Can somebody debunk this?

[Iknovate]

Ending Plague:
"When Science magazine published a history of the Special Cancer Viral Program, a footnote explained that most refused to have their names published for fear of reprisal.

Since people are afraid of the consequences of telling the truth, only the fairy tale praise of the sycophants makes it into the history books. Media pundits, with no idea of how paradigm-changing work in science is accomplished--the teamwork and enormous work necessary--only make matters worse by their hero worship of unworthy individuals like Gallo and Fauci who claim credit for the hard work of others. Except when that work reveals inconvenient truths of the damage wrought by the scientific establishment. Then the misogynists resort to the traditional cowardice of blaming the messenger, especially if that scientist is a woman."

That's why I had no trouble believing Judy Mikovits, because I'd already read about Candace Pert's experiences with Fauci when he insisted on promoting AZT over her research on AIDS. See Molecules of Emotion. If only Dallas Buyers Club had exposed these issues (then again it's a Hollywood product).

 

[Abrin]

This is just my personal opinion as I lived through the time where Judy Mikovits was publishing her data and have followed her career arch ever since. Believing anything Judy Mikovits says as a whole just because she might speak the truth a small amount of the time would be a grave error.

 

[Oliver3]

@Oliver3 Clicking the Watch on YouTube link doesn't work? Do a search on his channel on YouTube. The series was just introduced 1-2 months ago.

I agree that there is much I've taken with a grain of salt from Klinghardt. But he adapts his perspectives over time so older stuff may no longer be in Vogue. This series is reflective of his current perspectives and is combined with the why (critical).

Indeed, he talks about the issues in medical research, medicine, and the lock held on controlling published research. I am knee deep in the politics of research in general and how careers are manipulated by power struggles as I continue to read Francis Ruscetti's experience inside the NIH. You can't even trust the names that appear in published research papers.

I was looking for but can't just find (need to highlight) Ruscetti's quote about egomaniacs like his former boss Gallo and Fauci.

Here's the problem with transparency, we're suddenly realizing that all the things we believed about our institutions (government and education) have been a lie, carefully crafted for deception. I no longer trust anyone who repeats their lies.

Indeed and that's why I can't dismiss even mikowitz totally. What if she is right. I've just watched a podcast from doctor John Campbell who is very provaccine . He just interviewed a popular American mountain biker( I don't know him) and this bikers experience of a bad reaction to the covid vaccine . What was so striking is how much his sym0tims resembled m.e. he went from super fit to pots etc in an hour.
What was also shocking was the doctors reaction. The same as it is for us sufferers.
Its all in your head. Goodbye.
I'm not saying all m.e. is vaccine related but I wonder what mechanism from the vaccine is replicating m.em like that.
He crashes from concentrating , everything we do

 

[Oliver3]

Ending Plague:
"When Science magazine published a history of the Special Cancer Viral Program, a footnote explained that most refused to have their names published for fear of reprisal.

Since people are afraid of the consequences of telling the truth, only the fairy tale praise of the sycophants makes it into the history books. Media pundits, with no idea of how paradigm-changing work in science is accomplished--the teamwork and enormous work necessary--only make matters worse by their hero worship of unworthy individuals like Gallo and Fauci who claim credit for the hard work of others. Except when that work reveals inconvenient truths of the damage wrought by the scientific establishment. Then the misogynists resort to the traditional cowardice of blaming the messenger, especially if that scientist is a woman."

That's why I had no trouble believing Judy Mikovits, because I'd already read about Candace Pert's experiences with Fauci when he insisted on promoting AZT over her research on AIDS. See Molecules of Emotion. If only Dallas Buyers Club had exposed these issues (then again it's a Hollywood product).

Interesting...I don't have the knowledge to debunk her but I find the finality with which she was discredited disturbing

 

[Oliver3]

This is just my personal opinion as I lived through the time where Judy Mikovits was publishing her data and have followed her career arch ever since. Believing anything Judy Mikovits says as a whole just because she might speak the truth a small amount of the time would be a grave error.

Yes, this is why I asked for other opinions.
But , believing many things from standard American medicine seems equally dangerous right now

 

[Abrin]

Yes, this is why I asked for other opinions.
But , believing many things from standard American medicine seems equally dangerous right now

I personally don't believe both to be 'equally dangerous'. While I completely understand why people would have their doubts about standard American medicine it can not be denied that there is a subset of people out there who make a very profitable living making stuff up about the failures of standard American medicine.

The darkly funny thing about the whole situation to me is that you don't have to dig down far to find all the real ways that Western medicine have failed us but that actual truth just wouldn't be profitable to the snake oil salesmen. They need the narrative of replacing one system with another in order to make their sales pitch.

 

[Oliver3]

there was some discussion in PR on a thread about vascular issues...

I get my surface veins swell up in my hand and it feels really awful, radiates out of a knuckle, is something odd and I suspect, neurological. So I rub THC or CBD type lotions on this vein and the swollen and yucky awful ness subsides and it calms down and stops hurting and feeling horrible. Not via numbing agents.

But somebody else on that thread has an opposite reaction, and finds it causes their veins to inflame.

Yeah that's me...I just have to use it occasionally

 

[Abrin]

Interesting...I don't have the knowledge to debunk her but I find the finality with which she was discredited disturbing

People who submit fraudulent research data have a tendency to be discredited with finality. Same thing happened with Andrew Wakefield.

 

[Oliver3]

People who submit fraudulent research data have a tendency to be discredited with finality. Same thing happened with Andrew Wakefield.

But as I related earlier, there are many threads of science unraveling. I'm just remaining open minded by I understand your concerns

 

[Abrin]

But as I related earlier, there are many threads of science unraveling. I'm just remaining open minded by I understand your concerns

Nothing wrong with being open-minded for sure!

 

[dannybex]

Interesting...I don't have the knowledge to debunk her but I find the finality with which she was discredited disturbing

Perhaps this will help. Even just the last 4-5 paragraphs:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7398426/

 

[Iknovate]

People who submit fraudulent research data have a tendency to be discredited with finality. Same thing happened with Andrew Wakefield.

Fraudulent by whose standards? Clearly you've not studied the facts about how good research is 'shut down' as fraudulent.

This isn't just about Judy.

Let's also consider this possibility, that the struggles of each and every person in this group is for naught because of research that was politically marked as fraudulent.

Let that sink in for a moment.

How well is that system you're defending serving you?

 

[Rvanson]

I use both Liposomal Vitamin C and regular Vitamin C, along with MSM, Vitamin D3, and N-Acetyl-Cysteine (NAC) and Zinc to both help my ME/CFS and to ward off the COVID-19 virus, among many other supplements.

 

[dannybex]

Fraudulent by whose standards? Clearly you've not studied the facts about how good research is 'shut down' as fraudulent.

Perhaps this will help you:

https://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.c7452

This isn't just about Judy.

So I guess now that Judy's claims have indeed been debunked, not only years ago, but again in this thread...we're moving on to others? Perhaps it would be better to start a new thread.

Let's also consider this possibility, that the struggles of each and every person in this group is for naught because of research that was politically marked as fraudulent.

That seems to be awfully presumptuous. It's possible that fraudulent research that has been debunked may be affecting some people, but it's unlikely that it's affecting 'each and every person in this group'. Many people are improving in all sorts of ways on these forums using a variety of protocols.

Let that sink in for a moment.

How well is that system you're defending serving you?

Just fine, thank you.

 

[Iknovate]

@dannybex
Care to explain why you've provided 'evidence' totally unrelated?

 

[Oliver3]

Perhaps this will help you:

https://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.c7452



So I guess now that Judy's claims have indeed been debunked, not only years ago, but again in this thread...we're moving on to others? Perhaps it would be better to start a new thread.



That seems to be awfully presumptuous. It's possible that fraudulent research that has been debunked may be affecting some people, but it's unlikely that it's affecting 'each and every person in this group'. Many people are improving in all sorts of ways on these forums using a variety of protocols.



Just fine, thank you.

But it's actively repressed m.e.. research for decades.
There's a whole raft of assumptions, like not including women in trials for a long time, that skewed results.
Then there's the actual mendacity and slight of hand of pharmaceutical s or those conducting science under pressure of results.
There are so many biases inside science that saying " follow the science" is a lot more flimsy than we were lead to believe

 

[Oliver3]

Perhaps this will help. Even just the last 4-5 paragraphs:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7398426/

Seems pretty damning
On the other hand, the Wuhan lab leak theory was debunked by many mainstream scientists as racist hogwash, there was no scientific basis etc. Or the GET trials were perfectly sound.
Of course, I do feel with mikowitz that you might be right, but the muddying of the waters by supposedly respectful scientists debunking " crazies" keeps happening, then they either withdraw their assertions or quietly don't talk about it.
My original post was really about the endo cannabinoid system, which seems to hold some water. So I can't write her off completely and I absolutely distrust everyone at this point.
How could you not?

 

[Abrin]

Clearly you've not studied the facts about how good research is 'shut down' as fraudulent.

And clearly you haven't looked deeply into Judy's XMRV study.

 

[Abrin]

Seems pretty damning
On the other hand, the Wuhan lab leak theory was debunked by many mainstream scientists as racist hogwash, there was no scientific basis etc. Or the GET trials were perfectly sound.
Of course, I do feel with mikowitz that you might be right, but the muddying of the waters by supposedly respectful scientists debunking " crazies" keeps happening, then they either withdraw their assertions or quietly don't talk about it.
My original post was really about the endo cannabinoid system, which seems to hold some water. So I can't write her off completely and I absolutely distrust everyone at this point.
How could you not?

That is the thing though. The GET trials were bad science and they didn't stand up to peer scrutiny and were called out for being the bad science it was. It is just like what happened with Judy's XMRV research when none of her peer's could reproduce it. It was called out for the bad science it was.

That being said, I totally get not wanting to write off anyone completely and the absolute distrust in everyone at this point. I have no fondness for the 'scientific research machine' either right now. But, I will always have a fondness for a good, reproduceable studies though.

 

[dannybex]

@dannybex
Care to explain why you've provided 'evidence' totally unrelated?

Abrin brought up Andrew Wakefield's work as being an another example of fraudulent work. You replied by saying, "Fraudulent by whose standards?"

And I replied with evidence related to your reply.