Conspiracy theorism versus political realism - Mothering Forums
 145Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#1 of 65 Old 06-03-2015, 08:58 AM - Thread Starter
 
SilverMoon010's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 2,420
Mentioned: 23 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 694 Post(s)
Conspiracy theorism versus political realism

The term "conspiracy theorist" has been thrown around a lot lately.

When it comes to vaccines, can someone tell me the difference between a conspiracy theorist versus a realist? It seems that anyone who questions the vaccination program at all and/or the motives behind the program are automatically deemed a conspiracy theorist. Does asking questions and questioning motives automatically make you a conspiracy theorist? Or are people who are actually realists being labeled inappropriately as conspiracy theorists? If the government is known to have conducted cover-ups in the past, is there a reason vaccines would be exempt from ever being covered up? Is there a reason why they would never be involved in a hiding information or covering up data when it comes to vaccines? Why or why not?
SilverMoon010 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#2 of 65 Old 06-03-2015, 09:08 AM
 
Mirzam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Sophia's Correction
Posts: 9,078
Mentioned: 55 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 651 Post(s)
It appears that some are of the opinion that vaccines are somehow immune to the shenanigans that go on in other areas of government/science. Those that produce, conduct science, and mandate vaccines are above reproach.

Why did the CDC suddenly change its information of polio in the Pink Book, it went from 95% asymptomatic to 75% asymptomatic. Correcting an oops?????



"Approximately 90% to 95% of infections cause no symptoms.[1]"
1. Atkinson W, Hamborsky J, McIntyre L, Wolfe S (eds.) (2009). "Poliomyelitis". Epidemiology and Prevention of Vaccine-Preventable Diseases (The Pink Book) (PDF) (11th ed.). Washington DC: Public Health Foundation. pp. 231–44.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poliomyelitis
-----
However, they have recently changed that figure to 72% now.
-----
"Up to 72% of all polio infections in children are asymptomatic."
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccin…/pubs/pink...oads/polio.pdf
-
"Most people who get infected with poliovirus (about 72 out of 100) will not have any visible symptoms."
http://www.cdc.gov/polio/about/index.htm
-----
You can still find the older CDC pinkbook version (which shows the 95% figure) stored here, although it probably may not be there for long.
http://web.archive.org/…/…/pubs/pink...oads/polio.pdf

I am Rhome

Last edited by Mirzam; 06-03-2015 at 09:10 AM.
Mirzam is offline  
#3 of 65 Old 06-03-2015, 09:40 AM
 
joyful bluebird's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: NC
Posts: 42
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
I see a trend of people treating doctors as gods. Not questioning anything. Doc says have this surgery, ok! Doc says take this med, ok! Doc says get this shot, ok! I don't know why people check their brain at the door of the dr office, but it definitely seems that they do. I think people still have the misconception that doctors/pharm companies/government are all on our side and would never do anything to harm us. And so then when some of us do question it, were labeled as paranoid conspiracy theorists. On this topic, have y'all seen the documentary called "bought"? Speaks directly on this.
joyful bluebird is offline  
 
#4 of 65 Old 06-03-2015, 09:56 AM
 
Turquesa's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Pacific Northwest
Posts: 8,476
Mentioned: 164 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2107 Post(s)
Has anyone read Vision of the Anointed?

It's written by a conservative and picks on liberals disproportionately, but even mostly-liberal me appreciated its premise.

Good Reads, linked above, summarizes the gist of it:

Quote:
In this book, he describes how elites—the anointed—have replaced facts and rational thinking with rhetorical assertions, thereby altering the course of our social policy.
Sowell argues that these rhetorical assertions are usually self-congratulatory and made at someone else's expense. One example is calling yourself "progressive" when you're liberal, implying that anyone who disagrees with you is "regressive." Now you may truly believe that , but you need more than rhetoric and moral snobbery to prove it because your idea of progress is going to be different from another person's.

(To be clear, this book is totally about the pot calling the kettle black. The Right also employs the rhetoric of the Anointed. If you don't believe it, watch them get all huffy about their "family values," as if anyone who disagrees with their policies goes home and beats their children every night ).

But none of these are actual arguments; they're substitutes for arguments. They involve basing a position on looking righteous instead of on solid arguments.

So what does this have to do with vaccines? Dismissing people who disagree with you as "conspiracy theorists" is a cheap way of trying to make oneself rational. It's just the rhetoric of the Anointed, those without a real solid argument for compliance to a government-issued vaccine schedule. That's why I'm finished taking it seriously.

I'm the crunchy mom Dr. Amy warned you about.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
#teamvaxchoice
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

RIP old MDC. We miss you!
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Turquesa is offline  
#5 of 65 Old 06-03-2015, 10:05 AM
 
zoeyzoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,535
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 134 Post(s)
I mentioned this in the other thread but I have seen things like the search results change on certain topics (colloidal silver is an example) where before it was how it is benign, how it used to be used, etc. Now I see it's dangerous according to the first few pages. It makes me look like a quack recommending that for short-term topical infections now where IMO it's perfectly safe. A lot of natural health topics don't even come up in the first few pages anymore.

I've seen a lot of reputable sites take down things or change things without being able to find anything new that has come out to back the new info. The Pink Book reference above is one example. SV40 (that was in the Polio vax at one time) is another. I think it's coincidental all these changes are happening at the same time the government has asserted more of an iron fist toward allopathic/pharma. I can't say for certain it's a conspiracy but the timing is suspect.

The concern I have is a lot of people are automatically jumping to other more out there conspiracies like agenda 21. I believe in a lot of these things there is probably some truth but just like a lot of us are claiming in the media lately there is some sensationalism in there. The truth is probably in the middle somewhere.

I think this stuff hurts our credibility too to get people to look at the pages and pages of facts we have on our side. Some of this stuff is really obvious and fact based but the typical person is going to believe what they remember in school or read in the papers (I know I did for a long time) or they will simply use an online search engine for the top page or two. Most people will never research anything further.
zoeyzoo is offline  
#6 of 65 Old 06-03-2015, 10:06 AM
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 600
Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 513 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by SilverMoon010 View Post
The term "conspiracy theorist" has been thrown around a lot lately.

When it comes to vaccines, can someone tell me the difference between a conspiracy theorist versus a realist? It seems that anyone who questions the vaccination program at all and/or the motives behind the program are automatically deemed a conspiracy theorist. Does asking questions and questioning motives automatically make you a conspiracy theorist? Or are people who are actually realists being labeled inappropriately as conspiracy theorists? If the government is known to have conducted cover-ups in the past, is there a reason vaccines would be exempt from ever being covered up? Is there a reason why they would never be involved in a hiding information or covering up data when it comes to vaccines? Why or why not?
I like the Wikipedia definition of conspiracy theory:
A conspiracy theory is an explanatory hypothesis that accuses two or more persons, a group, or an organization of having caused or covered up, through secret planning and deliberate action, an event or situation which is typically taken to be illegal or harmful.

If someone is pointing out conflicts of interest, biases, or other factors that might subconsciously or consciously influence thoughts, statements, and behavior, or pointing out sources of error, that does not mean they are coming up with a conspiracy thoery.

If someone suggests that people or organizations are causing or covering up illegal or harmful actions through "secret planning and deliberate action," then they are coming up with a conspiracy theory.

No organization or topic is exempt from being involved in a conspiracy, though different factors might make a conspiracy more or less plausible in a particular case--including but not limited to how much transparency there is in the process, how much money or power is at stake, the other motivations of the people involved, and how many people would need to be "in on" the secret planning for the conspiracy to work.

People who criticize a conspiracy theory are doing so, I think, because they think the conspiracy theory being put forth is either implausible based on various factors, is unsupported by credible evidence, or both.
sciencemum likes this.

Last edited by Jessica765; 06-03-2015 at 10:16 AM.
Jessica765 is offline  
#7 of 65 Old 06-03-2015, 10:20 AM
 
JamieCatheryn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SW Pa
Posts: 5,288
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 27 Post(s)
Those two polio figures don't conflict, both can be true if you look at the details. The first reassures though, says to me yes polio can get bad but usually is not so bad as it sounds. The other cuts down on the info, isn't reassuring about its rarity, and that asymptomatic carrier status is suddenly scary. Both statements can be totally true, it's just massaging the facts and leaving details out that don't support their case.

Nobody working on it would call what they do conspiracy, maybe they wouldn't even agree it's propaganda. Decisions get made and people work on getting support for them, that's all. It usually doesn't even require lies. Some expert group (with whatever their own biases are) weighs the full info themselves, advise some other committee and they make a decision for policy. They lobby and get laws made supporting it. The professionals "on the ground" are trained in the pro-policy side of things. The public relations people get the majority of the population on board with the policies, get the set of facts that support it disseminated. They get those who don't agree to be considered kooks or irresponsible, which becomes easy once the majority agrees once people get emotionally charged up they'll rant and slander the heck out of dissenters. This applies to a lot of stuff, vaccines are an excellent example though.

A conspiracy theorist would be the one telling you these decisions were made with malicious intent, to dumb down America, raise rates of mental disability, shorten life spans, make money no matter the human cost, or somehow try to lead events toward martial law. In reality, I am sure that every person along the way actually believed whatever they did was to help people, that the benefits to people outweighed any downsides. It's very rare for someone to believe they're doing something evil or selfish.
Turquesa likes this.
JamieCatheryn is offline  
#8 of 65 Old 06-03-2015, 10:21 AM
 
Turquesa's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Pacific Northwest
Posts: 8,476
Mentioned: 164 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2107 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jessica765 View Post
If someone is pointing out conflicts of interest or other factors that might subconsciously or consciously influence thoughts, statements, and behavior, that does not mean they are coming up with a conspiracy thoery.
THANK YOU!

Quote:
If someone suggests that people or organizations are causing or covering up illegal or harmful actions through "secret planning and deliberate action," then they are coming up with a conspiracy theory.
But maybe we should stop thinking about this, 100% of the time, in the pejorative. (General "we," not you personally).

The government spying on American phone calls, drug companies covering up Vioxx and SSRI data, banks selling faulty bundled derivatives, corporations writing boilerplate legislation for ALEC members . . . all are conspiracies. People join forces to do wrong things all of the time. Every day.

There comes a time when speculating too much on it is unhealthily cynical. But seeing suspicious activity and wondering if there's wrong-doing behind it isn't grounds for portraying people as mentally loopy.

(Again, I'm blasting that out to a broad audience, not at you personally).

I'm the crunchy mom Dr. Amy warned you about.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
#teamvaxchoice
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

RIP old MDC. We miss you!
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Turquesa is offline  
#9 of 65 Old 06-03-2015, 10:27 AM - Thread Starter
 
SilverMoon010's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 2,420
Mentioned: 23 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 694 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jessica765 View Post

People who criticize a conspiracy theory are doing so, I think, because they think the conspiracy theory being put forth is either implausible based on various factors, is unsupported by credible evidence, or both.
I agree with this. On the flip side, I have yet to see those criticizing conspiracy theories providing complete factual information to prove such activities such as covering up data, retracting information, and concealing wrongdoings from the public actually don't exist.

It comes down to a matter of mistrust. If there was trust in the government and its activities, would conspiracy theories even exist?

I think some "conspiracy theories" have more merit than others, seem much more plausible and reasonable, and yet even those are put to rest quickly from others. I put "conspiracy theories" in quotes because there is a degree of uncertainty, on either side. Has anyone proven these theories wrong completely? It seems people keep going back and forth trying to prove the other one wrong, but yet there is never any resolution on the matter of conspiracy theory versus not, is there? Do any of us know for sure just what the government's agenda is exactly, or is it all speculation, on both sides? The track record isn't very good, so to question the activities is not out in left field.

Criticizing any questions or motives regarding the vaccination program and claiming those who are asking those questions are merely "conspiracy theorists" seems more like a way to shut down the critical thinkers on the other side.

Last edited by SilverMoon010; 06-03-2015 at 10:29 AM.
SilverMoon010 is offline  
#10 of 65 Old 06-03-2015, 10:36 AM
 
Deborah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the Seacoast of Bohemia
Posts: 18,390
Mentioned: 373 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3204 Post(s)
Quote:
If someone suggests that people or organizations are causing or covering up illegal or harmful actions through "secret planning and deliberate action," then they are coming up with a conspiracy theory.
Perfect description of the Simpsonwood meeting. There was evidence of harm and a group of people decided to do further research rather than admit that they screwed up.

The first question is the degree to which they consciously decided on how the further research would be carried out.

The second question is why the people involved didn't move immediately to remove the substance that looked to be harmful. Of course, a firm line between babies who received the substance and babies who did not would have made further research much easier. It could even have been conducted in the US instead of in Denmark! But instead there was a gradual process which took years and made for a muddled picture of who got exposed and who didn't.

The third question is why the recommendation for flu vaccines during pregnancy. There was evidence of harm in the data available at Simpsonwood. If a substance is harmful to an infant, it would also be harmful to a fetus. Until clear data is available showing that it is not harmful to a fetus, vaccines containing this substance shouldn't be recommended.

etc., etc., etc.

vaccine injury is preventable
prevent it
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
(if the government still allows you to say no...) #teamvaxchoice
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Deborah is online now  
#11 of 65 Old 06-03-2015, 10:41 AM
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 600
Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 513 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by SilverMoon010 View Post
I agree with this. On the flip side, I have yet to see those criticizing conspiracy theories providing complete factual information to prove such activities such as covering up data, retracting information, and concealing wrongdoings from the public actually don't exist.
I think the burden of proof is on the party asserting that the conspiracy exists. Anyone can come up with a conspiracy theory about anyone, anytime, based on something or nothing. Just because someone accuses me of a conspiracy doesn't trigger some obligation from me to provide "complete factual information to prove" that the conspiracy doesn't exist. That's quite a burden, and one I would undertake only if I found some compelling reason to do so.

Last edited by Jessica765; 06-03-2015 at 10:48 AM.
Jessica765 is offline  
#12 of 65 Old 06-03-2015, 10:47 AM - Thread Starter
 
SilverMoon010's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 2,420
Mentioned: 23 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 694 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jessica765 View Post
I think the burden of proof is on the party asserting that the conspiracy exists. Anyone can come up with a conspiracy theory about anyone, anytime, based on something or nothing. Just because someone accuses me of a conspiracy doesn't trigger some obligation from me to provide "complete factual information to prove" that the conspiracy doesn't exist. That's quite a burden, and one I would undertake only if I found some compelling reason to do so.

Because there's no way to prove it doesn't exist. That's why it's a burden. Are you suggesting people should just trust what the government says and does to be true and proper, and to not ask questions? Maybe I am misinterpreting, but that's what I gather from your post.
Mirzam and mocha frappuccino like this.

Last edited by SilverMoon010; 06-03-2015 at 10:49 AM.
SilverMoon010 is offline  
#13 of 65 Old 06-03-2015, 10:52 AM - Thread Starter
 
SilverMoon010's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 2,420
Mentioned: 23 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 694 Post(s)
Someone who wants to criticize "conspiracy theories" should be able to explain why they criticize them and why they are false and extremely unrealistic, but like I said, I haven't seen that yet.
SilverMoon010 is offline  
#14 of 65 Old 06-03-2015, 10:58 AM
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 600
Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 513 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by SilverMoon010 View Post
Because there's no way to prove it doesn't exist. That's why it's a burden. It seems that line of thinking would provide a total lack of questioning motives and a total trust in the government and what they say and do. Maybe I am misinterpreting, but that's what I gather from your post.
I'm not sure whether we're understanding each other or not. Some thoughts/clarifications on my position:

1. I was mostly using "burden" in something closer to (but not identical to) the legal sense. The burden of proving accusations of wrongdoing of any kind is on the party doing the accusing. If you say I did something wrong, the burden is on you to provide evidence of that. Only after you've provided sufficient evidence that I did do it do I need to come up with evidence that I didn't do it. That seems like a fair approach to me, even outside the strictly legal situation. [ETA that I am way oversimplifying legal concepts of burdens of proof here; I'm really not talking about technical aspects of the law.]

2. I agree that it is impossible to prove that "activities such as covering up data, retracting information, and concealing wrongdoings from the public actually don't exist," because of course they exist. If that is the burden, it will never be met. The questions are whether they occurred in a particular case, and to what extent, and how if at all they led to harmful outcomes. Even if the answers to those questions favor the accused party, proving that is complicated and requires a lot of work--work that the accused party is not obligated to do just because someone has accused it of wrongdoing.

Last edited by Jessica765; 06-03-2015 at 11:22 AM.
Jessica765 is offline  
#15 of 65 Old 06-03-2015, 11:09 AM
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 600
Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 513 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by SilverMoon010 View Post
Because there's no way to prove it doesn't exist. That's why it's a burden. Are you suggesting people should just trust what the government says and does to be true and proper, and to not ask questions? Maybe I am misinterpreting, but that's what I gather from your post.
(emphasis added)

I think I posted while you were editing to reword this as a question. No, I'm not suggesting that. I'm not sure how you get that from my post; maybe you could explain further.
SilverMoon010 likes this.
Jessica765 is offline  
#16 of 65 Old 06-03-2015, 11:34 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 8,807
Mentioned: 251 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2601 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jessica765 View Post
I think the burden of proof is on the party asserting that the conspiracy exists.
I am not sure....

Speaking broadly and in general - if the party being accused of conspiracy has a history of conspiracy is is reasonable to be somewhat suspicious of their integrity and motives.

There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.
 
Book and herb loving mama to 2 teens and one young adult.
kathymuggle is offline  
#17 of 65 Old 06-03-2015, 12:04 PM
 
Deborah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the Seacoast of Bohemia
Posts: 18,390
Mentioned: 373 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3204 Post(s)
Well, to give one obvious example, drug companies in the US have a history of fraud convictions. Therefore it is reasonable to assume that they are not honest players and that information they put out about their products might not be accurate.

It follows, therefore, that a person who says: "I think drug companies lie about vaccine safety" is not, obviously, a tin-foil hat crazy. They might be wrong in a particular case, but the evidence of malfeasance from drug companies is pretty wide and deep and well-documented.

vaccine injury is preventable
prevent it
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
(if the government still allows you to say no...) #teamvaxchoice
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Deborah is online now  
#18 of 65 Old 08-01-2016, 08:49 PM
 
Deborah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the Seacoast of Bohemia
Posts: 18,390
Mentioned: 373 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3204 Post(s)
This is an interesting thread.

I've been wondering. Was the Simpsonwood meeting actually a violation of government rules about how meetings should be conducted? Or not? I've seen claims on both sides.
applejuice likes this.

vaccine injury is preventable
prevent it
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
(if the government still allows you to say no...) #teamvaxchoice
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Deborah is online now  
#19 of 65 Old 08-01-2016, 09:09 PM
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 39
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 11 Post(s)
Conspiracies can be real. There's a foreskin amputation conspiracy in the US and a few other "free" countries. The vast majority of the world does not amputate baby foreskins. I call it foreskin amputation because that c word scares the crap out of me.
applejuice, Deborah and mama24-7 like this.

Last edited by foreskin_is_normal; 08-01-2016 at 09:18 PM.
foreskin_is_normal is offline  
#20 of 65 Old 08-01-2016, 09:25 PM
 
Deborah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the Seacoast of Bohemia
Posts: 18,390
Mentioned: 373 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3204 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by foreskin_is_normal View Post
Conspiracies can be real. There's a foreskin amputation conspiracy in the US and a few other "free" countries. The vast majority of the world does not amputate baby foreskins.
I have a hard time sorting out a lot of people acting in their own interests or from habits of mind or from unquestioned assumptions versus people who actually got together and planned to do something to injure someone or groups of someones.

I can perfectly well see a lot of individuals and organizations that profit from foreskin removal fighting to continue the practice without ever getting together and meeting and organizing and planning.

A good deal of the dirty dealing in the world is done with a nudge and a wink and a shrug.

To give an interesting historical example, Henry II said something grumpy about Thomas Becket. Some of his knights galloped off and murdered the poor guy (who really had been making all sorts of difficulties for Henry). It is an interesting question whether Henry actually wanted Becket murdered. If he did, maybe there was a conspiracy, if he sort of wanted something done but didn't want to actually give an order, then was it a conspiracy or a "wink?" This version claims that it was a definite conspiracy, for example. http://www.healpastlives.com/pastlf/...y/msbecket.htm

And this one questions whether it was a conspiracy or not http://www.historyinanhour.com/2011/...dieval-murder/

I do think a lot of the dirty dealing around vaccines is of the wink and a shrug and a nudge variety. No one really makes outright decisive decisions exactly...so no documents to point to...but the end result is, for example, that thimerosal is very gradually removed from vaccines in the US for example, which makes it very hard to say who got dosed and who didn't and how much and whether they were injured or not injured.

If there are a lot of people who benefit from the status quo, then you don't need a conspiracy to have people speaking up to defend the status quo.
applejuice and Xerxella like this.

vaccine injury is preventable
prevent it
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
(if the government still allows you to say no...) #teamvaxchoice
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Deborah is online now  
#21 of 65 Old 08-01-2016, 09:48 PM
 
Deborah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the Seacoast of Bohemia
Posts: 18,390
Mentioned: 373 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3204 Post(s)
Was this a conspiracy? http://bolenreport.com/science-causes-autism/

Quote:
I walked up to Hornig, introduced myself, we made some small talk, then I said, “Mady, I’ve got a question I’ve wanted to ask you for years.”
Mady Hornig – Columbia University I paused for a moment and she gave me a look that I interpreted as “Proceed.”
I said, “I consider your article, ‘The Neurotoxic Effects of Postnatal Thimerosal are Mouse Strain Dependent’ to be one of the most important papers in autism. But you published that in 2004 and now it’s 2013. Why no other papers?”
She rolled her eyes and said, “You don’t know?”
I shrugged. “I live in California. I don’t know what happens out here.”
She proceeded to tell me that after the publication of her paper, a blogger named Autism Diva had published many articles criticizing her work, referring to it dismissively as the “Rain Mouse” experiments and it had caused her a great deal of difficulty with the Columbia administration. “I felt like I was on probation for like five years after the paper came out. I’m just getting out from under that cloud now.”
applejuice and Xerxella like this.

vaccine injury is preventable
prevent it
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
(if the government still allows you to say no...) #teamvaxchoice
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Deborah is online now  
#22 of 65 Old 08-01-2016, 10:23 PM
 
Deborah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the Seacoast of Bohemia
Posts: 18,390
Mentioned: 373 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3204 Post(s)
So the Mady Hornig story in the previous post is an interesting example of the nudge, nudge approach to controlling what gets out there.

No one in a position of authority has to speak up and say: Mady, shut up and go away. That might leak out and cause problems.

Instead, some crazy blogger named Autism Diva does all the dirty work. The odd part (and where the nudging comes into play) is that people at Columbia who were in positions of authority paid attention to Autism Diva.

Compare to the Lead Wars, where a scientist, Dr. Needleman, was attacked for 13 years by other scientists who were trying to destroy his work. He came out on top in the end, although it didn't do much to save children from lead poisoning, which continues merrily rolling along, but the frontal attack left a clear trail and someone was able to dig out who attacked him, who paid them, etc.

Much more effective to go through an anonymous blogger and just have people nudge the right people above Mady Hornig and scare her away from doing any more awkward research. She probably wouldn't be able to get the funding anyway, once her reputation was stained.

No paper trail. No clear evidence of wrong-doing. We can guess that someone nudged autism diva and someone else nudged someone at Columbia and that Mady may have had trouble getting grant money, but clear evidence of wrong-doing there is none.

The dirty dealing is getting steadily more sophisticated and devious. And those who don't want to see any problems find it easier and easier to ignore the dirty dealing. After all, there is no solid evidence.

And there it is. We are all a bunch of crazy conspiracy theorists jumping at shadows.
applejuice and oaksie68 like this.

vaccine injury is preventable
prevent it
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
(if the government still allows you to say no...) #teamvaxchoice
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Deborah is online now  
#23 of 65 Old 08-01-2016, 10:56 PM
 
Deborah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the Seacoast of Bohemia
Posts: 18,390
Mentioned: 373 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3204 Post(s)
I think there is a lot of dirty dealing that can work like this.

Dr. Thorsen. There are no documents promising him a pile of money if he screws up the research. After all, if you've got documents, you've got a paper trail. But a few nudges, a few bits of convenient absent minded carelessness and he walks off with a nice little pile of money. Shame that it leaked out, but he is doing just fine, still publishing research and living the comfy life.

And the other scientists who signed off on the research? A quiet conversation here and there, nothing that can be documented, hinting that going along with the deal will be good for their careers and speaking out will be deadly and, since most of the people involved want to support the vaccine program, it is pretty unlikely that anyone will speak up, especially since the twisting of the science is subtle and the people complaining about it have no clout.

I had been wondering why so much of what goes on is carried by skeptic bloggers and other non-official folks.

Look, in normal scientific discourse, if someone doesn't like something published in a medical journal, they write a proper letter and the journal publishes it and then you've got a discussion going, out in the open, with signatures and citations and all that.

This is just what is being avoided by the current system of using journalists (Brian Deer, that freaky lady at Forbes, Willingham?) and others of that ilk and bloggers.

And that is why the double standards we keep running into.

People can mock anyone who criticizes vaccines, call them stupid conspiracy theorists, etc. and they don't have to actually explain why it is a silly conspiracy theory. Because there is no there there. It is all smoke and mirrors and noise signifying absolutely nothing. Plus of course, meaningless statements up the kazoo.

Some examples:

Case studies can never prove causation (but vague hints about background rates are conclusive evidence against causation).

The burden of evidence is on the person raising the problem (but accusations of conspiracy theory craziness can be made with no evidence at all, whereas clear documentation of ghostwriting, or burying of inconvenient studies will just be glossed over and ignored).

Many years of using aluminum adjuvants are clear evidence that they are safe (but actual scientific evidence of harm from even small exposures to aluminum can be ignored--who wants to discuss the actual science when it is so much easier to just keep saying: the dose makes the poison)

As someone I know once remarked on the science supporting the rates of Hep B infection in the US in infants and small children--it is feathers all the way down--but that doesn't matter. Enough feathers and the opposition will be buried. How do you fight against an infinite cloud of feathers and confusion and bad arguments endlessly repeated?

I need to get my tinfoil hat tuned up.
applejuice, oaksie68 and Silversky like this.

vaccine injury is preventable
prevent it
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
(if the government still allows you to say no...) #teamvaxchoice
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Deborah is online now  
#24 of 65 Old 08-01-2016, 11:28 PM
 
sciencemum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: United Kingdom (have lived previously in the USA).
Posts: 2,724
Mentioned: 66 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 918 Post(s)
My regular reminder that thimerosol is not metallic Mercury. Aluminium adjuvants in vaccines are not metallic aluminium either.

Oh and chlorine gas isn't table salt. Hydrogen (a la Hindenberg disaster) isn't water either.

Atoms in molecules do not behave the same as atoms on their own.
sciencemum is offline  
#25 of 65 Old 08-02-2016, 04:09 AM
 
mama24-7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: with the dust bunnies
Posts: 2,928
Mentioned: 14 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 177 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by sciencemum View Post
My regular reminder that thimerosol is not metallic Mercury. Aluminium adjuvants in vaccines are not metallic aluminium either.

Oh and chlorine gas isn't table salt. Hydrogen (a la Hindenberg disaster) isn't water either.

Atoms in molecules do not behave the same as atoms on their own.
Thanks for the reminder. Now only if you could convince the individual cells in the human body of all that, your reminder would be worth something.

Sus
Mirzam, applejuice, 95191 and 2 others like this.

Baby the babies while they're babies so they don't need babying for a lifetime.
mama24-7 is offline  
#26 of 65 Old 08-02-2016, 05:43 AM
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 8,849
Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1433 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mama24-7 View Post
Thanks for the reminder. Now only if you could convince the individual cells in the human body of all that, your reminder would be worth something.

Sus
Yea and the magical thinking that vaccines are 100% and all "bad" cases wouldn't happen if more vaxed!

It is all about convincing people!!! Just like magical thinking!
Mirzam and applejuice like this.
95191 is offline  
#27 of 65 Old 08-02-2016, 06:05 AM
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 39
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 11 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by sciencemum View Post
My regular reminder that thimerosol is not metallic Mercury. Aluminium adjuvants in vaccines are not metallic aluminium either.

Oh and chlorine gas isn't table salt. Hydrogen (a la Hindenberg disaster) isn't water either.

Atoms in molecules do not behave the same as atoms on their own.
And I guess the formaldehyde in vaccines isn't actually formaldehyde. And viral "contaminants" like SV40 aren't actually viruses.

I guess they can put anything they want in a syringe as long as they call it a "vaccine".
applejuice, 95191 and Silversky like this.
foreskin_is_normal is offline  
#28 of 65 Old 08-02-2016, 06:43 AM
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 8,849
Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1433 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by foreskin_is_normal View Post
And I guess the formaldehyde in vaccines isn't actually formaldehyde. And viral "contaminants" like SV40 aren't actually viruses.

I guess they can put anything they want in a syringe as long as they call it a "vaccine".
Formaldehyde just like a pear!!!!!

You don't get it do you?
Vaccine = GOOD (no matter what) just drink the kool-aid & get with the program!

And even with fake vaccines, those don't work either!
applejuice likes this.
95191 is offline  
#29 of 65 Old 08-02-2016, 07:33 AM
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 39
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 11 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by serenbat View Post
Formaldehyde just like a pear!!!!!

You don't get it do you?
Vaccine = GOOD (no matter what) just drink the kool-aid & get with the program!

And even with fake vaccines, those don't work either!
Right I'm sorry what am I saying. But first I should drink my fluoridated water kool aid like a good zombie so I'll obey my masters. Then I'll do anything a doctor tells me. Doctors are special because they have special pieces of paper on their walls given to them by other doctors. Doctors say heavy metals and other toxins are healthy as long as you call the formulation a "vaccine", and doctors have the privilege of medical infallibility. Doctors are never wrong according to doctors. You're a heretic if you ever question doctors.
applejuice, 95191 and Silversky like this.
foreskin_is_normal is offline  
#30 of 65 Old 08-02-2016, 08:24 AM
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 8,849
Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1433 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by foreskin_is_normal View Post
Right I'm sorry what am I saying. But first I should drink my fluoridated water kool aid like a good zombie so I'll obey my masters. Then I'll do anything a doctor tells me. Doctors are special because they have special pieces of paper on their walls given to them by other doctors. Doctors say heavy metals and other toxins are healthy as long as you call the formulation a "vaccine", and doctors have the privilege of medical infallibility. Doctors are never wrong according to doctors. You're a heretic if you ever question doctors.
That' the way to go, now you get it!
applejuice likes this.
95191 is offline  
Reply


User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off

Online Users: 1,210

8 members and 1,202 guests
alex-alex , bimaster , Deborah , Jackie2733 , KiraYarik , lauritagoddess , omarinbox1888 , sarrahlnorris
Most users ever online was 21,860, 06-22-2018 at 09:45 PM.