The Great Shalom has taken an enormous hit for curating information on vaccines. After having become very sick right after being in a small room with lots of people who had taken the covid vax, I stopped posting for a while. I was in bed while I saw the withdrawal from Afghanistan. I was scared. Eventually, I started up again, but then with posting – although not putting the info in social media or on the podcast itself. This resulted in hundred of hits going down to tens or ones.
However, if I am going to help you overcome your children’s learning problems, I am going to have to admit things that harm learning ability. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. I would rather prevent learning problems, learning disabilities, than have to solve them, or heavens, be told I must cope with them! Let’s stop making learning disabilities, are you with me?
Some of you will have knee jerk reactions to this topic, but that is what teaching attempts to overcome. Watch this video, and then come back to this post, and think through my questions. Learn what science is, how it works, and how to tell what is true.
Doug shares an interview with RJK, Jr, who is answering in a hostile interview about what the sicence actually says about vaccines. Like Andrew Wakelfeild, world class gastroenterologist, he comes down saying we need safety testing. Wow. For that, he is being attacked. THINK!
Further, given that every ministry and truth-telling journalist or commentator has mentioned shadow banning, cancellation, de-platforming, and/lawfare, please do what you can to be part of the solution rather than part of the problem. Like, share, and participate with those who are helping you rather than colluding against you, lying to you, and — to be frank – attempting to kill you. Be wise, be prudent, but be courageous. Be a real Christian; be a real patriot. Stand up, appropriately, for what is right. Otherwise, the tyranny of lies will overtake you and your children.
EMPOWERING QUESTIONS AND BRIEF TEACHING ABOUT SCIENCE
It appears that the reporter and the purported doctor (not a scientist, mind you) is saying an exact opposite to what RFk Jr is saying, but that is not so. Listen carefully. A little testing of some kind is not the same as long-term, double-blind, pre-licening safety study. Do you understand? Any purported study is not the same as a high standard real scientific study.
Is this doctor an expert because he is a doctor? No. Doctors are not scientists. They tend not to have time to follow science; they tend to follow what their professional associations tell them.
Does RJK, Jr have higher level of information about what the CDC and the FDA say than the reporter? Listen carefully to what sources each cite.
Does the reporter’s demeanor indicate that she is trying to find the truth or that she is trying to attack?
Does it matter who does a study? Do you remember RJR Nabisco saying that there was no health problems with cigarettes? They had some studies they did that showed this throughout the sixties. Even into the 1990s there were some studies that seem to indicate that second hand smoking doesn’t harm anyone. Do you believe that finding?
How could it be? To answer that, let’s take a brief tour about what science it.
Science is defined as that which uses the scientific method: controlled, double-blind, replicated experiments. Reported in full so that they might be replicated. Science remains ever open to new findings.
Science is NOT defined as a reporter’s claim, based on marketing data. Some “science” unfortunately is “cooked.” This means that the experiment was manipulated and/or the findings were reported incorrectly. The experiment can be done badly. For instance, a poll based on phone numbers in 1948 reported that Dewey, not Truman would win the election. This was very embarassing the next morning with now President-elect Truman held up a newspaper with a false headline. This was poor experimental design.
We have a letter uncovered in old records ( 19502 and 1960s) at Stanford, asking a scientist to suppress her findings and instead report that high fat diet causes heart attacks. She complied, and it was widely marketed that a low fat diet would reduce death from heart disease and heart attacks. Now we know that 1) fat alone does not contribute to death by heart disease
2) hydogenated fat does cause heart health problems (not saturated fat as claimed.) and 3) the effects of sugar/carbs was suppressed. While I was not able to find citation easily for that, I did find some citations to similar episodes. The point is: reporting can be false even at the origination of the science and certainly at the point of journalism, that is supported by corporate interests or now more likely owned by the same money interests.
How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat
The New York Times
https://www.nytimes.com › Well › Eat
Sep 12, 2016 — Dr. Hegsted used his research to influence the government’s dietary recommendations, which emphasized saturated fat as a driver of heart …
by AM Brandt · 2012 · Cited by 226 — Confronted by compelling peer-reviewed scientific evidence of the harms of smoking, the tobacco industry, beginning in the 1950s, used sophisticated public …
Also, ask yourself, what are the likely motivations of various claimants? Who is sacrificing themselves, trying to help you? n Why are the various people making the claims that they are making?
What would the downside be of each path? If you chose to trust the authorities, you might feel better, but would that decision necessarily be the safest for you or for society? If you went with the purported whistleblower, and more safety tests were demanded, would that help you, or society?
Where could you get more information, that was unbiased and competent? Who might actually know? How can you tell?
And, finally, when asking questions or asking for more studies is seen as bad, you know immediately you have stepped out of the realm of science. This is what scientists do: they ask questions, they put forth what needs to be studied next. Tyrants don’t like questions. Guilty people really hate questions.
CONCLUSION
If you want to find out more.. well, you are on your own. You will be slandered as a conspiracy theorist, but the safety of you and your child are at stake. If you want to help, please share, like, subscribe. If you want to engage you civic right and duty, check out Texas for Vaccine Choice as a model.
