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.
 

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?

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

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.

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. 

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?

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.
 
 

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]

https://jw-russia.org/news/2021/04/14.html
If he dies, as seems likely, he has conquered the world, like his Lord.(John 16:33) He has conquered it already.(2 Tim 4:7) 
“Why would a nation of some 144 million risk [now trash] its international reputation to persecute a religious sect numbering no more than 175 thousand?” asks Andrew Sorokowski. Yet one has and continues to do so. When called on it, it puts pedal to the medal, as though to boast to the world: “We know no decency here!”
I become so weary of these unreasonable ones who equate building bigger barns and ignoring whatever might lie beyond this very brief life as “aiming high.” (Luke 12:18)
Good one to share, this one is. Is it a game we are playing?

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.

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

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

“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.

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?”

I know what you are talking about this is the Liger - between lion and tiger ..... but fertility is rare and they are of the same KIND - both are large cats.  So even in the same kind they sometimes do not mix.  Jehovah put barriers in place.  It is rare that different species blend such as a bird and reptile  -  you will find that different bears can mix and different dogs can mix such as wolf and dog.... but different kinds are infertile...... 
I know that evolutionists love to show this is possible because they do not accept that there are barriers to infinite change in genes....... but Jehovah put these laws of nature in place.

All true, but what I've been getting at in all my posts is that we often don't recognize the presumptions and speculations WE ourselves make and how solid these are or are not in some cases. It's when there is ambiguity that there ought to be latitude of point of view difference. I know some who have no issue w/full vegetarianism and I'm in the same grouping and yet others say (as did one brother) when I remarked "But we'll be at peace w/all creation." he said "We're already at peace with the cattle already." His remark stopped me and I had to ask myself "Do I really KNOW what it will be like in the future under the kingdom rule?" I had to be honest and say that I didn't.  So it made no sense to argue about it.
Admission of areas of ones' own areas of ambiguity is not a weakness and choosing to die on these molehills isn't particularly useful long term. It could easily lead one to become soured when things change or when one feels that one thing was advertised, but another thing instead is taking place. We have to ask ourselves "Were those advertising infallible prophets of Jehovah, or just men doing the best the could w/what little information these had at the time"

Jehovah, in his view of time and all the elements which make up this universe in my view has examined all the paths which free will might take, so he would know how to minimally get involved in any given situation such that his will is done.
Now this is my faith, and I take it as true and consistent with what I know about Jehovah. I can and do wonder about points along the way and find myself speculating as have others as to why Jehovah would allow this or that other thing to take place, but I can never conclude that his will won't be done. Any one of us may pass off the scene ,momentarily, but the time we have now ought to be an opportunity to see how we can better fit in with what we understand Jehovah's will and purposes to be both now and in the future.
Having said this one might argue variously that it suited holy spirit for men who from the beginning had ill will towards the brothers. Would Jehovahs' will be thwarted by these men? No. These could only injure themselves in the long term.
Ultimately the only mark we can ever leave is one which is left by sticking to Jehovah. Jehovah is permanent, and his will is what stands. We can also choose to cease to exist by rejecting him. That's the sum of what we as individuals can do long term.
The rest in between now and then of any series of events is just fuel for speculation. Of course I speculate as much as anyone else does, but I always ask myself "Does this speculation make Jehovah look better to me as the author of all morality or not?" If not, then I must have forgotten to carry the one someplace in my moral mathematics.