The lefts goal is indoctrination to what they want you to believe. It isn’t to gain a deeper understanding of the issues in a manner that classical liberals and classical liberal arts education would pursue. The left wants dominion, nothing less.
Demanding seat belts in cars did not make Ralph Nader an anti car promoter.. He was an advocate for car safety. Kennedy is not an anti vaxer he is an advocate for vaccine/medical safety.
Exactly! But Big Pharma has to smear him least they make a few less bucks off our bodies. God forbid they make a safer product if it costs them five cents more a dose. No! They won’t do it because they don’t care who they injure, kill or make chronically unwell. In fact it’s good for their business to have sick and unwell people to keep selling their drugs to.
Yes “but”. Not enough people made the effort to understand Nader that he remains a fringe figure. I voted for him twice. But my support is usually the kiss of death for a politician.
He asks questions that the authorities refuse to answer clearly or at all. He had to sue CDC to admit that no vaccine on the childhood vaccine Schedule has ever been tested in a RCT against a true placebo. This is why they will never debate him. He has the facts that back up his position and he has stated clearly if you can show him where he got it wrong he will adjust to this new reality.
Yes he has stated it multiple times take time to listen to him. The Joe Rogan podcast with him would be a good place to start. Bari Weiss just interviewed him in her podcast called Honestly. Open your mind up. But be forewarned he will challenge the narrative you have been fed by the MSM.
I already listened to the entire Joe Rogan podcast, plus a Jordan Peterson podcast, plus at least one other one. Even though the Rogan podcast was my third RJK Jr interview, I found it quite educational. My mind is more open than most. I am rooting for RFK Jr to be head of HHS if Trump is reelected and has the chutzpah to put him there.
I was asking for a URL, not challenging the comment.
I believe the two books The Real Anthony Fauci and Turtles All the Way Down... I read the Fauci book and it is jam packed with this kind of information and all of it is referenced. I want to read Turtles - I think it is more focused on just vaccines and is supposed to be an easier read.
I agree with RFK Jr. on many issues, such as vaccination and free speech. I disagree with his position on climate change. A colleague of mine at UNR had given a presentation to the student union where he disproved every single claim that Al Gore made in his movie ‘An Inconvenient Truth’. The arctic is not ice free, the polar bears are fine and the correlation between temperature and CO2 during the interglacials is backwards: first the temperature rises and then with an eight hundred year delay, the CO2 level rise. It has to do with the oceans slowly warming up and releasing CO2. I followed the many articles posted on wattsupwiththat.com hosted by Anthony Watts.
I am German and see with horror what is happening in Germany. The Green Party is destroying the German industry. The same is happening in California. We must resist.
I am a physicist and I strongly encourage research in new nuclear technologies for power production. Fusion will still be a thing of the future. One of the biggest problem in fusion is the production of tritium. At the moment, only nuclear power plants are able to breed it, since it doesn’t occur in nature. For that, lithium must be used. Then fusion has to compete with electric vehicles for lithium resources…
But open debate is what we need otherwise we fall back into the dark ages.
Stephan, I live in Frankfurt am Main and over the Winter & Spring, the highly-paid politicians appear to live in an alternate reality than we do with the proposed Heizungsgesetz (Heating Law). I personally have both Fernwärmung (nearby hot water from Uni Westend) and a Wärmepumpe (heat pump) as I decided years ago to make the condo comfortable for my wife. Germany is producing more CO2, importing electricity from French nuclear, and importing LNG, all because the Greens didn't want to keep the nuclear plants running even though the chance for a Japanese-style tsunami is nill, or drill for fracking gas. Why? Could a part of this be an effort 30 years ago to make Germany dependent on Russian natural gas?
Agree. Investigative reporters should look closely at those climate change scientists who are warning that the sky is falling and see who is funding them. It appears to me that those who make it to the press are highly funded to advocate that position, and the majority of such scientists who disagree (and who show us that not too long ago we were in danger of global cooling) should be given a voice in the press.
I think the key element of energy supply which remains untapped is conservation--not using energy. I don't understand why subsidies for insulation and other methods of saving energy were terminated years ago, i.e in my home state of Oregon.
I too am dismayed by Bobbys past remarks on climate change.
I know people close to him who say they’ve tried repeatedly to bring him up to speed.
He’s a clever man so it won’t be an inability to understand what he’s been told.
Either those around him aren’t competent to show Bobby the killer evidence that would be arresting, as it was for me, or there’s likely something else at work here.
I feel disquiet at either possibility.
Once you’re open to the possibility that officials & professional scientists will lie overtly, right in your face, it becomes easy to see that the CO2 based anthropogenic climate change narrative is at best severely flawed and questionable & at worst, known to be completely without foundation.
I reached the latter conclusion a couple of years ago.
I’d already deduced that the covid event was a pure PsyOp, with the implications for which I’m notorious (& I stand by all I’ve said & written, with the occasional amendment as I learned more, views which have become increasingly steadfast).
I started looking at other mainstay narratives.
Climate change was a fragile construction, blown over easily by this simple guide: go & listen to all those with a career applying to the topic who’ve become unpersons. Like me in covid and especially “covid vaccines”.
There is a good bench of such people & none would even come close to agreeing with the official position. I now have sufficient knowledge and specific evidence to hold my own in debates with non specialists at least. It’s all lies. We’re not changing the global climate in any way which could lead to catastrophic consequences.
Then I looked at one I’ve never thought to consider: that earth is over populated with humans and a die back is all but certain. That’s harder to call than climate but it’s fair to say we definitely could get through peak population without unavoidable disaster.
I understand the argument that says if everyone born in the last decade was ultimately to live at a material standard of living equal to that of the average American adult, there are too few resources to allow that. But there’s no evidence we’re running out of crucial resources. That’s simply not true. Referencing proven reserves of A, B & C and comparing those to reasonably projected demands might lead the uncritical thinker to believe there are indeed way too many humans.
Two things though, as a starter (& there are many more).
1. Proven reserves are rarely if ever a match to rolled up future demands & this has always been true. Some people were making Malthusian prognostications way back when population was a mere billion. They were wrong then and I believe wrong now.
2. Where does the concern that everyone even wants to live a life materially equivalent to the average American come from? I’d be willing to cut my own consumption by a half in a heartbeat. Most people would, I believe, all but the already poorest quartile, for whom such a fall might mean insufficient food and fuel to exist in a temperate country.
My own guess is most people want to see improvements over their lot, for their children and grandchildren. It doesn’t need to be by much. We are approaching peak human population and agree with Mr Musk & Dr Peterson that, certainly by century’s end, population collapse & not overpopulation is much more likely to be what humanity is facing.
So, yet another lie.
At this point, the reasonable person is surely asking “Are any of the current grand narrative points being correctly & fairly described?”
If there are ANY, I’m not aware of them.
I’d value a couple of lightly worked examples if you have some, and / or a critique of anything I’ve said!
Thank you very much for your valuable input. I watched many of your podcasts and interviews to educate myself about the Corona ‘epidemic’ or better ‘plandemic’. Both, in the public discussion about climate change and Coronavirus vaccination we hear the same slogans: ‘Trust the science’, ‘the science is settled’, ‘don’t listen to misinformation’, ‘there is a consensus’, etc. I think, each time we hear these words we should recognize that there is some hidden agenda that wants to eliminate any scientific debate.
Do you know what an ad hominem response in a debate is? This fallacy occurs when, instead of addressing someone's argument or position, you irrelevantly attack the person or some aspect of the person who is making the argument.
I agree RFK has opinions but he does support his opinions with evidence which is very well-refernced in his book.
To anyone else reading this reply - I refer you to my previous comment regarding ad hominem contributions to discussions and debates, and further state "I rest my case"!
I saw that and grinned. I’ve been in contact with Ed since early 2022 when I was first in USA. He’s been pretty direct about what’s happening in terms of excess deaths which are inexplicable other than a consequence of the gene based injections.
Dow’s book was a punch in the gut too few people will see. Meanwhile, most of the taxpaying citizens of the late, great USA will stand by, pretending not to notice anything’s wrong, as the country morphs into an ignorant, utterly corrupt shell of its former self.
It is just so frustrating and intellectually lazy. Prior to this election cycle, I had never given RFK Jr a second thought. I was vaguely aware of his work but listened to my pediatrician as she dismissed any pushback on the childhood vaccination schedule. I've now listened to multiple interviews with him and read some of the of the studies he's referenced. I am still not convinced of the causation v. correlation, but I AM convinced that much of what I thought was a concrete foundation for childhood vaccines was built on sand. Maybe he is just an exceptionally adept lawyer, but he certainly comes across as someone that cares about what he is saying and is eminently reasonable.
When other experts are unwilling to engage him, I read that as these people don't have facts to back up their assertions or are afraid of exposure. If they are concerned about debating face-to-face, then they can refute him with their data in writing. But the more they dissemble about how he can't be debated, the greater my estimate of how much he is actually getting right.
Just like doctors, lawyers, pilots et al Fact Checkers should require a license, educational requirements, oversight, ethics statutes, professional boards, oath to do no harm pro or con just an un abiding pursuit of facts. Fact checkers should be susceptible to malpractice law suit and other litigations. Regulate these rats make their faces known. A National Fact Checkers Board (NFCB) sort of like the NTSB.
I too am dismayed by Bobbys past remarks on climate change.
I know people close to him who say they’ve tried repeatedly to bring him up to speed.
He’s a clever man so it won’t be an inability to understand what he’s been told.
Either those around him aren’t competent to show Bobby the killer evidence that would be arresting, as it was for me, or there’s likely something else at work here.
I feel disquiet at either possibility.
Once you’re open to the possibility that officials & professional scientists will lie overtly, right in your face, it becomes easy to see that the CO2 based anthropogenic climate change narrative is at best severely flawed and questionable & at worst, known to be completely without foundation.
I reached the latter conclusion a couple of years ago.
I’d already deduced that the covid event was a pure PsyOp, with the implications for which I’m notorious (& I stand by all I’ve said & written, with the occasional amendment as I learned more, views which have become increasingly steadfast).
I started looking at other mainstay narratives.
Climate change was a fragile construction, blown over easily by this simple guide: go & listen to all those with a career applying to the topic who’ve become unpersons. Like me in covid and especially “covid vaccines”.
There is a good bench of such people & none would even come close to agreeing with the official position. I now have sufficient knowledge and specific evidence to hold my own in debates with non specialists at least. It’s all lies. We’re not changing the global climate in any way which could lead to catastrophic consequences.
Then I looked at one I’ve never thought to consider: that earth is over populated with humans and a die back is all but certain. That’s harder to call than climate but it’s fair to say we definitely could get through peak population without unavoidable disaster.
I understand the argument that says if everyone born in the last decade was ultimately to live at a material standard of living equal to that of the average American adult, there are too few resources to allow that. But there’s no evidence we’re running out of crucial resources. That’s simply not true. Referencing proven reserves of A, B & C and comparing those to reasonably projected demands might lead the uncritical thinker to believe there are indeed way too many humans.
Two things though, as a starter (& there are many more).
1. Proven reserves are rarely if ever a match to rolled up future demands & this has always been true. Some people were making Malthusian prognostications way back when population was a mere billion. They were wrong then and I believe wrong now.
2. Where does the concern that everyone even wants to live a life materially equivalent to the average American come from? I’d be willing to cut my own consumption by a half in a heartbeat. Most people would, I believe, all but the already poorest quartile, for whom such a fall might mean insufficient food and fuel to exist in a temperate country.
My own guess is most people want to see improvements over their lot, for their children and grandchildren. It doesn’t need to be by much. We are approaching peak human population and agree with Mr Musk & Dr Peterson that, certainly by century’s end, population collapse & not overpopulation is much more likely to be what humanity is facing.
So, yet another lie.
At this point, the reasonable person is surely asking “Are any of the current grand narrative points being correctly & fairly described?”
If there are ANY, I’m not aware of them.
I’d value a couple of lightly worked examples if you have some, and / or a critique of anything I’ve said!
Best wishes
Mike
(This comment was originally made in reply to another post, but as I wrote it, I thought it might be of interest to more readers, so I’ve taken the liberty of reproducing it in the main thread!)
Yes, Kennedy believes in Climate Change. The part that I could not accept is if he won't commit to us to exit the WHO, BECAUSE as of May, 2024, the WHO has the right to mandate lockdowns, vaccines, quarantines for its member-states by MERELY ABNNOUNCING A CLIMATE CHANGE EMERGENCY. (i.e. the idea is that a CC emergency is a type of health emergency.) Kennedy has stated, and has not retracted, that our "2020 lockdowns helped Climate Change," and another time, he stated, without retraction, that, people who work for organizations that aren't supporting Climate Change, should be, PERSONALLY, jailed. We need to get clarity, and to ask him if he will agree to withdraw from the WHO.
Fantastic. The thoughts on armchair hypothesis coming into focus and being exploded to reveal separate areas of mini hypothesis within a central hypothesis by arguing with another person is accurate and well described. The Times' author demonstrates his lack of understanding of JFK Jr and his ability to argue logically by misconstruing his way of arguing and through character assasination. That dishonesty undermines the author's own position rather than JFK Jr's and they force the question, why is the writer specifically and the NYT more broadly smearing JFK as being irrational and therefore incapable of arguing a position? The Times beclowns itself in any number of ways these days. The grand old angry Karen continues it's devolution into the paper of delusion. It's sad but expected.
I am aware that the Times still has news that is tethered to reality, but the state of journalism as a thing has declined to the point that it's simply impossible for the most prestigious paper in the country to do its job honestly. It is a difficult thing to maintain objectivity in retelling current events, but it's neigh impossible when the academics introducing newly minted writers into the journalism matrix view objectivity as white supremacist in nature. Add to that our situation in which the most respected institutions are now first to blindly follow tautologists into the logical sewer and you have a $10 paper not worth using outside of papering a birdcage.
"Democracy dies in darkness." What kind of light is the lame-stream media shedding? Or are they trying to cover the truth with disease-ridden blankets?
Mockingbird is up and running on all cylinders at the propaganda rags. NYT, WAPO, even Rolling Stone (not Stones) are all infiltrated by See eye eh, and every opinion is a propaganda piece. Contrast corporate media and independent reporting like here on Substack. Corporate reporting usually has a grain of truth surrounded by words that tell you what to think about the subject. If you want truth you have to go to independent media sources who report the truth and you decide the veracity of the information. Watching the media gaslighting people, and attacking anyone outside the orthodoxy they present as “conspiracy theorists” and “dangerous” confuses people who then question their own eyes and can’t decipher the wheat from the chaff. I stopped watching and reading corporate media twenty years ago so I’m marked “safe from propaganda today.”
How many of these characters on the other end of "the argument" have cited studies which hold up to scrutiny of the data and conclusions (and whether they support one another)? You should note that RFK Jr. can readily supply the reputable studies which support his point of view, and dissect those which don't hold water. I have also witnessed Mr. Kennedy admit when he does not have requisite mastery of a subject and demur on giving an opinion.
A year ago, I had used the line "the difference between a conspiracy theory and the truth is 6 months"
I have been corrected several times on various blog comments, that it is,in fact, closer to 6 weeks or less...
And, I have to agree...
The lefts goal is indoctrination to what they want you to believe. It isn’t to gain a deeper understanding of the issues in a manner that classical liberals and classical liberal arts education would pursue. The left wants dominion, nothing less.
Demanding seat belts in cars did not make Ralph Nader an anti car promoter.. He was an advocate for car safety. Kennedy is not an anti vaxer he is an advocate for vaccine/medical safety.
Exactly! But Big Pharma has to smear him least they make a few less bucks off our bodies. God forbid they make a safer product if it costs them five cents more a dose. No! They won’t do it because they don’t care who they injure, kill or make chronically unwell. In fact it’s good for their business to have sick and unwell people to keep selling their drugs to.
Yes “but”. Not enough people made the effort to understand Nader that he remains a fringe figure. I voted for him twice. But my support is usually the kiss of death for a politician.
He asks questions that the authorities refuse to answer clearly or at all. He had to sue CDC to admit that no vaccine on the childhood vaccine Schedule has ever been tested in a RCT against a true placebo. This is why they will never debate him. He has the facts that back up his position and he has stated clearly if you can show him where he got it wrong he will adjust to this new reality.
“Kiss of death”. A little harsh. Just because you go with rational thought, does not make you wrong.
Do you have a reference for an official statement on this?
Yes he has stated it multiple times take time to listen to him. The Joe Rogan podcast with him would be a good place to start. Bari Weiss just interviewed him in her podcast called Honestly. Open your mind up. But be forewarned he will challenge the narrative you have been fed by the MSM.
I already listened to the entire Joe Rogan podcast, plus a Jordan Peterson podcast, plus at least one other one. Even though the Rogan podcast was my third RJK Jr interview, I found it quite educational. My mind is more open than most. I am rooting for RFK Jr to be head of HHS if Trump is reelected and has the chutzpah to put him there.
I was asking for a URL, not challenging the comment.
Absolutely the best guy for the job, Trump originally was working with him until Gates stepped in and told him that it was not worth pursuing.
Robert Gates or Bill Gates?
Bill.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/09/flashback-video-shows-bill-gates-lied-trump-dangers-vaccines-trashed-robert-kennedy-jr/
Yes, and his website has a lot of information on his efforts.
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eLW9s6NpS7w&feature=youtu.be
I believe the two books The Real Anthony Fauci and Turtles All the Way Down... I read the Fauci book and it is jam packed with this kind of information and all of it is referenced. I want to read Turtles - I think it is more focused on just vaccines and is supposed to be an easier read.
I too, read the Fauci book.
Not an easy read, but well worth the time...
I hope to hear exposition on many more topics from RFK in the coming year.
I agree with RFK Jr. on many issues, such as vaccination and free speech. I disagree with his position on climate change. A colleague of mine at UNR had given a presentation to the student union where he disproved every single claim that Al Gore made in his movie ‘An Inconvenient Truth’. The arctic is not ice free, the polar bears are fine and the correlation between temperature and CO2 during the interglacials is backwards: first the temperature rises and then with an eight hundred year delay, the CO2 level rise. It has to do with the oceans slowly warming up and releasing CO2. I followed the many articles posted on wattsupwiththat.com hosted by Anthony Watts.
I am German and see with horror what is happening in Germany. The Green Party is destroying the German industry. The same is happening in California. We must resist.
I am a physicist and I strongly encourage research in new nuclear technologies for power production. Fusion will still be a thing of the future. One of the biggest problem in fusion is the production of tritium. At the moment, only nuclear power plants are able to breed it, since it doesn’t occur in nature. For that, lithium must be used. Then fusion has to compete with electric vehicles for lithium resources…
But open debate is what we need otherwise we fall back into the dark ages.
Absolutely agree with you!
I'm not a physicist, but I believe I am a realist.
In Canada we enjoy all 4 seasons with utter brilliance.
Cold, snowy winters, hot and occasionally humid summers.
Temperatures range between -32°C in winter, to +32°C in the summer.
Up here, we call it what it is:
The weather...
Stephan, I live in Frankfurt am Main and over the Winter & Spring, the highly-paid politicians appear to live in an alternate reality than we do with the proposed Heizungsgesetz (Heating Law). I personally have both Fernwärmung (nearby hot water from Uni Westend) and a Wärmepumpe (heat pump) as I decided years ago to make the condo comfortable for my wife. Germany is producing more CO2, importing electricity from French nuclear, and importing LNG, all because the Greens didn't want to keep the nuclear plants running even though the chance for a Japanese-style tsunami is nill, or drill for fracking gas. Why? Could a part of this be an effort 30 years ago to make Germany dependent on Russian natural gas?
see https://alexlekas.substack.com/p/the-conspiracy-theory-no-one-is-talking. Might be Russian propaganda but unsettling about Germany.
Agree. Investigative reporters should look closely at those climate change scientists who are warning that the sky is falling and see who is funding them. It appears to me that those who make it to the press are highly funded to advocate that position, and the majority of such scientists who disagree (and who show us that not too long ago we were in danger of global cooling) should be given a voice in the press.
I think the key element of energy supply which remains untapped is conservation--not using energy. I don't understand why subsidies for insulation and other methods of saving energy were terminated years ago, i.e in my home state of Oregon.
I too am dismayed by Bobbys past remarks on climate change.
I know people close to him who say they’ve tried repeatedly to bring him up to speed.
He’s a clever man so it won’t be an inability to understand what he’s been told.
Either those around him aren’t competent to show Bobby the killer evidence that would be arresting, as it was for me, or there’s likely something else at work here.
I feel disquiet at either possibility.
Once you’re open to the possibility that officials & professional scientists will lie overtly, right in your face, it becomes easy to see that the CO2 based anthropogenic climate change narrative is at best severely flawed and questionable & at worst, known to be completely without foundation.
I reached the latter conclusion a couple of years ago.
I’d already deduced that the covid event was a pure PsyOp, with the implications for which I’m notorious (& I stand by all I’ve said & written, with the occasional amendment as I learned more, views which have become increasingly steadfast).
I started looking at other mainstay narratives.
Climate change was a fragile construction, blown over easily by this simple guide: go & listen to all those with a career applying to the topic who’ve become unpersons. Like me in covid and especially “covid vaccines”.
There is a good bench of such people & none would even come close to agreeing with the official position. I now have sufficient knowledge and specific evidence to hold my own in debates with non specialists at least. It’s all lies. We’re not changing the global climate in any way which could lead to catastrophic consequences.
Then I looked at one I’ve never thought to consider: that earth is over populated with humans and a die back is all but certain. That’s harder to call than climate but it’s fair to say we definitely could get through peak population without unavoidable disaster.
I understand the argument that says if everyone born in the last decade was ultimately to live at a material standard of living equal to that of the average American adult, there are too few resources to allow that. But there’s no evidence we’re running out of crucial resources. That’s simply not true. Referencing proven reserves of A, B & C and comparing those to reasonably projected demands might lead the uncritical thinker to believe there are indeed way too many humans.
Two things though, as a starter (& there are many more).
1. Proven reserves are rarely if ever a match to rolled up future demands & this has always been true. Some people were making Malthusian prognostications way back when population was a mere billion. They were wrong then and I believe wrong now.
2. Where does the concern that everyone even wants to live a life materially equivalent to the average American come from? I’d be willing to cut my own consumption by a half in a heartbeat. Most people would, I believe, all but the already poorest quartile, for whom such a fall might mean insufficient food and fuel to exist in a temperate country.
My own guess is most people want to see improvements over their lot, for their children and grandchildren. It doesn’t need to be by much. We are approaching peak human population and agree with Mr Musk & Dr Peterson that, certainly by century’s end, population collapse & not overpopulation is much more likely to be what humanity is facing.
So, yet another lie.
At this point, the reasonable person is surely asking “Are any of the current grand narrative points being correctly & fairly described?”
If there are ANY, I’m not aware of them.
I’d value a couple of lightly worked examples if you have some, and / or a critique of anything I’ve said!
Best wishes
Mike
Thank you very much for your valuable input. I watched many of your podcasts and interviews to educate myself about the Corona ‘epidemic’ or better ‘plandemic’. Both, in the public discussion about climate change and Coronavirus vaccination we hear the same slogans: ‘Trust the science’, ‘the science is settled’, ‘don’t listen to misinformation’, ‘there is a consensus’, etc. I think, each time we hear these words we should recognize that there is some hidden agenda that wants to eliminate any scientific debate.
RFK Jr. has opinions and that is all
Then apparently you are not reading or listening to him with both ears.
Then apparently you Should QUIT BEING A COMMIE TERRORIST DEMONICRAT
Do you know what an ad hominem response in a debate is? This fallacy occurs when, instead of addressing someone's argument or position, you irrelevantly attack the person or some aspect of the person who is making the argument.
I agree RFK has opinions but he does support his opinions with evidence which is very well-refernced in his book.
DO YOU KNOW WHAT FUNCTIONS A BRAIN HAS?
To anyone else reading this reply - I refer you to my previous comment regarding ad hominem contributions to discussions and debates, and further state "I rest my case"!
Hi Stephan: Is the presentation your colleague gave to dispute Doomsday Ghoul, Al Gore, available online? Any info would be appreciated. Thank you!
I actually videotaped his lecture and have his slides. I have to ask for permission. I’ll let you know.
Ed Dowd said in an interview recently that we are just running out of conspiracy theories, since so many have proven true.
I saw that and grinned. I’ve been in contact with Ed since early 2022 when I was first in USA. He’s been pretty direct about what’s happening in terms of excess deaths which are inexplicable other than a consequence of the gene based injections.
Dow’s book was a punch in the gut too few people will see. Meanwhile, most of the taxpaying citizens of the late, great USA will stand by, pretending not to notice anything’s wrong, as the country morphs into an ignorant, utterly corrupt shell of its former self.
It is just so frustrating and intellectually lazy. Prior to this election cycle, I had never given RFK Jr a second thought. I was vaguely aware of his work but listened to my pediatrician as she dismissed any pushback on the childhood vaccination schedule. I've now listened to multiple interviews with him and read some of the of the studies he's referenced. I am still not convinced of the causation v. correlation, but I AM convinced that much of what I thought was a concrete foundation for childhood vaccines was built on sand. Maybe he is just an exceptionally adept lawyer, but he certainly comes across as someone that cares about what he is saying and is eminently reasonable.
When other experts are unwilling to engage him, I read that as these people don't have facts to back up their assertions or are afraid of exposure. If they are concerned about debating face-to-face, then they can refute him with their data in writing. But the more they dissemble about how he can't be debated, the greater my estimate of how much he is actually getting right.
Just like doctors, lawyers, pilots et al Fact Checkers should require a license, educational requirements, oversight, ethics statutes, professional boards, oath to do no harm pro or con just an un abiding pursuit of facts. Fact checkers should be susceptible to malpractice law suit and other litigations. Regulate these rats make their faces known. A National Fact Checkers Board (NFCB) sort of like the NTSB.
I think they need to clearly state all their funding sources, employment activity as it relates to the subject at hand.
They should list their names and creds and be subject to lawsuit for violation of the first amendment.
I too am dismayed by Bobbys past remarks on climate change.
I know people close to him who say they’ve tried repeatedly to bring him up to speed.
He’s a clever man so it won’t be an inability to understand what he’s been told.
Either those around him aren’t competent to show Bobby the killer evidence that would be arresting, as it was for me, or there’s likely something else at work here.
I feel disquiet at either possibility.
Once you’re open to the possibility that officials & professional scientists will lie overtly, right in your face, it becomes easy to see that the CO2 based anthropogenic climate change narrative is at best severely flawed and questionable & at worst, known to be completely without foundation.
I reached the latter conclusion a couple of years ago.
I’d already deduced that the covid event was a pure PsyOp, with the implications for which I’m notorious (& I stand by all I’ve said & written, with the occasional amendment as I learned more, views which have become increasingly steadfast).
I started looking at other mainstay narratives.
Climate change was a fragile construction, blown over easily by this simple guide: go & listen to all those with a career applying to the topic who’ve become unpersons. Like me in covid and especially “covid vaccines”.
There is a good bench of such people & none would even come close to agreeing with the official position. I now have sufficient knowledge and specific evidence to hold my own in debates with non specialists at least. It’s all lies. We’re not changing the global climate in any way which could lead to catastrophic consequences.
Then I looked at one I’ve never thought to consider: that earth is over populated with humans and a die back is all but certain. That’s harder to call than climate but it’s fair to say we definitely could get through peak population without unavoidable disaster.
I understand the argument that says if everyone born in the last decade was ultimately to live at a material standard of living equal to that of the average American adult, there are too few resources to allow that. But there’s no evidence we’re running out of crucial resources. That’s simply not true. Referencing proven reserves of A, B & C and comparing those to reasonably projected demands might lead the uncritical thinker to believe there are indeed way too many humans.
Two things though, as a starter (& there are many more).
1. Proven reserves are rarely if ever a match to rolled up future demands & this has always been true. Some people were making Malthusian prognostications way back when population was a mere billion. They were wrong then and I believe wrong now.
2. Where does the concern that everyone even wants to live a life materially equivalent to the average American come from? I’d be willing to cut my own consumption by a half in a heartbeat. Most people would, I believe, all but the already poorest quartile, for whom such a fall might mean insufficient food and fuel to exist in a temperate country.
My own guess is most people want to see improvements over their lot, for their children and grandchildren. It doesn’t need to be by much. We are approaching peak human population and agree with Mr Musk & Dr Peterson that, certainly by century’s end, population collapse & not overpopulation is much more likely to be what humanity is facing.
So, yet another lie.
At this point, the reasonable person is surely asking “Are any of the current grand narrative points being correctly & fairly described?”
If there are ANY, I’m not aware of them.
I’d value a couple of lightly worked examples if you have some, and / or a critique of anything I’ve said!
Best wishes
Mike
(This comment was originally made in reply to another post, but as I wrote it, I thought it might be of interest to more readers, so I’ve taken the liberty of reproducing it in the main thread!)
Yes, Kennedy believes in Climate Change. The part that I could not accept is if he won't commit to us to exit the WHO, BECAUSE as of May, 2024, the WHO has the right to mandate lockdowns, vaccines, quarantines for its member-states by MERELY ABNNOUNCING A CLIMATE CHANGE EMERGENCY. (i.e. the idea is that a CC emergency is a type of health emergency.) Kennedy has stated, and has not retracted, that our "2020 lockdowns helped Climate Change," and another time, he stated, without retraction, that, people who work for organizations that aren't supporting Climate Change, should be, PERSONALLY, jailed. We need to get clarity, and to ask him if he will agree to withdraw from the WHO.
Fantastic. The thoughts on armchair hypothesis coming into focus and being exploded to reveal separate areas of mini hypothesis within a central hypothesis by arguing with another person is accurate and well described. The Times' author demonstrates his lack of understanding of JFK Jr and his ability to argue logically by misconstruing his way of arguing and through character assasination. That dishonesty undermines the author's own position rather than JFK Jr's and they force the question, why is the writer specifically and the NYT more broadly smearing JFK as being irrational and therefore incapable of arguing a position? The Times beclowns itself in any number of ways these days. The grand old angry Karen continues it's devolution into the paper of delusion. It's sad but expected.
You know, 20+ years ago, when traveling for business, I would buy a copy of the Sunday NY Times, ($6.00) and felt it was informative, and a good read.
Haven't done so since, and every article referenced on a variety of Substacks, appear to be absolute BS...
My take...
I am aware that the Times still has news that is tethered to reality, but the state of journalism as a thing has declined to the point that it's simply impossible for the most prestigious paper in the country to do its job honestly. It is a difficult thing to maintain objectivity in retelling current events, but it's neigh impossible when the academics introducing newly minted writers into the journalism matrix view objectivity as white supremacist in nature. Add to that our situation in which the most respected institutions are now first to blindly follow tautologists into the logical sewer and you have a $10 paper not worth using outside of papering a birdcage.
The first rule of being in a cult is to cast aside anyone that does not affirm your opinions.
"Democracy dies in darkness." What kind of light is the lame-stream media shedding? Or are they trying to cover the truth with disease-ridden blankets?
Mockingbird is up and running on all cylinders at the propaganda rags. NYT, WAPO, even Rolling Stone (not Stones) are all infiltrated by See eye eh, and every opinion is a propaganda piece. Contrast corporate media and independent reporting like here on Substack. Corporate reporting usually has a grain of truth surrounded by words that tell you what to think about the subject. If you want truth you have to go to independent media sources who report the truth and you decide the veracity of the information. Watching the media gaslighting people, and attacking anyone outside the orthodoxy they present as “conspiracy theorists” and “dangerous” confuses people who then question their own eyes and can’t decipher the wheat from the chaff. I stopped watching and reading corporate media twenty years ago so I’m marked “safe from propaganda today.”
Fraudsters don’t like transparency. And debate is a form transparency.
Demand transparency and demand more debates on all kinds of topics.
The corrupting of our systems cannot exist in transparency, as long as we are courageous enough to keep pushing back.
We need a unified WAR ON CORRUPTION. Like this:
https://joshketry.substack.com/publish/posts/detail/123539493?referrer=%2Fpublish%2Fhome
Cannot view this link, even though signed in?
I guess T R S means that the war on corruption should be secret.
“In recent years I’ve heard him make a number of statements that I believe are debatable...”
Do tell.
How many of these characters on the other end of "the argument" have cited studies which hold up to scrutiny of the data and conclusions (and whether they support one another)? You should note that RFK Jr. can readily supply the reputable studies which support his point of view, and dissect those which don't hold water. I have also witnessed Mr. Kennedy admit when he does not have requisite mastery of a subject and demur on giving an opinion.
WRONG