Why do people believe conspiracy theories? | Page 14 | INFJ Forum

Why do people believe conspiracy theories?

muir said:
Once again you have shown you don't bother reading what i post....

I told you that flouride calcifies the pineal gland
Click to expand...

We are running into the problem of we are both typing here, so lets give each other a 2 or 3 post leeway before claiming not reading posts. We don't see each others posts while we are typing our responses.
 
muir said:
I'll say it again they were injecting people with thimerosol for decades before finally conceeding that there are problems

I'll say it again a babies body does not have the same capacity to process mercury that an adult body can

There is no point applying adult standards to babies who were being dosed with repeated shots of mercury

Now they are still being dosed with all the other ingrediants in the vaccines

Robert kennedy on thimerosol:

[video=youtube;zrIM2hwrLoc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrIM2hwrLoc[/video]
Click to expand...

They did not concede that there where problems, they conceded that there was the possibility to problems, and they had the option to either do expensive research or revert to other viable options instead of thermisol. However, since autism rates have not decreased since thermisol was removed, obviously thermisol is not the cause. And we are not applying adult standards to babies considering they redesigned vaccines to use a different preservative (or no preservative) for the babies because of the possibility of a danger. But again because autism rates have not decreased, its apparently not the cause.
 
dogman6126 said:
We are running into the problem of we are both typing here, so lets give each other a 2 or 3 post leeway before claiming not reading posts. We don't see each others posts while we are typing our responses.
Click to expand...

You've been doing it a lot often with days inbetween

In the vaccines thread i had to keep repeating myself or finding more stuff to say what i'd already covered
 
muir said:
Show me the government funded research on this

Tell me which rich patron whether a private client or corporation such as big pharma or the industry that produces the flouride chemicals has paid out of their pocket to do that research and then tell me which journals and publishing houses owned by the corporate round table group the CFR will publish that research?
Click to expand...

I was asking you. And the corporation conspiracy is not even related. If these people have fluoride calcifications in the brain, they can go and see what concentrations of fluoride led to that calcification. I looked at the article you quoted, and they said nothing about that important piece of information. Convenient. Again, your showing your confirmation bias. choosing what you want to believe and what you don't want to believe. If your going to post that article about fluoride calcification, you should also clarify the cause. Otherwise your working with conjecture AGAIN.
 
dogman6126 said:
They did not concede that there where problems, they conceded that there was the possibility to problems, and they had the option to either do expensive research or revert to other viable options instead of thermisol. However, since autism rates have not decreased since thermisol was removed, obviously thermisol is not the cause. And we are not applying adult standards to babies considering they redesigned vaccines to use a different preservative (or no preservative) for the babies because of the possibility of a danger. But again because autism rates have not decreased, its apparently not the cause.
Click to expand...

http://www.autism-world.com/index.php/2007/04/01/autism-rates-drop-after-mercury-removed/

[h=2]Autism Rates Drop After Mercury Removed[/h] April 1st, 2007
An article in the March 10, 2006 issue of the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons shows that since mercury was removed from childhood vaccines, the alarming increase in reported rates of autism and other neurological disorders (NDs) in children not only stopped, but actually dropped sharply – by as much as 35%.
Using the government’s own databases, independent researchers analyzed reports of childhood NDs, including autism, before and after removal of mercury-based preservatives. Authors David A. Geier, B.A. and Mark R. Geier, M.D., Ph.D. analyze data from the CDC’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) and the California Department of Developmental Services (CDDS) in “Early Downward Trends in Neurodevelopmental Disorders Following Removal of Thimerosal-Containing Vaccines.”
The numbers from California show that reported autism rates hit a high of 800 in May 2003. If that trend had continued, the reports would have skyrocketed to more than 1000 by the beginning of 2006. But in fact, the Geiers report that the number actually went down to only 620, a real decrease of 22%, and a decrease from the projections of 35%.
This analysis directly contradicts 2004 recommendations of the Institute of Medicine which examined vaccine safety data from the National Immunization Program (NIP) of the CDC. While not willing to either rule out or to corroborate a relationship between mercury and autism, the IOM soft-pedaled its findings, and decided no more studies were needed. The authors write: “The IOM stated that the evidence favored rejection of a causal relationship between thimerosal and autism, that such a relationship was not biologically plausible, and that no further studies should be conducted to evaluate it.”
As more and more vaccines were added to the mandatory schedule of vaccines for children, the dose of the mercury-based preservative thimerosal rose, so that the cumulative dose injected into babies exceeded the toxic threshold set by many government agencies. Mercury is known to damage nerve cells in very low concentrations.
The concern about vaccines may actually be underrated, as it is generally acknowledged that the voluntary reporting of such disorders has resulted in vast underreporting of new cases. For example, the Iowa state legislature banned thimerosal from all vaccines administered there after it documented a 700-fold increase in that state alone. California followed suit, and 32 states are considering doing so.
Up until about 1989 pre-school children got only 3 vaccines (polio, DPT, MMR). By 1999 the CDC recommended a total of 22 vaccines to be given before children reach the 1st grade, including Hepatitis B, which is given to newborns within the first 24 hours of birth. Many of these vaccines contained mercury. In the 1990s approximately 40 million children were injected with mercury-containing vaccines.
The cumulative amount of mercury being given to children in this number of vaccines would be an amount 187 times the EPA daily exposure limit.
Between 1989 and 2003, there has been an explosion of autism. The incidence of autism (and other related disorders) went from about 1 in 2,500 children to 1 in every 166. Currently there are more than a half million children in the U.S. that have autism. This disorder has devastated families.
In 1999, on the recommendation of the American Academy of Pediatrics and U.S. Public Health Service, thimerosal was removed from most childhood vaccines as a “precautionary” measure – i.e. without admitting to any causal link between thimerosal and autism.
The Geiers conclude that mercury continues to be a concern, as it is still added to some of the most commonly-used vaccines, such as those for flu:
“Despite its removal from many childhood vaccines, thimerosal is still routinely added to some formulations of influenza vaccine administered to U.S. infants, as well as to several other vaccines (e.g. tetanus-diphtheria and monovalent tetanus) administered to older children and adults. In 2004, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences (NAS) retreated from the stated 1999 goal of the AAP and the PHS to remove thimerosal from U.S. vaccines as soon as possible.As a result, assessing the safety of TCVs [thimerosal-containing vaccines] is a matter of significant importance.”
 
muir said:
I worked with autistic kids too in the past

The problem with speaking to medical staff (and i know a lot of medical people) is that they do not always have the technical background to research these things

So the problem is that they end up believing what they are told by the authorities

The 'authorities' are basically government and the corporate lobby

The corporate lobby is big pharma, big industry, the media, finance, publishing and magazines and journals and so on...all of which have a vested interest in maintaining certain illusions

Doctors often just believe what drug companies are telling them and sometimes (and i have been told this by a doctor) they receive kickbacks from the drug companies; in fact there has been a scandal in recent years involving glaxo smith klein being caught bribing doctors

That's how its done...bribery and corruption

The idea that autism is genetic fails to explain the dramatic rise in autism:

Since this lecture was given, the rate has increased from 1/110 to 1/88

[video=youtube;9feDusrlb4U]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9feDusrlb4U[/video]

Wake up!
Click to expand...

Ok then muir. Also, in addition to vaccines, not holding your child enough will cause autism. ADHD too. Oh, and also improper heart growth. Doctors may disagree with me, but I know that's the truth.

That's basically what your saying muir. Your doing confirmation bias! That's why I hate conspiracy theories. You don't use real science.
 
muir said:
You've been doing it a lot often with days inbetween

In the vaccines thread i had to keep repeating myself or finding more stuff to say what i'd already covered
Click to expand...

That's because you've actually shown such effects. In this case, the cause is obvious, the delay in our response. Before, it was more apparent in the number of times I had to repeat myself. All the same, that's irrelevant. Here, we can know that our responses are delayed.
 
dogman6126 said:
I was asking you. And the corporation conspiracy is not even related. If these people have fluoride calcifications in the brain, they can go and see what concentrations of fluoride led to that calcification. I looked at the article you quoted, and they said nothing about that important piece of information. Convenient. Again, your showing your confirmation bias. choosing what you want to believe and what you don't want to believe. If your going to post that article about fluoride calcification, you should also clarify the cause. Otherwise your working with conjecture AGAIN.
Click to expand...

You fail to realise how research works

Research requires financial backing

Big money is only interested in reearch that can make them money...they want to discourage research that will harm their profits

This was all covered in that canadian documentary i posted above where they speak to lots of scientists and doctors

If you had watched the documentary then you would know how research is skewed by money
 
dogman6126 said:
Ok then muir. Also, in addition to vaccines, not holding your child enough will cause autism. ADHD too. Oh, and also improper heart growth. Doctors may disagree with me, but I know that's the truth.

That's basically what your saying muir. Your doing confirmation bias! That's why I hate conspiracy theories. You don't use real science.
Click to expand...

No that's not what i'm saying

It's what tens of thousand sof parents from dozens of countries are saying as well as many scientists and doctors

If you would just look at the stuff i'm posting you would know all this
 
muir said:
http://www.autism-world.com/index.php/2007/04/01/autism-rates-drop-after-mercury-removed/

[h=2]Autism Rates Drop After Mercury Removed[/h] April 1st, 2007
An article in the March 10, 2006 issue of the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons shows that since mercury was removed from childhood vaccines, the alarming increase in reported rates of autism and other neurological disorders (NDs) in children not only stopped, but actually dropped sharply – by as much as 35%.
Using the government’s own databases, independent researchers analyzed reports of childhood NDs, including autism, before and after removal of mercury-based preservatives. Authors David A. Geier, B.A. and Mark R. Geier, M.D., Ph.D. analyze data from the CDC’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) and the California Department of Developmental Services (CDDS) in “Early Downward Trends in Neurodevelopmental Disorders Following Removal of Thimerosal-Containing Vaccines.”
The numbers from California show that reported autism rates hit a high of 800 in May 2003. If that trend had continued, the reports would have skyrocketed to more than 1000 by the beginning of 2006. But in fact, the Geiers report that the number actually went down to only 620, a real decrease of 22%, and a decrease from the projections of 35%.
This analysis directly contradicts 2004 recommendations of the Institute of Medicine which examined vaccine safety data from the National Immunization Program (NIP) of the CDC. While not willing to either rule out or to corroborate a relationship between mercury and autism, the IOM soft-pedaled its findings, and decided no more studies were needed. The authors write: “The IOM stated that the evidence favored rejection of a causal relationship between thimerosal and autism, that such a relationship was not biologically plausible, and that no further studies should be conducted to evaluate it.”
As more and more vaccines were added to the mandatory schedule of vaccines for children, the dose of the mercury-based preservative thimerosal rose, so that the cumulative dose injected into babies exceeded the toxic threshold set by many government agencies. Mercury is known to damage nerve cells in very low concentrations.
The concern about vaccines may actually be underrated, as it is generally acknowledged that the voluntary reporting of such disorders has resulted in vast underreporting of new cases. For example, the Iowa state legislature banned thimerosal from all vaccines administered there after it documented a 700-fold increase in that state alone. California followed suit, and 32 states are considering doing so.
Up until about 1989 pre-school children got only 3 vaccines (polio, DPT, MMR). By 1999 the CDC recommended a total of 22 vaccines to be given before children reach the 1st grade, including Hepatitis B, which is given to newborns within the first 24 hours of birth. Many of these vaccines contained mercury. In the 1990s approximately 40 million children were injected with mercury-containing vaccines.
The cumulative amount of mercury being given to children in this number of vaccines would be an amount 187 times the EPA daily exposure limit.
Between 1989 and 2003, there has been an explosion of autism. The incidence of autism (and other related disorders) went from about 1 in 2,500 children to 1 in every 166. Currently there are more than a half million children in the U.S. that have autism. This disorder has devastated families.
In 1999, on the recommendation of the American Academy of Pediatrics and U.S. Public Health Service, thimerosal was removed from most childhood vaccines as a “precautionary” measure – i.e. without admitting to any causal link between thimerosal and autism.
The Geiers conclude that mercury continues to be a concern, as it is still added to some of the most commonly-used vaccines, such as those for flu:
“Despite its removal from many childhood vaccines, thimerosal is still routinely added to some formulations of influenza vaccine administered to U.S. infants, as well as to several other vaccines (e.g. tetanus-diphtheria and monovalent tetanus) administered to older children and adults. In 2004, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences (NAS) retreated from the stated 1999 goal of the AAP and the PHS to remove thimerosal from U.S. vaccines as soon as possible.As a result, assessing the safety of TCVs [thimerosal-containing vaccines] is a matter of significant importance.”
Click to expand...

I question the validity of those statistics. There are conflicting answers as to prevalence of autism over the last 20 years. Here's a Wikipedia quote and source
Attention has been focused on whether the prevalence of autism is increasing with time. Earlier prevalence estimates were lower, centering at about 0.5 per 1,000 for autism during the 1960s and 1970s and about 1 per 1,000 in the 1980s, as opposed to today's 1–2 per 1,000.[2]


Bar chart versus time. The graph rises steadily from 1996 to 2007, from about 0.7 to about 5.3. The trend curves slightly upward.


Reports of autism cases per 1,000 children grew dramatically in the U.S. from 1996 to 2007. It is unknown how much, if any, growth came from changes in autism's prevalence.[23]
The number of reported cases of autism increased dramatically in the 1990s and early 2000s, prompting investigations into several potential reasons:[24]
More children may have autism; that is, the true frequency of autism may have increased.
There may be more complete pickup of autism (case finding), as a result of increased awareness and funding. For example, attempts to sue vaccine companies may have increased case-reporting.
The diagnosis may be applied more broadly than before, as a result of the changing definition of the disorder, particularly changes in DSM-III-R and DSM-IV.
An editorial error in the description of the PDD-NOS category of Autism Spectrum Disorders in the DSM-IV, in 1994, inappropriately broadened the PDD-NOS construct. The error was corrected in the DSM-IV-TR, in 2000, reversing the PDD-NOS construct back to the more restrictive diagnostic criteria requirements from the DSM-III-R.[25]
Successively earlier diagnosis in each succeeding cohort of children, including recognition in nursery (preschool), may have affected apparent prevalence but not incidence.
A review of the "rising autism" figures compared to other disabilities in schools shows a corresponding drop in findings of mental retardation.[26]

The reported increase is largely attributable to changes in diagnostic practices, referral patterns, availability of services, age at diagnosis, and public awareness.[2][3][23] A widely cited 2002 pilot study concluded that the observed increase in autism in California cannot be explained by changes in diagnostic criteria,[27] but a 2006 analysis found that special education data poorly measured prevalence because so many cases were undiagnosed, and that the 1994–2003 U.S. increase was associated with declines in other diagnostic categories, indicating that diagnostic substitution had occurred.[28]

A 2007 study that modeled autism incidence found that broadened diagnostic criteria, diagnosis at a younger age, and improved efficiency of case ascertainment, can produce an increase in the frequency of autism ranging up to 29-fold depending on the frequency measure, suggesting that methodological factors may explain the observed increases in autism over time.[29] A small 2008 study found that a significant number (40%) of people diagnosed with pragmatic language impairment as children in previous decades would now be given a diagnosis as autism.[30] A study of all Danish children born in 1994–99 found that children born later were more likely to be diagnosed at a younger age, supporting the argument that apparent increases in autism prevalence were at least partly due to decreases in the age of diagnosis.[31]

A 2009 study of California data found that the reported incidence of autism rose 7- to 8-fold from the early 1990s to 2007, and that changes in diagnostic criteria, inclusion of milder cases, and earlier age of diagnosis probably explain only a 4.25-fold increase; the study did not quantify the effects of wider awareness of autism, increased funding, and expanding treatment options resulting in parents' greater motivation to seek services.[32] Another 2009 California study found that the reported increases are unlikely to be explained by changes in how qualifying condition codes for autism were recorded.[33]

Several environmental risk factors have been proposed to support the hypothesis that the actual frequency of autism has increased. These include certain foods, infectious disease, pesticides, MMR vaccine, and vaccines containing the preservative thiomersal, formerly used in several childhood vaccines in the U.S.[2] Although there is overwhelming scientific evidence against the MMR hypothesis and no convincing evidence for the thiomersal hypothesis, other as-yet-unidentified environmental risk factors cannot be ruled out.[3] Although it is unknown whether autism's frequency has increased, any such increase would suggest directing more attention and funding toward changing environmental factors instead of continuing to focus on genetics.[34]
Click to expand...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epidemiology_of_autism
and from the CDC
http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/data.html
and science daily
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/10/131016213046.htm (this one has some interesting points comparing the U.S. and UK)
And a statistic from some data accountability website
http://247wallst.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/change-in-school-autism-rates-by-state.jpg
http://247wallst.com/investing/2011/03/10/can-america-afford-the-rising-cost-of-autism-education/

However, I'm not sure why the discrepancy of information. I have a few ideas, but I'm to tired to check them all.
 
muir said:
You fail to realise how research works

Research requires financial backing

Big money is only interested in reearch that can make them money...they want to discourage research that will harm their profits

This was all covered in that canadian documentary i posted above where they speak to lots of scientists and doctors

If you had watched the documentary then you would know how research is skewed by money
Click to expand...

Well then nothing science says is right. Even private research. The moon actually IS made of cheese. We are NOT made of atoms, but rather spiritual plasma or something. That group that you keep talking about muir? They are actually aliens from mercury. Not rich people. Oh, and the sun is actually cold, not hot.
Each discrepancy from the "truth" that I just listed is all a ploy by the aliens from mercury trying to make us all stupid so we will be easier to take over.
 
muir said:
No that's not what i'm saying

It's what tens of thousand sof parents from dozens of countries are saying as well as many scientists and doctors

If you would just look at the stuff i'm posting you would know all this
Click to expand...

But far more doctors and scientists are saying otherwise.
 
dogman6126 said:
I question the validity of those statistics. There are conflicting answers as to prevalence of autism over the last 20 years. Here's a Wikipedia quote and source
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epidemiology_of_autism
and from the CDC
http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/data.html
and science daily
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/10/131016213046.htm (this one has some interesting points comparing the U.S. and UK)
And a statistic from some data accountability website
http://247wallst.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/change-in-school-autism-rates-by-state.jpg
http://247wallst.com/investing/2011/03/10/can-america-afford-the-rising-cost-of-autism-education/

However, I'm not sure why the discrepancy of information. I have a few ideas, but I'm to tired to check them all.
Click to expand...

The reason for the discrepancy is what i've been trying tom tell you throughout this debate:

IN THESE SITUATIONS BOTH SIDES WILL BRING FORTH THEIR CONTRADICTORY SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE

There comes a point man where you have to stand back a little from it all, lok at the bigger picture and begin to use the wits that nature gave you
 
myself said:
@dogman6126
Can you show how Fluoride added to our water is a good thing?
Do people generally believe fluoridation is good, a nice perk of living in America, something we are blessed to be dosed with?
Click to expand...

First, sorry I missed responding to your comment :)

That would in fact be the next step of the question after we determine our perspective on fluoridated water toxicity. If it is toxic, then it is defiantly a bad thing. If it is not toxic, then your question is the next one to pursue. Unfortunately we have not passed the toxicity stage of this argument. To answer it in a quick note, there are many studies that have well proven that fluoride does improve dental health. Apparently there was a study on old skeletons that's showed communities that lived closer to water sources with fluoride had fewer incidences of cavities. Now this raises the question of is that a causation? Also questions of is the levels of fluoride in our water supplies sufficient to have such an effect? Are there other more effective means? Among many others. These are just those off the top of my head.
For me, I think that the fluoride in our water is not dangerous in any way, and there is a possibility of it being beneficial (I don't know for sure on if its beneficial) so I'm ok with it.

Also, I am very much ok with changing my mind on something, but I need proof in this case. All the evidence I have seen (reliable evidence) does not show in any way that it is dangerous. There are a few points that are of interest to me, for example the difference between sodium fluoride and fluosilicic acid, however concentrations are just so low that its not much of a consideration. Then I have questions about buildup, how fast the body expels the fluoride, and if there is buildup, what concentration is need before buildup begins and at what amounts of buildup occur. I have seen a few scraps of information relating to this, none direct, but each imply that the body expels it fairly quickly, and buildup only occurs when blood concentrations are high.

I'm open to agreeing fluoride is toxic, I just need evidence.
 
muir said:
The reason for the discrepancy is what i've been trying tom tell you throughout this debate:

IN THESE SITUATIONS BOTH SIDES WILL BRING FORTH THEIR CONTRADICTORY SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE

There comes a point man where you have to stand back a little from it all, lok at the bigger picture and begin to use the wits that nature gave you
Click to expand...

How did I know that is exactly what you would say. I posted a few government sites, a few non government sites, and yet you still dismiss my points as part of the conspiracy. Notice this is yet another thing we predicated that conspiracy theorists will do. Your argument is non falsifiable. That is not a logical or scientific argument.
 
dogman6126 said:
Well then nothing science says is right. Even private research. The moon actually IS made of cheese. We are NOT made of atoms, but rather spiritual plasma or something. That group that you keep talking about muir? They are actually aliens from mercury. Not rich people. Oh, and the sun is actually cold, not hot.
Each discrepancy from the "truth" that I just listed is all a ploy by the aliens from mercury trying to make us all stupid so we will be easier to take over.
Click to expand...

It's all smoke and mirrors...they denied for years that cigarettes were harmful. They produced 'scientific evidence' to show that cigarettes weren't dangerous and so on but at the end of the day people figured it out and whistleblowers exposed it; eventually it became such common knowledge that hollywood made a film about it:

[video=youtube;5rkvxi5hdbA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rkvxi5hdbA[/video]

Its a shame hollywood couldnt make a film about it before it became common knowledge...but then they never would because they are involved with the council on foreing relations:

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

Members of the Council on Foreign Relations

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Main article: Council on Foreign Relations
There are two types of Council on Foreign Relations membership: life, and term membership, which lasts for five years and is available to those between the ages of 30 and 36 at the time of their application. Only U.S. citizens (native born or naturalized) and permanent residents who have applied for U.S. citizenship are eligible. A candidate for life membership must be nominated in writing by one Council member and seconded by a minimum of three others (strongly encouraged to be other CFR members).[SUP][1][/SUP]
Corporate membership (250 in total) is divided into "Basic", "Premium" ($25,000+) and "President's Circle" ($50,000+). All corporate executive members have opportunities to hear distinguished speakers, such as overseas presidents and prime ministers, chairmen and CEOs of multinational corporations, and US officials and Congressmen. President and premium members are also entitled to other benefits, including attendance at small, private dinners or receptions with senior American officials and world leaders.[SUP][2]

[/SUP]
Board of directors

The Board of Directors of the Council on Foreign Relations is composed in total of thirty-six officers. Peter G. Peterson and David Rockefeller are Directors Emeriti (Chairman Emeritus and Honorary Chairman, respectively). It also has an International Advisory Board consisting of thirty-five distinguished individuals from across the world.[SUP][3][/SUP][SUP][4][/SUP]
OfficeName
Co-Chairman of the BoardCarla A. Hills
Co-Chairman of the BoardRobert E. Rubin
Vice ChairmanRichard E. Salomon
PresidentRichard N. Haass
Board of Directors
John Abizaidformer Commander-in-Chief, United States Central Command
Peter Ackermanfounder, International Center on Nonviolent Conflict
Fouad Ajamiprofessor in Middle East Studies, Johns Hopkins University
Madeleine K. Albrightformer Secretary of State
Henry S. Bienenformer president, Northwestern University.
Alan Blindereconomics professor, Princeton University
Mary Boiesmanaging partner, Boies & McInnis
David G. Bradleychairman, Atlantic Media Company
Tom Brokawformer editor, NBC Nightly News
Sylvia Mathews BurwellBill and Melinda Gates Foundation
Kenneth M. Dubersteinformer White House Chief of Staff
Martin Feldsteineconomics professor, Harvard University
Stephen Friedmanformer chairman, Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board
Ann M. Fudgeformer CEO, Young & Rubicam
Pamela Gannpresident, Claremont McKenna College
J. Tomilson Hillvice chairman, The Blackstone Group
Donna Hrinakformer U.S. diplomat
Alberto IbargüenJohn S. and James L. Knight Foundation
Shirley Jacksonpresident, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
Henry R. Kravisco-founder, Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co.
Jami Miscikformer Deputy Director for Intelligence
Joseph S. Nye, Jr.Kennedy School of Government
James W. Owenschairman, Caterpillar Inc.
Peter G. Petersonchairman, Peter G. Peterson Foundation
Colin L. Powellformer Secretary of State, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Penny PritzkerCEO, Pritzker Realty
David M. Rubensteinco-founder, The Carlyle Group,
George Erik Rupppresident, International Rescue Committee
Frederick W. SmithCEO, FedEX
Joan E. Speroformer ambassador
Vin WeberCEO, Clark & Weinstock
Christine Todd Whitmanformer Governor of New Jersey, former Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency
Fareed Zakariaeditor-at-large, Time
Corporate membership

There are several levels of corporate membership. As of June 7, 2013 current members are:[SUP][5][/SUP]



  • Premium members


Notable current council members

This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (June 2013)

Current Emeritus and Honorary Officers and Directors


Notable historical members


List of Chairmen


List of presidents






Big lies are easy to achieve because many people always believe authority figures in uniforms

There was even a film about the big tobacco thing, called the insider:
 
Last edited:
dogman6126 said:
But far more doctors and scientists are saying otherwise.
Click to expand...

The problem with speaking to medical staff (and i know a lot of medical people) is that they do not always have the technical background to research these things

So the problem is that they end up believing what they are told by the authorities

The 'authorities' are basically government and the corporate lobby

The corporate lobby is big pharma, big industry, the media, finance, publishing and magazines and journals and so on...all of which have a vested interest in maintaining certain illusions

Doctors often just believe what drug companies are telling them and sometimes (and i have been told this by a doctor) they receive kickbacks from the drug companies; in fact there has been a scandal in recent years involving glaxo smith klein being caught bribing doctors

That's how its done...bribery and corruption and ignorance
 
dogman6126 said:
How did I know that is exactly what you would say. I posted a few government sites, a few non government sites, and yet you still dismiss my points as part of the conspiracy. Notice this is yet another thing we predicated that conspiracy theorists will do. Your argument is non falsifiable. That is not a logical or scientific argument.
Click to expand...

I can say the same thing to you

The difference is that you are defending liars and murderers

You were confused why none of your sources agreed and i explained it to you and now youre grumbling about it! lol
 
[MENTION=1871]muir[/MENTION]. Another example of your extreme competency at copy and paste. And at straying off the topic. Your conspiracy theory does not prove that fluoridated water is toxic.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Matt3737
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back