fixture
o2b
Permanent Fixture
Hey @Ren -
I'll answer in a roundabout way.
I am aware of a few cures for cancer. One of them, I actually have no idea what it is specifically, save I think it involves a strict diet. It's called The Hoxsey Formula. A few years ago, I watched a series called The Truth About Cancer. It divulged various methods of combatting cancer, none of which have formal approval to my knowledge. The series was divided into a number of presentations, each one on a specific approach to healing from cancer. The end of each episode was about the testimony of a cancer survivor.
I just found a site that refers to the survivor I want to refer to here.
https://pancreaticcancerjourney.blogspot.com/2016/04/the-truth-about-cancer-episode-1.html
CANCER CONQUEROR: Pamela Kelsey
Pamela Kelsey was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer in 1975 and was told by doctors she had about a year and a half to live. She was 35 and thought her life was over.
But she took the essential first step of any cancer conqueror—she determined that she would beat cancer. And she would do it without poisoning her body with chemotherapy.
She went to the Biomedical Center in Tijuana, Mexico, where she was evaluated, given the Hoxsey Formula, a strict diet and a large dose of hope. As they had predicted, she began to turn around in less than 3 months.
Forty years later Pamela is now free of the pancreatic and the liver cancer that had been a death sentence decades before.
[end of excerpt]
Now, I saw the episode. I think the above is a bit inaccurate because I could swear her liver cancer was far more recent. Anyway, Ms. Kelsey said she went through a divorce, her lifestyle worsened causing her immune system to worsen. She said she developed liver cancer that metastasized throughout her body. Another death sentence, back to The Hoxsey Formula, and she is again recovered.
My point? Try to find scientific papers on The Hoxsey Formula. (After a couple brief attempts, I failed to find any and gave up.)
In fact, as I was writing this post, I thought Kelsey used The Gerson Therapy and saw my mistake when I found an article on her. That has cured cancer as well. I internet searched for scientific papers on The Gerson Therapy and one site devoted to the subject listed a lot. Not a one was later than 1930.
So, my short and partial answer is that too often they are not even a source of the information I am interested in, such as methods that have repeatedly cured pancreatic cancer. There is too much prevalence of peer reviewed papers suppressing papers that do not have the blessing of Big Pharma.
If it's not appropriate then why are you sharing little snippets of info from various places in multiple threads? If you think you know the truth then share it as a whole. Who's coming after you if you do? I thought this was all about the truth? Then why not share it?
I think it goes back to being afraid to lay it all out. Because then we can really examine the claims. And you would have to then, too. That's my theory.
That way, anyone can "do their research" on your curated links, come to their own conclusions or get trapped in the rabbit hole of outrageous claim after outrageous claim by unverified uncredible source after unverified uncredible source, and no one can debate that. Because no one has any idea what's actually going on or what the whole conspiracy even is. And no one even has any discernment anymore on the information because everything (that's not related to an institution or an expert or that is peer-reviewed) is sound. Or maybe not sound, but at least worth hearing out. Right? I've seen a few people throw some link out and say, maybe true maybe not true--but the intent isn't to gain insight, it's to rile up emotions and cloud thinking and get people sucked into the conspiracy theory rabbit hole.
Last edited:
