Turtles All the Way Down

🖨️ Print post

Turtles All the Way Down: Vaccine Science and Myth
Edited by Zoey O’Toole & Mary Holland
Children’s Health Defense

One of the most common problems with scientific debate today is that it is not scientific. It is just childish name-calling. One side makes an assertion based on data. The other side says you don’t have the proper credentials, you don’t have enough PhDs or MDs or other fancy letters after your name, or you’re ugly and your mama dresses you funny, so you’re stupid. So shut up.

The authors of this book are anonymous, thereby taking this silly game off the table. If you want to argue with the points in the book, you’re going to have to address the real issues and not just change the subject and resort to ad hominem attacks. Those kinds of attacks are a dead giveaway that the critics don’t know the subject and have no science backing them up.

If you carefully look through the literature, you will find vaccine studies that say they are “placebo-controlled.” If you dig a little deeper, you will find that the “placebo” is another vac­cine that has already been approved. The very shaky assumption is that an approved vaccine must be safe, so it is an acceptable placebo. That approved vaccine, in turn, played the same game with another approved vaccine, and so on. When you eventually get to the first vaccine at the bottom of the stack, you will find that its claims to safety are based on nothing. It really is “turtles all the way down.”

A very long time ago, someone asked, “What holds up the earth?” The quaint answer back in the day was, “a giant turtle.” That, of course, led to the question, “What holds up the turtle?” Naturally, the answer is, “another turtle.” It’s turtles all the way down. (Don’t ask, “down to what?” The awkward answer is, down to nothing.) And there you have it. Vaccine safety claims are based onnothing.

Before you get any grand ideas about taking Big Pharma to court over this fraud, the authors have some bad news. This is all legal. They don’t say it is okay or good or even remotely accept­able—but it is legal. Welcome to Planet Earth. Lock and load.

When you hear that there is no evidence of adverse effects from vaccines, you understand that it is hard to find what you are very delib­erately not looking for. But aren’t these studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals? The British Medical Journal tested reviewers by inserting serious errors in studies that were then submitted for review. To put it nicely, the reviewers flunked the test with flying colors.

The authors conclude that peer review is almost worthless. As an engineer who has been through many design reviews, I can at­test to that. Reviewing someone else’s work is never easy or fun. Scientists and engineers have their own projects and little time to review other projects. Reviews often degenerate into meetings where typos and other nitpicks are pointed out and not much more. However, en­gineers still have to test a prototype and make it actually work. In contrast, every time we hear that mRNA vaccines are “safe and effective” reminds us that Big Pharma has found a way to foist its products on the public when they are not safe and even kill people. Buttrust the science.

It is widely known and accepted that drug interactions can cause severe adverse effects, including death. How do they test every pos­sible drug combination? They don’t. They have not even pretended to test all combinations of vaccines on the schedule. Buttrust the science.

One last story to boost your faith in sci­ence. Ward and others tested the theory that fly-infested food placed near polio patients might transmit polio. Feeding it to chimps had no effect, so they injected the chimps’ poop into rhesus monkeys, paralyzing a third. Their conclusion: a virus in fly-contaminated food caused polio. Spotting the flaw in this reasoning is not hard. The thumb is UP

🖨️ Print post