H1N1 part zwei

M. Spector wrote:

Archie Kalokerinos MBBS PhD FAPM is an Australian physician. In 2000 he was awarded the title Greek Australian of the Century by the Melbourne-based Greek newspaper Neos Kosmos. He held controversial opinions on a number of medical issues. [b]He was a supporter of Linus Pauling's very controversial theory that many diseases result from overproduction of free radicals and can accordingly be prevented or cured by Vitamin C;[/b] this led him to treat many conditions with high intravenous doses of vitamin C. [b]He also believed that vaccination schemes have been used for deliberate genocide (among indigenous Australians, and in spreading HIV in Africa); and that the US government systematically planned to get rid of undesirables such as criminals by encouraging people with known heart problems to be vaccinated.[/b] He is considered an authority by anti vaccinationist organisations, and is quoted as [b]claiming that "...the unofficial policy of the World Health Organisation and the unofficial policy of the 'Save the Children's Fund' ... is one of murder and genocide."[/b]

[url=http://en.allexperts.com/e/a/ar/archie_kalokerinos.htm]Source[/url]

Thanks for getting this information out, M. Spector, you're saving me a lot of work. Appreciate it. 

Like human cattle. Thanks Tigana

Tigana wrote:

Brian, sorry I jumped over your post - good health to you - and to us all. 

 

Brian White wrote:

So your conspiracy theory makes no sense at all. Remember how many people were killed when swine flu broke out first. I guess it mutated to be less deadly and get around more. 

Brian, would you please pull up the stats on mortality you refer to?

And this - "If sars killed 10% of people it hit in canada,"

I see less than 500 probable cases and less than 50 deaths cited here

http://bodyandhealth.canada.com/channel_section_details.asp?text_id=2235...

 

From your link.... 438 probable cases in Canada. 44 deaths.  44 divided by 438 equals  .100, rounded which is 10%.  Ergo out of the probable cases in Canada 10% ended in death.  Worldwide. 8098 cases. 744 deaths. 9% mortality.

thanks salsa - not that it would dissuade true believers like Tigana and others

I think Salsa cited that article merely to caution people frequenting certain wacko conspiracy sites (like Whale.to) about the overlap with more dangerous paranoia (neo-Nazism, anti-semitism, denial of global warming, denial of HIV-AIDS link, etc.). It's really no accident that such notions coexist to such a large degree. Once science is scorned and discarded, anything goes.

Salsa wrote:

Internet rules and laws: the top 10

Oh goody, another "law"  of the Internet posting universe, invented by (probably white, 90% male) dweebs, for (probably white, 90% male) dweebs.

jas wrote:

I see a lot of alternative theory, perhaps some bordering on wacky, but I don't see neo-nazism or anti-semitic beyond one link called "Auschwitz Hoax" where the article has been removed.

If you think I'm going to debate with you as to whether a site is Nazi or not, you are sorely mistaken. I've flagged Tigana's post. If she has the least decency, she will edit it and remove the links to that sick obscene site. If you want to defend or minimize the obscenity of that site, you can live with your conscience.

Unionist, you're making claims that a site Tigana is citing from is anti-semitic and has neo-Nazi content, and you want mods to do something about her posts but you refuse to indicate where on the site this content is. If you are right, you need to let others know.

A quick search using Unionist's suggestion indicates that he is correct. There does appear to be Holocaust denial content on the site.

[quote=jas]Oh goody, another "law"  of the Internet posting universe, invented by (probably white, 90% male) dweebs, for (probably white, 90% male) dweebs.[/qote]

Do you actually have a point here or are you just trolling?

 Oh I dunno. I think there is some useful info on that site. For instance I just learned all about Satanic hand signals and that oh gosh, Obama, and Bush to for that matter use them in their speeches. There's even pictures as proof! Also Miley Cyrus and Taylor Swift apparently. Who knew? I sure didn't.  Thank goodness for the internet we'd all be so ignorant without it.

 Too bad some of the link seem to be broken, I really wanted to read about the subliminal sex messages in Harry Potter.

edited to add a //sarc tag just in case the tone isn't clear. Obviously not because I just got a pm that suggested it wasn't and a sort of kudos for supporting this site.

So to be clear....the tone of this post is MOCKING in nature and I DO NOT think this site is a viable source because of it's general looniness and it's offensive content that has already been pointed out.

Cripes. I think I'm going to go for a walk....

This probably won't be my best, but my observation is that it's usually men citing these "laws" of Internet debate, and the "laws" they cite are usually those of other men. Usually it's not used in a gendered way (i.e., to exclude women) but it creates a gendered culture that allies itself with "science" (regardless of anybody's understanding of the sciences) whose intention it is to draw a line, albeit jocular, of what is acceptable debate. So that, for a while, almost any time someone mentioned Nazism in debate you had someone else piping up with "Godwin's law", even if the original reference to Nazism was perfectly valid and necessary. Nazism is and was real. It will pop up in numerous debates. I'm sure it was only Godwin's intention to make a humourous observation, but the invocation of his "law" by others is usually used as a tactic to discredit the other side of the debate, and in the process, it creates a kind of clubby, "in"-joke atmosphere that excludes and derides others.

If you object to the content of someone's argument, say so and why, rather than alluding to some made-up Internet "law" in the hopes of getting a few back slaps from your club pals. Argue on your own terms.

Salsa, that's Rule #11: When asked to please stop whitewashing an offensive site, talk about something else.

Did jas whitewash that site because he sympathizes with it? Of course not - he's a babbler, he's progressive... But whenever someone says that conspiracy theories are wacko, sicko, and reflect poorly on the Left, he goes into defensive mode. My caution (and yours) is that sometimes that lands you in a cesspool. Like this time.

Jas is honest, which is why he looked more carefully at the site and acknowledged what it truly was.

Tigana, when she returns, will hopefully do the same. Because anyone who tries to whitewash such obscene murderous garbage [b]once they know what it is[/b] will be called, extremely loudly, by their true name, and hounded out of this place.

Hope that's clear.

Unionist wrote:

Salsa, that's Rule #11: When asked to please stop whitewashing an offensive site, talk about something else.

Did jas whitewash that site because he sympathizes with it? Of course not - he's a babbler, he's progressive...

My "whitewashing" of the site consisted of going to the main page, clicking on several links looking for the content you claimed. I didn't find it, and reported back what I didn't find.

I went back with your suggestion and found the content you cited.

I wouldn't go so far as to call this site a neo-nazi site or anti-semitic, but it certainly contains content that appears to be anti-semitic.

Tigana, you really don't get it do you. You can post all the friggin credentials of all of the contributers you want and it doesn't preclude in anyway the bullshit that surrounds what might be the best of their particular intentions. If what is posted on that site is so important, so revolutionary and what your citing as proof of whatever arguement you happen to be trying to make, then find it elsewhere. The internet is a big place.  And yes if that is the ONLY site that is going to take their work and post it then don't be surprised when people question it. I sure as heck do.   For instance it says right in the your very post that Scott edits a journal and has done research. Why not get his research from a more reputable source if it's so important.

You're really not doing anyone who falls anywhere, "on the sympathetic to some altmed concerns spectrum" any favors by sourcing stuff from places like whaleto.

ElizaQ, thanks for your comment. 

I'm happy to return to my original points:

The science behind vaccinations is spotty at best, has caused fatalities in the past and may result in deaths now;

Government and academe have made deals with multinational corporations that are against the interests of Canadians;

The H1N1 "epidemic" or "pandemic" is a media event;

Prevention through nutrition - hardly an altmed area - is a wise investment.

Another thread I should have closed ages ago.

I'd never heard of whale.to, and now regrettably I have.  Load 'o crap.  I have not taken the time to sift through it for anti-semitism, (apparently there's about 20 sex worker related sites I have to look over this afternoon thanks much) but based on what I've seen and based on the word of some who have looked through it, I'll accept that it is an anti semetic related site.  I can see nothing positive from going there.  I probably won't remove the links because you do have to dig for the antisemitic parts.  If it was more in your face I definitely would.

As far as I'm concerned BigPharma is run by a bunch of greed driven black hearted shmeckles (sp?) but I for one am still not turning my back on medicine.

No one is going to change anyones mind here.  Give up!

If you want the damn vaccination and can find it go for it.  If you don't don't.

Closing for length.