TrueTomHarley

To the extent that the majority of the scientific community is under the influence of big money, they have lost much credibility. There is a former pharma executive online who states that for every dollar Pharma spends on educating you through drug ads and otherwise, they spend six times that amount “educating” the medical field. There is another Pharma VP who says: “Look, nobody has any money. Government doesn’t. Researchers don’t. Universities don’t. But Pharma has lots of money.” “Conduct a study for us,” Pharma says, “here’s tons of money to fund it.” If the results come back favorable to Pharma, they can expect more funding for other studies. If the results come back unfavorable, they will never hear from Pharma again. “No money has changed hands,” the VP says. “No agreements have been entered into. But everyone knows what they must do,’ as he goes on to claim this practice is universal. The above is said of new drugs. The regulatory hurdles for vaccines, even in normal times, are lower. In abnormal times, such as now, they are lower still. The existing vaccines were ushered in at “warp speed” under the Emergency Use Authorization (EUA). This US emergency provision can only be done legally if there truly is a emergency—that is, if there is no existing alternative treatment for Covid-19. Thus, it becomes very important to certain parties to demonstrate that existing alternative treatments (read primarily hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin) are no good and/or cause injury. Yes. Some of them are medical doctors who felt impelled to do something to help their patients. Initially, there was no guidance whatsoever from health agencies upon a Covid-19 diagnosis other than get bed-rest, keep hydrated, and come to the hospital if it gets real bad—by which time it was too late. Most patients put on ventilators died. So these doctors, mostly on their own & then they shared their results with colleagues, began experimenting with existing drugs to see if any could prevent the hospitalization that usually spelled death. They discovered and then shared with others their 80% or so success rate. One of them shared his regimen with the White House, and this is why when Trump was diagnosed with Covid, he was very soon up and running again.* Another pleaded before Congress—I heard him—that these drugs be made widely available. He stressed that he was not against vaccines, which then were only in the early stages of being developed and rolled out. He was only interested in saving his existing patients in the interim. These doctors describe how they were aghast that, not only were the drugs not made widely available, but they were targeted for elimination. They describe their bewilderment that studies were undertaken administering these drugs at levels known to be toxic. Of one Brazilian study that came to be heralded as proof that these cheap drugs that had been around forever were dangerous, one of these doctors writes: “The Brazilian authors of this study must have known they were treading on dangerous territory by purposely causing many deaths. Coming from a poor area of the country, they may have felt they could get away with sacrificing their patients without local reprisals. They simply gave lethal doses of chloroquine to patients to prove that the drug and its derivative hydroxychloroquine were too dangerous to treat Covid-19” This is an outrageous charge and these doctors were slow to make it. But a lethal dose is a lethal dose. Malfeasance is clearly demonstrated at many levels. It is assessing the motivation behind the malfeasance that is perilous and causes different docs to come to different conclusions, not always agreeing with each other. A prominent view, however, is that this campaign to discredit the drugs that demonstrably work amounts to mass murder and is the equal of previous genocides. Hundreds of thousands of people died who didn’t have to. Didn’t many of Hitler’s medical experimenters wind up in South America? Of course, they’d be dead by now, but culture doesn’t die in an overlapping generation. I can’t picture rank and file technicians knowingly administering an experiment that kills people, but I can imagine them simply doing what they’re told, with no suspicions at all as to what their higher ups were concocting. Moreover, JWI I am sure will empathize with how poor people with the wrong skin color make good fodder for forward progress. Aren’t there examples in the US involving blacks and indigenous populations? Some of the answer to this hinges on what you consider “academic.” The aforementioned doctor who sent his results to the White House and saved Trump also sent those results to certain official sources. These sources rejected the material because it was not a scientific study. “I understand it is not a scientific study,” he said, “it wasn’t intended to be, but it is still data.” Scientific “studies” like the above Brazilian one are trumping actual data. They are infringing upon what these doctors consider sacred, the doctor-patient relationship. The “studies” have been used to go over the heads of doctors, who prescribe, say—Ivermecitn—and then the pharmacies refuse to fill it. (and in some cases report the doctor). What is “academic” is trampling what is real. Some of them are widely published prior to going into this area of medical apostasy. I heard one of them say that he holds an advantage over some of his colleagues in that he has been published in some many journals that he will be difficult to take down. All of them have been taken down, however, on the mainstream outlets such as Facebook and YouTube. They are reduced to their own websites, where they aggregate breaking developments. How much they are actually reduced is a matter of debate. Most of them are reluctant beacons who never sought to be public figures. Their palpable integrity and manifest good motive draws people to their information. I consider them very credible. I mean, these are not the people who think Sandy Hook was a hoax. ___ * Aaron Rodgers, the quarterback, caused a major brouhaha when it was revealed that his prior claim of being “immunized” didn’t mean he was vaccinated. He was relying on something else, and then he came down with Covid-19. Of course, he missed the next game. But the one after that he led his team to a 17-0 victory. Doing my bit for “science,” I pointed out that it would have been 34-0 had he gone the conventional route.

“Taking care of business”

For the most part, is this not the primary stated goal of any system of human rule—to benefit the people? I like the challenge to a mindset, However, here is an Eastern European joke that once made the rounds. (home-grown, not injected from the West for reasons of sabotage): A man has been advised by his party leader that as a result of his exemplary citizenship, he is now on the list to purchase a car, and that he can expect it to arrive in ten years. The man asks the leader if it is possible to know what day it will arrive. The leader checks his records and tells him the day. The man then wants to know if his car will arrive in the morning or afternoon? The party leader frowns. “What kind of a question is that!” he barks. Apologetically, the man responds that he meant no offense but only wanted to know because the plumber is coming that morning. This, from the GC professor who spoke of the hundreds of circulating communist jokes of which there are two theories: 1) that they eventually brought down the Russian and Eastern Europe system, 2) that they constituted a release valve to blow off steam and thereby enable the systems to stand as long as they did. Another GC prof points out how several Asian economies have in recent times grown at a rapid clip of 8% per year for many years—S Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, Hong Kong, Japan (which abruptly ceased its spurt n the 90s) The rate in the West is about 2%, it’s spurt was in the Industrial Age. Now China has joined the ranks of rapid growth, and it is the first communist government to join the ranks of this rapid economic growth. it began with Mao’s successor, Deng Xiaoping, who told farmers that yes, they had to meet their quotas of produce, but anything beyond was theirs to do with what they wanted—buy, sell, barter, whatever. Formerly whatever excess they produced also went to the state, with the result that they produced very little beyond quota. It is with this new incentive that the economy began to rocket. The first of any experiment in government takes the arrows, and succeeding ones benefit from analyzing what went wrong. In this case, the Chinese communists could easily point to the stupid white people of Russia for screwing up their application of Marx. Whether they did or not, I don’t know. I think you may be overplaying the race card. I’ll grant that governments are always seeking to undermine each other. I recall reading how Russia’s ‘meddling’ in the US election was largely motivated by payback that the US had meddled in theirs. And my Bible student speaks of a crisis of conscience upon coming to feel he was being used. In the military, he was part of the humanitarian squad genuinely planning aid to whatever country he was sent to. However, there was always accompanying him the special ops team, and he says, “you didn’t ask what they were doing.” This may be the devil you know vs the devil you don’t. Many Russians came to regret their instant plunge into capitalism with its predatory practices unleashed that they were totally unprepared for. But I still have long heard, and I think it is true, that while many flee from the East to the West, sometimes taking great risk to do so, the reverse is not true. And what has become of that Chinese tennis player? The one who just released a statement that she is fine and happy as a pig in mud and nobody believes it for a second because it is a complete reversal from her normal style? [Edit: Turns out that I increased my ‘rank’ with this comment. There is nothing that motivates me more than an ‘attaboy.’ It is comparable to those ubiquitous WT pictures of the self-congratulatory fellow thumping his chest with one hand while motioning to his mansion, fancy car, boat, and stacks of money with the other]

Who do you think he was answering? [hint—who wrote the comment he was responding to?]

No. It is a viewpoint of a JW Elder (if he is that) concerning you.

[where it will be placed without the context that illuminates it.]

The idea is that the architecture of the spike virus it itself inflicts damage, enabling it to puncture the cell it infects. If this is true, the antigen the body is coerced to manufacture through the vaccine also has that spiky shape which tears at surfaces and logjams up. Think of computerized enactments you have seen of how strokes begin, by plaques accumulating and forming blockages. Molecules in the bloodstream flow best if they are ‘smooth.’ The spike protein is anything but. Remember, it is not a natural shape. It does not occur in nature of its own, but it has been unleashed through gain-of-function research. Therefore, the shape of the antigen, even as it does combat the virus to an extent, is also unnatural. Understand that I make no claim to be any expert. I’m okay with being corrected. The above I have gleaned through sources I consider trustworthy.

The idea is that if the archtecture (the spikiness) of the virus in itself inflicts damage, enabling it to puncture cells, so will that of the manufactured antigens. Think along the lines of those computerized enactments of how strokes develop, blood passageways being clogged up by plaque, logjams that occur within the body. Molecules that flow through the body ought be smooth, and the virus, as well as the antigens made to combat it, are anything but. The virus itself is not anything naturally occurring, but has been created through ‘gain of function’ research. If this is true, as is alleged with considerable evidence, then the antigens created that fight the virus are just as unnatural, even as they do succeed to some extent in muting it. Understand, I make no claim to be any expert. I’ve gleaned this from reading sources I consider trustworthy.

So am I right that if the spikiness of the S protein allows it to penetrate cells so as to infect, the spikiness of the antigen produced upon stimulation by the shot is just as architecturally dangerous, even though not infectious? And so, that is why you do want to take out the virus should it appear, but you want to do so through safer means, the ones being discredited? And that, unless and until the virus appears, meanwhile the spikiness of the shot inflicts damage of its own?

Uh oh. Look what I just found on Wikipedia. Better not tell Pudgy (and a million other people): Since 1999, Larson has objected to his work being displayed on the internet, and has been sending takedown notices to owners of fan websites and users posting his cartoons.[25] In a personal letter included with the requests, Larson claimed that his work is too personal and important to him to have others "take control of it".[26][25] In 2007, he also published an open letter on the web to the same effect.[27] Larson has been criticized for not providing a legitimate online source for the Far Side series and negatively compared to cartoonists who have embraced the internet.[28]

Okay. Find someone who knows how to do that and get back to us. Like so many threads started by others, this one has nothing to do with your favorite topic.

I think I did not reflect until now on how Far Side consistently skewers “science.” This fits in so well with reality today, when any yo-yo says anything and calls it “the science.” ”Scientific studies” have come to be a standing joke. If a study doesn’t go your way, just hold out for the next one that may. It is as though a parlor trick vastly over applied. Very effective if confined to a narrow field of focus. But ridiculous when relied upon to evaluate all of life. An insignificant experiment several years back, to me reveals it all. Volunteers were asked to remember a certain number, then they walked down the corridor to another room and submitted that number from memory to another researcher. On the way down, they were met by a woman who thanked them for taking part in the study. To show her gratitude, she offered each participant a choice of two snacks—a fruit salad or a slice of chocolate cake. Now, unbeknownst to each participant, some had been given 2-digit numbers to remember, and others 7-digit numbers. When results were tallied, those who had been given 2-digit numbers were twice as likely to choose the fruit salad as those who have been given 7-digits. What could possibly account for that? The conclusion researchers drew was if our minds our not heavily taxed, we choose fruit, on the basis that it is healthier for us. But if our minds are taxed, our rationality goes right out the window and we say, “Yummy! Cake!” https://www.tomsheepandgoats.com/2019/01/the-cake-fruit-experiment-that-blew-reason-sky-high.html The fatal flaw in relying upon “science” is us. Unless things are very very simple, emotion immediately trumps “critical thinking.” This weakness sabotages most of what passes for science. It make reliance on science the most foolhardy of endeavors. It’s okay as a supplemental tool. But no more than that. To the extent possible, science seeks to address bias. But the extent possible is not very much. In an ideal experiment of discovery, you line up two groups of identical attributes barring just one. Then, by tinkering with the one variable attribute, you make your discoveries as to its significance. Trouble is, very few things can be reduced to such simplicity. Humans, life, and reality itself is far too complex. You can applaud the effort as you draw tentative conclusions. But you should never lose sight of how easily your conclusions can be overturned. Those who rely upon science as the be-all and end-all generally do just that. Upon reaching a conclusion, they circle the wagons and decry new or contrarian evidence as ‘fake news.’ Humans don’t have the integrity to handle science. It is not a moral failing, but it is built in to how we are, as the cake-fruit experiment shows. Of course, in an age of flexible morality, moral failings can and do add to the inadequacies of “science.” The staunchest proponents of science never seem to notice when money trumps their science. There was once a more modest time when medicine was called the ‘healing arts.’ Today it is called ‘evidence-based science.’ The first is a recognition is life is far too complex to imagine its individual components can be isolated. The first allows for all laudable human attributes to come into play, not just deduction, but also intuition, empathy, even (or perhaps particularly) love. The second eliminates all these things for cold thought. Nothing wrong with cold thought in itself, but to elevate it over all else creates vulnerability and allows for the baser qualities of humans to rise. Is it not a bi-product of the evolutionary “science” that is abiogenesis, the idea that life could arise on its own? If you realize life could not do that, you maintain a certain awe of it. If you think it can, you say, “Well, how hard can it be? If blind chance can bring life about, culled only by natural selection, just think what can be done if focused powers of deliberate engineering are brought to bear!” Thus, scientists are unafraid to tinker with what any godly person would have the common sense to stay far away from. ‘Gain-of-function’ research becomes a nifty tool of of scientific research for them. Then when it unleashes an unnatural pandemic—that is when such human inventions escape the lab, they do what morally depraved people have done since the beginning of time. They muddy the waters to hide what they’ve done. We are all undone by the modern worship of science.

“Who are you, sir, who are so skilled in the ways of science?”

It has never been presented as a foolproof process: “In view of the fact that humans are involved in the appointment of elders, there is a possibility of choosing an unqualified man to serve, for humans are not able to read the heart. That is why the apostle Paul cautioned Timothy: “Never lay your hands hastily upon any man; neither be a sharer in the sins of others; preserve yourself chaste.” (1 Tim. 5:22) If he had acted prematurely in appointing an elder, Timothy would have had to bear a measure of responsibility for whatever wrongs such an unqualified man committed.” https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/101979493#h=6

Mathematics and humor? With the exception of math being as easy as pi I never would have connected the two.

Yes. Exactly as was done in the first century. Moreover, they [Paul and Barnabas] appointed elders for them in each congregation, offering prayer with fasting, and they entrusted them to Jehovah, in whom they had become believers. (Acts 14:23) They are “appointed by holy spirit” in that (1) the qualifications are laid out in scripture, (2) they are judged to have met those qualifications by experienced overseers who have measured up to those qualifications themselves, after (3) prayerful consideration and consultation. That’s all the expression means. That’s all it has ever meant. It doesn’t mean God takes away their free will and right to choose. It doesn’t mean he makes them automatons. It doesn’t mean that what is within the human realm cannot be tainted by the human.

If “appointed by holy spirit“ is supposed to be some sort of “foolproof” process, how could Paul have said (Acts 20:30) to first-century elders, “from among you yourselves men will rise and speak twisted things to draw away the disciples after themselves?”

Believe me, Fido knows what the mainstream media is. Ask him what CNN stands for.

Back in the day when you got a vaccine it meant you didn’t catch the disease. It doesn’t mean that anymore, and people schooled in the old ways, like the guy in the third video, are having a hard time with the new definition. To be sure, the flu vaccines, not the Covid ones, have already introduced the idea that you could get the shot with no benefit. It does seem to me that the media is doing backflips to avoid stating the obvious: people are leaving the workforce where possible to avoid the mandates. Just finished repackaging some remarks I first made here, (except for the Newsweek link, which was JWI) on gain-of-function. It is another term—they proliferate today—that one day nobody has ever heard of, and the next day is ubiquitous. https://www.tomsheepandgoats.com/2021/11/gain-of-function-research-it-all-lies-in-the-definition.html

Timmy’s once again stuck down in that well.

Breggin is aghast that the US carries on gain-of-function research in China in collaboration with Chinese scientists, after have been banned from doing it at home, once by Obama and once by Trump. In both cases the NIH managed an end run around restrictions. The reason he is aghast is that in China, if the scientist knows something, the military also knows it, and he entertains the more ‘traditional’ Western view that the CCP is up to no good. He makes statements such as, “We doubt if one in a million recipients of Pfizer’s vaccine knows it is a joint development venture with the Chinese Communist Party.” Now, why would there be such collaboration with the Chinese, knowing the military inevitably reap the benefits of such collaboration. Most of the reasons he floats strike me as inadequate. Maybe the thought process at work in these enlightened circles is that concern over the Chinese govt is overblown, and since “we’re all in this together,” what can be the harm of cooperation? With rare exception, (Soros being one of them) the “globalists” Breggin regards as the power players—both national and international agencies, corporations, and certain individuals, fawn over the CCP. Plausible? Well, the CCP has succeeded in doing what no Communist government has ever done, notably improving the material prosperity of the average person. It is as though they have been tinkering with the formula, learning from disasters elsewhere, and have finally got it right. Finally they have baked a cake that didn’t collapse. This may just do it for an atheist mindset that attaches far more value to material success than to spiritual values, so yes, it probably is plausible, if not proven. His book has also persuaded me that Bill Gates largely merits his place in conspiracy theories. Previously I felt that those who put him there have watched too many Bond movies. However, the day after Trump suspended US funding for WHO, Gates picked up the tab. WHO promptly accommodated his interests and redefined ‘herd immunity’ to remove any concept of natural protection from exposure and make it only a goal achievable by vaccine. (Mercola’s book notes this new definition, but does not connect it with Bill’s foundation.) All this is enough for me to cement Gates in his place. It is a painstakingly well-documented book.

He probably thinks that the Ukraine girls really do leave the West behind.

Well…..what I do remember for absolute sure is Al Capp’s S,W.I.N.E (Students Wildly Indignant over Nearly Everything) members effusively greeting the Russian general as he strides on shore from his military transport ship. The first thing the general does is kick them all in their behinds, seemingly for the sheer reason that he is mean.

This statement needs sourcing, both for and against. This tool. I have heard statements similar to Arauna’s, probably through Bitter Winter, but maybe some other avenue. ‘Throw it on the stack of things to check out’

Nothing will get a decent person infuriated more than animal abuse. Maybe it’s quasi-instinctive. Our commission specifically is to care for all thing of the earth, have it in subjection. In animal abuse lies the most blatant trashing of that commission.