Forum

TruthMove Forum

TruthMove Forum » TruthMove Main Forum

9/11 Truth and the "Big Tent" Approach - John Bursill + Vaccine debate (17 posts)

  1. truthmover
    Administrator

    A well intended and interesting post over on 911blogger. Interesting, but not worth some of the arguments I'd get into posting a response elsewhere.

    The great majority of the 9/11 Truth Community reject ideas or theories that are without merit as they believe this will marginalise, dilute, confuse and isolate us as a movement. They "the Big Tenter's" feel that we "the people" can figure out what is garbage and what is not and they should be able to present their ideas and theories on an equal footing to us in the name of free speech, regardless of their quality. ...

    Truth is not ENTERTAINMENT, for entertainment and titillation are the enemies of truth, as they distract the mind and blur it's focus. I love to be entertained and distracted from time to time especially in this war torn world, that is normal and healthy. But just as I do not "drink and drive" I will not allow myself to be intoxicated with wild ideas or theories while pursuing "the truth" that we know is proven and concise.

    http://www.911blogger.com/node/19400?page=1

    One disagreement and a contradiction that demonstrates the difficulty in taking this position. You can't exclude from criticism the people you would like to support.

    There are some groups like WeAreChange for example that aim to broaden the 9/11 Truth Movement in a logical and relevant way. ... WAC has always supported evidence based arguments and has stayed away from unneeded speculation. Their main goal is the pursuit of truth and justice for victims of the 9/11 Attacks while exposing the fraud of the "War on Terror", it's consequences and the Globalist NWO agenda. This is a highly practical and logical approach indeed.

    And here are a couple of stories considered news over on the WeAreChange home site.

    Partisan propaganda:

    The Obama Fraud: An Open Video to Barack Obama Supporters http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FptGQrqxZVw

    Anti human global warming:

    Former astronaut speaks out on global warming http://news.bostonherald.com/news/national/general...

    Sensationalistic AJ crap:

    NH to Secede over Obama NWO Agenda (Posted without "NWO" on WAC site.) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1s6b-yYvfp8&eur...

    Defense of the NWO conspiracy and people pushing crap like the links above doesn't square with what I consider to be a discerning approach to 9/11 truth advocated in the essay.

    Principle before association. Never easy or simple.

    Posted 15 years ago #
  2. christs4sale
    Administrator

    Their main goal is the pursuit of truth and justice for victims of the 9/11 Attacks while exposing the fraud of the "War on Terror", it's consequences and the Globalist NWO agenda. This is a highly practical and logical approach indeed.

    Highly practical? When Globalist NWO agenda is mentioned, the so-called truth that they are pursuing is based on a false premise. It is amazing how much this idea has penetrated much of the movement without any desire to pursue the history or the context that the idea originated.

    In response to Victronix's response, I have never read the Rock Creek Free Press, but if they are publishing stories that are well-referenced or based on the work or reputable researchers, there is a lot of very good work that has been done with challenging the conventional dogma on AIDS (see Dr. Alan Cantwell or Dr. Leonard Horowitz) and on alternative health. Maybe they publish complete crap on either topic, of which there is a massive amount of, but I think we should be judging a newsletter by the quality of the research they print, not merely by the issues that they cover.

    Posted 15 years ago #
  3. Victronix
    Member

    t I think we should be judging a newsletter by the quality of the research they print, not merely by the issues that they cover.

    I do. Take a look at RCFP's story --

    As a retrovirus researcher, Gallo had previously tried to pin the blame for Alzheimer’s, leukemia and neurological disorders on a retrovirus, all without success. Now AIDS was in his sights. http://rockcreekfreepress.tumblr.com/post/61316408...

    Then at the description on wikipedia --

    Morgan and Ruscetti eventually identified the activity of a new T-cell growth factor, later isolated and identified as IL-2 (interleukin-2) by a lab led by Kendall A. Smith.[4] These breakthroughs allowed researchers to grow T-cells and study the viruses that affect them, such as human T-cell leukemia virus, or HTLV, the first retrovirus identified in humans, which Bernard Poiesz and Ruscetti isolated in Gallo's lab.[5] HTLV's role in leukemia was clarified when a group of Japanese researchers, puzzling over an outbreak of a rare form of the disease, independently isolated the same retrovirus and showed it was the cause.[6] In 1982, Gallo received the prestigious Lasker Award: “For his pioneering studies that led to the discovery of the first human RNA tumor virus and its association with certain leukemias and lymphomas.”[7] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Gallo#Retrovir...

    Clearly Gallo was not without success in his virus work.

    You need to read the articles to see what I'm talking about. They are here --

    http://www.rockcreekfreepress.com/

    Posted 15 years ago #
  4. Victronix
    Member

    It's very different to raise questions about HIV in the form of strong questions and evidence versus headlines that say "Everything You Know About AIDS is Wrong" and describing the current views on it as "Dogma", without any references at all. This is primarily sensationalism, not science writing.

    Posted 15 years ago #
  5. truthmover
    Administrator

    Did a quick search of Sheila Casey's blog, a primary contributor to RCFP and according to people I trust, not someone to be trusted. Found the following.

    "Is the world ruled by a Satanic cult?" http://www.sheilacasey.com/2008/11/the-world-is-ru...

    More NWO conspiracy theory. To be frank, one of the primary forces pushing me away from the 9/11 truth movement is the mounting ubiquity of this paranoia. It seems that only a very small minority are willing to question the logic and practicality of Alex Jones and WeAreChange based on their firm support for this line of thinking.

    I appreciate christ4sale's attitude regarding examining sources of information and taking what is valuable. That works for people who have enough education and experience to have developed a strong BS detector. For those less prepared, sensationalism and bad journalism do harm.

    Posted 15 years ago #
  6. JohnA
    Member

    hmm... wasn't Gallo that discredited scientist who plagiarized the work of the French in 1984?

    http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/hiv/jcgallocase.htm

    Posted 15 years ago #
  7. truthmover
    Administrator

    Also...All this feels a lot like the approach we see from many of the same people as they attempt to prop up the criticism of a few scientists who question the nature of climate change.

    Posted 15 years ago #
  8. Victronix
    Member

    I appreciate christ4sale's attitude regarding examining sources of information and taking what is valuable.

    Yes, I'm mainly responding tersely because of my own attitude at the moment, not his point, which is good.

    hmm... wasn't Gallo that discredited scientist who plagiarized the work of the French in 1984?

    http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/hiv/jcgallocase.htm

    Indeed. He seems to be a capitalist first. But that doesn't make the science wrong. Lot's of scientists are jerks and are in it to make money.

    Wikipedia helps nothing by describing those who question AIDS as "AIDS denialists". That only polarizes and infuriates people.

    Posted 15 years ago #
  9. Victronix
    Member

    John, virusmyth.com is a site that has "Support President Mbeki" at the top of the page. Mbeki's policies probably killed many thousands of sick people that he told to take lemon juice to cure their illnesses, and that has nothing to do with the facts about AIDS and HIV, whatever they are -- that has to do with people's lives.

    That's what's really the problem with all this, as with the autism and vaccine issue -- when people's lives are at risk. There can be a genuine controversy that is not yet solved and may not be solved for quite awhile, but we are gambling with people's lives. If we say HIV isn't AIDS, or that vaccines cause autism, but have no cure for HIV or measles or mumps and people die, that's the price some people will pay. And who decides? It's a huge controversy and involves not just deaths, but the quality of sick people's lives. Millions of people . . .

    Posted 15 years ago #
  10. JohnA
    Member

    but isn;t the vaccines question really about the mercury-based preservatives that extend the shelf-life of the product?

    Isn't that about PROFITS as opposed to saving lives?

    it IS possible to make vaccines without this preservative - isn't it?

    i think it is false to say that linking vaccines to autism will cost lives when there are alternatives to these production methods.

    my nerves are not calmed one bit by the ruling of the courts deeming measles vaccines safe. not one bit.

    when it comes to injecting babies with mercury that MAY be linked to autism - shouldn't the rule of thumb be to err on the side of safety - as opposed to put the purden of proof on the victims - and protecting corporate pharmaceutical interests?

    Posted 15 years ago #
  11. truthmover
    Administrator

    Anyone want to start a new thread about vaccines?

    Posted 15 years ago #
  12. Victronix
    Member

    i think it is false to say that linking vaccines to autism will cost lives when there are alternatives to these production methods.

    What alternatives are there -- currently -- for preventing measles, mumps and rubella?

    When you stop giving the existing vaccines to children, they die. It's that simple.

    it IS possible to make vaccines without this preservative - isn't it?

    Wikipedia states:

    Perhaps the best-known theory involving mercury and autism involves the use of the mercury-based compound thiomersal, a preservative that has been phased out from most childhood vaccinations in developed countries. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_autism#Merc...

    Regardless, killing children isn't going to be the best way to make change happen. And right now, children have died from parents withholding vaccines because of mercury fears.

    The controversy has to be worked out in the medical community without risking the lives of children when parents stop using the only method to prevent fatal diseases.

    Until there is another method, lives are at stake, and children don't get a say in what their choices are.

    This theory hypothesizes that autism is associated with mercury poisoning, based on perceived similarity of symptoms and reports of mercury or its biomarkers in some autistic children.[61] The principal source of human exposure to organic mercury is via fish consumption and for inorganic mercury is dental amalgams. Other forms of exposure, such as in cosmetics and vaccines, also occur. The evidence so far is indirect for the association between autism and mercury exposure after birth, as no direct test has been reported, and there is no evidence of an association between autism and postnatal exposure to any neurotoxicant.[62]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_autism#Mercury

    None of us has the answer as to what causes autism, but when the controversy itself leads to deaths, the question of 'in what realm to advocate the arguments' becomes important.

    Mbeki's policies around the idea that HIV does not cause AIDS are estimated to have lead to the deaths of over 300,000 people during his time as president.

    By CELIA W. DUGGER Published: November 25, 2008 JOHANNESBURG — A new study by Harvard researchers estimates that the South African government would have prevented the premature deaths of 365,000 people earlier this decade if it had provided antiretroviral drugs to AIDS patients and widely administered drugs to help prevent pregnant women from infecting their babies.http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/26/world/africa/26aids.html?_r=2&hp

    Harvard may be wrong . . . but what if they aren't?

    That's a lot of suffering. When the immune system breaks down your body gets taken over with everything and anything. You name it. I lived with a person who worked in a lab when AIDS first hit the scene in SF and they couldn't believe the bizarre and awful illnesses suddenly cropping up all over the place. Terrible things that cause tremendous suffering. But when the immune system disappears, you are wide open to everything out there. That's what happens with AIDS -- the immune system is gone.

    That kind of thing has to be protected from the academic controversy because babies and people like the population under Mbeki are completely vulnerable and become the pawns of the debate, pay with their lives.

    Posted 15 years ago #
  13. JohnA
    Member

    i am not weighing in on the AIDS issue. i just don't know enough.

    but i do think your are still creating a false dichotomy between vaccines and child mortality rates.

    it is not a 'one or the other' choice.

    vaccines are necessary. i understand that.

    but when we see the NUMBER of vaccines skyrocketing just in the last decade - creating huge profits for corporations - i do NOT think it is illegitimate to ask what is driving this policy - science or money?

    why is it that the number of shots - not actual multiple immunizations combined in these shots - but the actual number of shots have almost tripled in the last 15 years. Have you done any research on the latest "SAFE" immunization of Rotavirus? Did you know that they tried that 10 years ago and removed it from the scheduled because it was causing deaths? Hhmm, lets inject it into babies again and see if it works this time. And why is it that the perfectly safe DTP had to be made safer and is now the DTaP?

    reminds me of the subprime mortgage meltdown.

    did you know that Wall Street securities ratings companies like Standards and Poor gave the recent TOXIC assets of subprime mortgage debt instruments a AAA rating?

    These AAA ratings led to the current worldwide economic meltdown as many nations abroad bought these debt instruments believing they were safe.

    how could this happen?

    Ask yourself where Standard and Poors gets its money.

    Similarly- the CDC receives funds for the advancement of immunizations and preventing diseases. So, yes, all of the "researchers" and personnel compiling data are making money - it doesn't matter if those dollars are from a federal source or not - money is money and greed is greed.

    Posted 15 years ago #
  14. Victronix
    Member

    i do NOT think it is illegitimate to ask what is driving this policy - science or money?

    I have no problems with anyone asking questions of anything. My point is that when certain questions are asked in the public realm, they can end up costing lives. The questions need to be being asked in the scientific realm.

    When lives are at stake, there is a much higher burden on doctors and caregivers to focus on the best proven way to keep people alive, so the whole push goes toward shutting down inquiry that seeks to dismantle or disrupt that path, merely by asking questions.

    So it's not a simple thing. Throw in the issue of profits and pharmaceuticals and it's a big mess. I'm sure there are unethical profit motives behind increasing numbers of vaccines and drugs. That's pretty much a given that things in a capitalist system will just get worse and worse in that direction.

    This does relate to the issue of climate change also because there are similar potential costs of lives when the theory is put to the public as questionable, when the scientific community, right or wrong, has come to agreement on the views.

    I personally believe that the scientific method is not like 'the market' -- that it will indeed sort things out. The problem is, the market and science are intertwined. And I think what that mainly means is that answers to some questions will take a lot longer. We will get there, but not today.

    Getting money out of politics is the first step to everything else.

    Posted 15 years ago #
  15. Victronix
    Member

    Similarly- the CDC receives funds for the advancement of immunizations and preventing diseases. So, yes, all of the "researchers" and personnel compiling data are making money - it doesn't matter if those dollars are from a federal source or not - money is money and greed is greed.

    Well, yes and no. There are the pharma CEOs and those making a lot of money, and there are academic and government researchers who make little money, or go from grant to grant, and their work is published if it is valid. The whole issue of vaccines is complex because if you can't get companies to make them, you can have a public health disaster on your hands. It's the mix of money and health that shouldn't be going on, but despite that, there are still a lot of sincere researchers and organizations that are plugging along and making a difference also, doing real science.

    Posted 15 years ago #
  16. emanuel
    Member

    Here's my take on the autism/vaccine Issue. I think it is clear that in a small number of predisposed children, Thimerasol (a mercury-based preservative) causes or at a minimum precipitates the onset of autism. I believe this is irrefutable given the number of cases of a perfectly normal kid getting a vaccine with Thimerasol and a few hours later stop speaking forever (or otherwise develop severe autism). The fact that this occurs in only a tiny percentage of kids who get the vaccine does not negate the obvious link between the vaccine and at least these particular children. The proof is in the timing.

    The FDA's denial most certainly involves the issue of money, but it also involves public health, in my opinion. The only alternative to Thimerasol, as I understand it, is refrigeration, and there simply is no refrigeration in most of the developing world. Hence there is no alternative for millions of children.

    So if the FDA to acknowledged a link between Thimerasol and autism, there would be difficult repercussions involving public health that could be even worse. For example, a great many parents would not want to play Russian Roulette with their children if this were acknowledged, no matter how small the risk was, increasing the chances of an epidemic. And then there's the liability issue. Who is going to take responsibility for the kids who do come down with autism if the FDA recognizes there is a link? Who will take responsibility for encouraging millions of families to get the vaccines despite the risk? I think some powerful people just concluded it is easier and better for public health if the link was denied.

    I used to believe it was all and only about money (and I am sure much of it is), but now I think there may be some public health consideration also going on behind the scenes.

    Emanuel

    Posted 15 years ago #
  17. Victronix
    Member

    Good points Emanuel, thanks.

    Congress is involved too, apparently disappearing the bills. These are all I'm aware of --

    House Resolution 881, Mercury-Free Vaccine Act of 2007 would ban the use of mercury-containing vaccine in pregnant women and children younger than 6. It would ban the use of any vaccine with more than 1 microgram of mercury for the rest of the population. This bill never became law. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110...

    House Resolution 1973, Vaccine Safety and Public Confidence Act of 2007 This bill would create a new agency completely separate form the Centers for Disease Control and Representatives Dave Weldon, MD, (Republican- Florida) and Carolyn Maloney (Democrat-New York) along with other thoughtful Representatives have sponsored three bills that move us toward greener vaccines. This bill never became law. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110...

    House Resolution 2832, Comprehensive Comparative Study of Vaccinated and Un-Vaccinated Populations Act of 2007, This bill would have the National Institute of Health do the obvious, but never performed, analysis of the health outcomes with vaccinated and un-vaccinated groups. no info on this one.

    Posted 15 years ago #

Reply

You must log in to post.