As I have been saying for at least 30 years: There is only one reason to censor or silence anyone, which is that you are lying and they are not, and allowing them to speak freely will expose you as the liar you are. And for sure, during Covid, pretty much everything we were told by "the authorities" about Covid and everything having to do with Covid, including and especially about the nonvaccine "vaccines," was a lie - an intentional lie.
Here are a few hints: These folks have been on about health, its cause and... the amelioration of chronic degenerative disease for many decades with tens of thousands of health turn arounds: https://www.healthscience.org/
Meanwhile there are a few sticking points from experts who quantify health.
Jon Rappoport brings the receipts:
The inherent conflict of interest—engrave this in your memory
One of the prime qualities of a reporter is: he doesn’t forget those big stories and what they mean.
Other reporters WILL forget, but he doesn’t. He holds the line.
So I give you, from years ago, 2 blockbuster quotes from recognized medical experts on the subject of Modern Medicine. These two pros are experts because they’ve probably seen and read and assessed more medical reports and studies and claims than anyone else in the Western World.
I’m talking about two editors of prestigious journals. Editors who are decidedly mainstream, who help define mainstream.
Here is the first one. Marcia Angell, who edited the New England Journal of Medicine for 20 years, wrote, in 2009: “It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine.” (Dr. Marcia Angell, NY Review of Books, January 15, 2009, “Drug Companies & Doctors: A Story of Corruption)
The second pro is Richard Horton, editor of The Lancet. In 2015, he wrote: “The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness…”
“The apparent endemicity of bad research behaviour is alarming. In their quest for telling a compelling story, scientists too often sculpt data to fit their preferred theory of the world. Or they retrofit hypotheses to fit their data. Journal editors deserve their fair share of criticism too. We aid and abet the worst behaviours. Our acquiescence to the impact factor fuels an unhealthy competition to win a place in a select few journals. Our love of ‘significance’ pollutes the literature with many a statistical fairy-tale…Journals are not the only miscreants. Universities are in a perpetual struggle for money and talent…” (Dr. Richard Horton, editor-in-chief, The Lancet, in The Lancet, 11 April, 2015, Vol 385, “Offline: What is medicine’s 5 sigma?”)
Yes, I’ve published these two statements before. Several times. And I’ll publish them again in the future. Because they’re merciless indictments of the whole field of medical reporting and medical studies and claims and propaganda and industry-influenced lies.
They make it clear the conflict of interest is more than a conflict:..
So Tx "bans" welfare recipients from buying junk food while MAHA published glossy pics of this garbage. Some of us figured this out MANY decades before the ridiculous suggestion that the Gubmint is responsible or capable of deciding that its time to force the issue.
MAHA clearly believes that this duty is one of Gubmint. What could possibly go wrong?
Here is another option. Howz about educating the clueless that health does not come from Needles or... The Medical Cartel who never saw a vax or quak they did not endorse???
Meanwhile lets get a panel of "experts" to crow about mRNA shall we?
Personal responsibility is just that. If a case be made that there are toxins in "food" like glyphosate, we are well advised to ban. But then what would we do for the widespread usage on grains fed to fatten livestock some humans consider food???
Lets sit on the edge of our chairs as MAHA figures this out!
Ending SNAP funding foraddictive industrial food-like products which act as slow poisons is appropriate, not harming the junk-food-junkies, but not really "empowering" them, either.
Here are a few hints: These folks have been on about health, its cause and... the amelioration of chronic degenerative disease for many decades with tens of thousands of health turn arounds: https://www.healthscience.org/
Meanwhile there are a few sticking points from experts who quantify health.
Jon Rappoport brings the receipts:
The inherent conflict of interest—engrave this in your memory
One of the prime qualities of a reporter is: he doesn’t forget those big stories and what they mean.
Other reporters WILL forget, but he doesn’t. He holds the line.
So I give you, from years ago, 2 blockbuster quotes from recognized medical experts on the subject of Modern Medicine. These two pros are experts because they’ve probably seen and read and assessed more medical reports and studies and claims than anyone else in the Western World.
I’m talking about two editors of prestigious journals. Editors who are decidedly mainstream, who help define mainstream.
Here is the first one. Marcia Angell, who edited the New England Journal of Medicine for 20 years, wrote, in 2009: “It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine.” (Dr. Marcia Angell, NY Review of Books, January 15, 2009, “Drug Companies & Doctors: A Story of Corruption)
The second pro is Richard Horton, editor of The Lancet. In 2015, he wrote: “The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness…”
“The apparent endemicity of bad research behaviour is alarming. In their quest for telling a compelling story, scientists too often sculpt data to fit their preferred theory of the world. Or they retrofit hypotheses to fit their data. Journal editors deserve their fair share of criticism too. We aid and abet the worst behaviours. Our acquiescence to the impact factor fuels an unhealthy competition to win a place in a select few journals. Our love of ‘significance’ pollutes the literature with many a statistical fairy-tale…Journals are not the only miscreants. Universities are in a perpetual struggle for money and talent…” (Dr. Richard Horton, editor-in-chief, The Lancet, in The Lancet, 11 April, 2015, Vol 385, “Offline: What is medicine’s 5 sigma?”)
Yes, I’ve published these two statements before. Several times. And I’ll publish them again in the future. Because they’re merciless indictments of the whole field of medical reporting and medical studies and claims and propaganda and industry-influenced lies.
They make it clear the conflict of interest is more than a conflict:..
So Tx "bans" welfare recipients from buying junk food whild MAHA published glossy pics of this garbage. Some of us figured this out MANY decades before the ridiculous suggestion that the
Gubmint is responsible or capable of deciding that its time to force the issue.
MAHA clearly believes that this duty is one of Gubmint. What could possibly go wrong?
Here is another option. Howz about educating the clueless that health does not come from Needles or... The Medical Cartel who never saw a vax or quak they did not endorse???
Meanwhile lets get a panel of "experts" to crow about mRNA shall we?
Personal responsibility is just that. If a case be made that there are toxins in "food" like glyphosate, we are well advised to ban. But then what would we do for the widespread usage on grains fed to fatten livestock some humans consider food???
Lets sit on the edge of our chairs as MAHA figures this out!
When do the J&J lawsuits begin I had a brain bleed 3 weeks after the shot that I was told was the least dangerous I was forced to take to keep my job and finally had to quit or take a booster which I refused.
As I have been saying for at least 30 years: There is only one reason to censor or silence anyone, which is that you are lying and they are not, and allowing them to speak freely will expose you as the liar you are. And for sure, during Covid, pretty much everything we were told by "the authorities" about Covid and everything having to do with Covid, including and especially about the nonvaccine "vaccines," was a lie - an intentional lie.
Liars lie. The responsibility for personal health is on who??
Covid requires Covidiots who "believe" in the fear mongering "virus" fraud.
Wondering which camp is more culpable. Most lies are intentional. It does take a cadre
of clueless to believe the lies...
Here are a few hints: These folks have been on about health, its cause and... the amelioration of chronic degenerative disease for many decades with tens of thousands of health turn arounds: https://www.healthscience.org/
Meanwhile there are a few sticking points from experts who quantify health.
Jon Rappoport brings the receipts:
The inherent conflict of interest—engrave this in your memory
=============================================================
Jon Rappoport
Mar 29
Stories come and go, even the big ones.
One of the prime qualities of a reporter is: he doesn’t forget those big stories and what they mean.
Other reporters WILL forget, but he doesn’t. He holds the line.
So I give you, from years ago, 2 blockbuster quotes from recognized medical experts on the subject of Modern Medicine. These two pros are experts because they’ve probably seen and read and assessed more medical reports and studies and claims than anyone else in the Western World.
I’m talking about two editors of prestigious journals. Editors who are decidedly mainstream, who help define mainstream.
Here is the first one. Marcia Angell, who edited the New England Journal of Medicine for 20 years, wrote, in 2009: “It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine.” (Dr. Marcia Angell, NY Review of Books, January 15, 2009, “Drug Companies & Doctors: A Story of Corruption)
The second pro is Richard Horton, editor of The Lancet. In 2015, he wrote: “The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness…”
“The apparent endemicity of bad research behaviour is alarming. In their quest for telling a compelling story, scientists too often sculpt data to fit their preferred theory of the world. Or they retrofit hypotheses to fit their data. Journal editors deserve their fair share of criticism too. We aid and abet the worst behaviours. Our acquiescence to the impact factor fuels an unhealthy competition to win a place in a select few journals. Our love of ‘significance’ pollutes the literature with many a statistical fairy-tale…Journals are not the only miscreants. Universities are in a perpetual struggle for money and talent…” (Dr. Richard Horton, editor-in-chief, The Lancet, in The Lancet, 11 April, 2015, Vol 385, “Offline: What is medicine’s 5 sigma?”)
Yes, I’ve published these two statements before. Several times. And I’ll publish them again in the future. Because they’re merciless indictments of the whole field of medical reporting and medical studies and claims and propaganda and industry-influenced lies.
They make it clear the conflict of interest is more than a conflict:..
So Tx "bans" welfare recipients from buying junk food while MAHA published glossy pics of this garbage. Some of us figured this out MANY decades before the ridiculous suggestion that the Gubmint is responsible or capable of deciding that its time to force the issue.
MAHA clearly believes that this duty is one of Gubmint. What could possibly go wrong?
Here is another option. Howz about educating the clueless that health does not come from Needles or... The Medical Cartel who never saw a vax or quak they did not endorse???
Meanwhile lets get a panel of "experts" to crow about mRNA shall we?
Personal responsibility is just that. If a case be made that there are toxins in "food" like glyphosate, we are well advised to ban. But then what would we do for the widespread usage on grains fed to fatten livestock some humans consider food???
Lets sit on the edge of our chairs as MAHA figures this out!
This is an awesome report.
It is awesome, for many reasons
M-eat, hmmm, would that be the same as meat?
Is that a cute word to hide what it actually is?
Dead animal carcass, but hey we can "humanely" slaughter it ok?
all the while creating the stage for a multiplicity of dis-eases...
Dead Tortured Animals for "health" yup.
Other than that its "healthy" or howz about making the best possible decision?
Plant based, organic for the win.
Ending SNAP funding foraddictive industrial food-like products which act as slow poisons is appropriate, not harming the junk-food-junkies, but not really "empowering" them, either.
You have to want to be free and healthy.
;-/
True enough, and also willing to learn the behaviors that faciliate.
Most importantly, willing to break from the mold and refuse
health destroying habits.
Expect Coca Cola to fund a string of slander….”brain worm”, “anti vaxxer”, “conspiracy “.
Junk food should never have been included in SNAP. Thank you for doing what's right by People and their Nutrition vs "candy-grams".
https://substack.com/@davidwaterman3/note/p-190731638?r=15vmqh try this guys
Here are a few hints: These folks have been on about health, its cause and... the amelioration of chronic degenerative disease for many decades with tens of thousands of health turn arounds: https://www.healthscience.org/
Meanwhile there are a few sticking points from experts who quantify health.
Jon Rappoport brings the receipts:
The inherent conflict of interest—engrave this in your memory
=============================================================
Jon Rappoport
Mar 29
Stories come and go, even the big ones.
One of the prime qualities of a reporter is: he doesn’t forget those big stories and what they mean.
Other reporters WILL forget, but he doesn’t. He holds the line.
So I give you, from years ago, 2 blockbuster quotes from recognized medical experts on the subject of Modern Medicine. These two pros are experts because they’ve probably seen and read and assessed more medical reports and studies and claims than anyone else in the Western World.
I’m talking about two editors of prestigious journals. Editors who are decidedly mainstream, who help define mainstream.
Here is the first one. Marcia Angell, who edited the New England Journal of Medicine for 20 years, wrote, in 2009: “It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine.” (Dr. Marcia Angell, NY Review of Books, January 15, 2009, “Drug Companies & Doctors: A Story of Corruption)
The second pro is Richard Horton, editor of The Lancet. In 2015, he wrote: “The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness…”
“The apparent endemicity of bad research behaviour is alarming. In their quest for telling a compelling story, scientists too often sculpt data to fit their preferred theory of the world. Or they retrofit hypotheses to fit their data. Journal editors deserve their fair share of criticism too. We aid and abet the worst behaviours. Our acquiescence to the impact factor fuels an unhealthy competition to win a place in a select few journals. Our love of ‘significance’ pollutes the literature with many a statistical fairy-tale…Journals are not the only miscreants. Universities are in a perpetual struggle for money and talent…” (Dr. Richard Horton, editor-in-chief, The Lancet, in The Lancet, 11 April, 2015, Vol 385, “Offline: What is medicine’s 5 sigma?”)
Yes, I’ve published these two statements before. Several times. And I’ll publish them again in the future. Because they’re merciless indictments of the whole field of medical reporting and medical studies and claims and propaganda and industry-influenced lies.
They make it clear the conflict of interest is more than a conflict:..
So Tx "bans" welfare recipients from buying junk food whild MAHA published glossy pics of this garbage. Some of us figured this out MANY decades before the ridiculous suggestion that the
Gubmint is responsible or capable of deciding that its time to force the issue.
MAHA clearly believes that this duty is one of Gubmint. What could possibly go wrong?
Here is another option. Howz about educating the clueless that health does not come from Needles or... The Medical Cartel who never saw a vax or quak they did not endorse???
Meanwhile lets get a panel of "experts" to crow about mRNA shall we?
Personal responsibility is just that. If a case be made that there are toxins in "food" like glyphosate, we are well advised to ban. But then what would we do for the widespread usage on grains fed to fatten livestock some humans consider food???
Lets sit on the edge of our chairs as MAHA figures this out!
When do the J&J lawsuits begin I had a brain bleed 3 weeks after the shot that I was told was the least dangerous I was forced to take to keep my job and finally had to quit or take a booster which I refused.
Bobby would have made a better president than Donnie. Bobby, you're team player and a good American.
M-eat, hmmm, would that be the same as meat?
Is that a cute word to hide what it actually is?
Dead animal carcass, but hey we can "humanely" slaughter it ok?
all the while creating the stage for a multiplicity of dis-eases...
Dead Tortured Animals for "health" yup.
Other than that its "healthy" or howz about making the best possible decision?
Plant based, organic for the win.