America's ‘Ministry of Truth’ wasn't removed, just rebranded | RT

[Matt Dillon]

Found an article I found quite interesting on RT that was published yesterday detailing the rebranding of the U.S.'s "Disinformation Governance Board" into the Department of Homeland Security's Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, or CISA for short. An excerpt from RT's article is below...

**
America's ‘Ministry of Truth’ hasn't gone away: Official Washington didn't abandon its plan to ​​control social networks

Leaked documents reveal the ‘paused’ ‘Disinformation Governance Board’’ is back online

The US Department of Homeland Security is secretly ramping up its efforts to censor and suppress information it considers dangerous - in other words, it's focussed on inconvenient, but true, facts. A body originally created to defend Americans from terror is now threatening free speech everywhere online - and doing so with the active help of major tech firms.

This is all revealed in leaked documents obtained by journalists Ken Klippenstein and Lee Fang. Perhaps the most worrying papers are those that show that the highly controversial and widely condemned DHS (or “Disinformation Governance Board”) – and the serious threat it poses to free speech – hasn't gone anywhere.
**

Full article:
America's ‘Ministry of Truth’ hasn't gone away: Official Washington didn't abandon its plan to ​​control social networks | RT

Vijaya Gadde was fired from Twitter. Oops!

And there's more! This isn't going away anytime soon.


https://nypost.com/2022/12/03/house...gate-vijaya-gadde-role-in-twitter-censorship/

 

[Matt Dillon]

I am brand new here but not to debate. I found this site through this thread, which is quite an eye-opener. I am currently in the process of checking out this NEW Truth Ministry which will take lots more time because I generally don't rush to judgment. But what I have found so far is that it is stacked with not just average liberals, but extreme far-left ones who hate Trump and by extension, anyone who supports him, ie. conservatives.

In answer to the post above, it is a flat-out LIE that Russia interfered with our elections by hacking the DNC computers. The lie was exposed and the DNC made it appear their computers were hacked but that wasn't possible. As to Russia posting there is little evidence of that either and the best anyone can find is that they posted some nonsense on Twitter and it was against both Trump and Hillary.

Humans are lied to all the time by our own government and information is withheld. The Hunter laptop being one and recently Chris Wray says the whistleblowers are wrong that the FBI is targeting and getting rid of conservatives. To every question, he says he cannot comment.

So, to Jarod, who is it that decides if a post is from a foreign government and the post is incorrect? The people on this new commission The FBI? Why should we trust known liars that set up Trump for Russian collusion and people like Schiff who lied repeatedly or the spy Swalwell. The PEOPLE should decide what is false and not allow idiots in government who are controlling is to do that.

Seth Rich leaked the dastardly things the DNC was doing (I.E. rigging the primary for Hillary among many other things) and got killed for it.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

No, you didn't, but if you have no objections to the logic of the article, I can't see what your issue is.



You haven't even shown that the article in question was an opinion piece.



Any article can do that and go well beyond just messing up on the facts as well. I recommend you take a look at Patrick Lawrence's article on the New York Times article on Russiagate for a good dose of such prose.

Let me give you 2 examples of perfect logic. Since the logic is perfect, you must agree with the conclusion, correct?

When the sky is clear the color of the sky is green.
Today the sky is blue
Therefore today the sky is not clear.

Only a Russian troll would post that Mueller didn't find collusion.
Phoenyx posted that Mueller didn't find collusion
Phoenyx must be a Russian troll.

In both cases the logic itself is unassailable. The conclusion follows exactly from the premise. There can be no valid objection to the logic in those 2 examples therefore you have no issue with the statements. Is that not right?

The issue is not the logic in the articles, it is with the premise and facts used before any logic is performed. By using perfect logic with specious premises it is easy to sway the gullible. You would be that gullible person that is easily swayed, Phoenyx. I am really interested in your explanation as to how viruses can not exist and at the same time the Covid virus can have been in humans for years before 2019. Those 2 beliefs on your part show you don't have the ability to perform critical thinking.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

I haven't seen it debunked.

Why rely on the media when you can read the original?

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5955118-The-Mueller-Report

A statement that the investigation did not establish particular facts does not mean there
was no evidence of those facts.

But collusion is not a specific
offense or theory of liability found in the United States Code, nor is it a term of art in federal
criminal law. For those reasons, the Office's focus in analyzing questions of joint criminal liability
was on conspiracy as defined in federal law.

The Mueller report does not say they found no evidence of collusion. It says they looked for criminal liability and didn't find enough to charge a crime.

Saying the Mueller report found no evidence of collusion is about as relevant as claiming the Mueller report found no evidence of Trump eating strawberry jam. Mueller didn't look for evidence of either.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

You certainly like this "opinion" word. I focus on the evidence, regardless of how one labels a story.

How can you focus on evidence since you can't tell the difference between opinion and fact? Until you can readily identify opinion vs fact you will always be gullible and led around by the nose. That means you have to develop standards and apply them equally to everything you read. You have shown you are incapable of doing that.

 

[Scott]

That does sound better than anyone using a streaming service having to pay the BBC fee, but it seems that anyone watching live TV would automatically have to pay for it because of the BBC being incorporated in live TV broadcaster's lineup. In any case, my main issue with the BBC is not that it's inescapable to pay for it if one wants to legally watch live TV, but of the evidence that it's deeply involved in government propaganda.

All live TV in Britain is produced by the BBC. If you watch BBC you need a license. You are arguing that some people should be able to steal their product without consequences.

I argued no such thing.

You haven't provided evidence of them being deeply involved in propaganda in the broadcasts in Britain.

I disagree. I believe that the thegrayzone.com has provided compelling evidence tha the BBC is in fact deeply involved in government propaganda and I have provided articles from them where they present their evidence. An article that I've presented in this thread before (Post #332) from them is here:

Reuters, BBC, and Bellingcat participated in covert UK Foreign Office-funded programs to “weaken Russia,” leaked docs reveal | thegrayzone.com

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

I argued no such thing.



I disagree. I believe that the thegrayzone.com has provided compelling evidence tha the BBC is in fact deeply involved in government propaganda and I have provided articles from them where they present their evidence. An article that I've presented in this thread before (Post #332) from them is here:

Reuters, BBC, and Bellingcat participated in covert UK Foreign Office-funded programs to “weaken Russia,” leaked docs reveal | thegrayzone.com

You also presented articles saying that viruses don't exist and then presented articles claiming that the Covid virus has existed in humans for years. Your ability to decide what is reality and what isn't seems to be challenged. What you think is evidence often seems to be fever dreams.

 

[Scott]

Gary Krasner wrote an article a little over 20 years ago that is still my go to article when it comes to the history of vaccines. While its title suggests that it focuses soley on the first vaccine, the one for smallpox, it in fact covers vaccines in general. I wish it had links to articles instead of just references to books and publications, but in fairness, it was written over 20 years ago. I'll quote the introduction to his article:

**
The public is now getting lot’s of medical propaganda about the eradication of smallpox through vaccination. But in fact, the consensus among leading medical historians that have studied the question have concluded that the eradication of the zymotic, or “filth” diseases, like cholera, dysentary, typhus, plague, in the past that are popularly attributed to mass vaccination campaigns, had actually been due to improvements in diet, hygiene, sanitary measures, non-medical public health laws, and to a host of new non-medical technologies, like refrigeration, faster transportation, and the like (McKinlay, 1977; McKeown, 1979; Moberg & Cohen, 1991; Oppenheimer, 1992; Dubos, 1959).

The CDC reported (Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, July 30, 1999, 48:621-628) that improvements in sanitation, water quality, hygiene, had been the most important factors in control of infectious diseases in the past century. Although vaccines were mentioned, they were not included among the major factors.
One of the conclusions in Thomas McKeown’s seminal work, “The Modern Rise Of Populations” (1976, also endorsed by a Lancet editorial, 2/1/75), was that the decline in mortality in the 18th and 19th centuries was essentially due to the reduction in deaths from infectious diseases, and that it was not the result of immunizations. Similar studies by scholars John & Sonia McKinlay (1977) shows that almost all the increase in human lifespan since the year 1900 is due to reductions in infectious disease, with medical intervention (of all kinds) accounting for only about 3 per cent of that reduction. According to World Health Statistics Annual, 1973-76, vol.2, “there has been a steady decline of infectious diseases in most developing countries regardless of the percentage of immunizations administered in these countries.”

Before health agencies and schools of public health were completely taken over by allopathic medicine, the great legacy of the sanitary reformers—Max von Penttenkofer, James T. Briggs, Dr. John Snow, Edwin Chadwick, Florence Nightingale, Dr. Southwood Smith—was that they were able to eradicate cholera, yellow fever, tuberculosis, typhus, typhoid, scarlet fever, diptheria, whooping cough, measles and the bubonic plague long before vaccinations were developed or routinely used.

Not only had poor sanitation and nutrition lay the foundation for disease, it was also compulsory smallpox vaccination campaigns in the late 19th and early 20th centuries that played a major role in decimating the populations of Japan (48,000 deaths), England & Wales (44,840 deaths, after 97 per cent of the population had been vaccinated), Scotland, Ireland, Sweden, Switzerland, Holland, Italy, India (3 million—all vaccinated), Australia, Germany (124,000 deaths), Prussia (69,000 deaths—all revaccinated), and the Philippines. The epidemics ended in cities where smallpox vaccinations were either discontinued or never begun, and also after sanitary reforms were instituted (Most notably in Munich-1880, Leicester-1878, Barcelona-1804, Alicante-1827, India-1906, etc.).
**

Full article:
Smallpox – A Historical Perspective | vaccinechoicecanada.com

Some books on vaccines that I thought were quite informative:
How Vaccines Wreck Human Immunity: A Forbidden Doctor Publication | amazon.com

The Vaccine Illusion | amazon.com

You do like to read a lot of conspiracy bullshit.

Insulting my sources only provides evidence that you're a boor. I'll let it go this time, but the more of this you do, the less of your material I'll respond to.

Let's look at your first source. It cites 3 papers and none of those papers support the theory that smallpox vaccines don't work. Instead they point out that many other diseases were controlled by improving hygiene. The author provides no source for his claims.

I'm wondering if you actually read the text I quoted from Gary Krasner's article. I can't fathom how you can say that the author provides no source for his claims. He provides -multiple- sources for his claims. In the first paragraph alone, he provides 5 sources for his claims. I'll quote it again, I'm sure you'll be able to notice them now that I've pointed them out:

**
But in fact, the consensus among leading medical historians that have studied the question have concluded that the eradication of the zymotic, or “filth” diseases, like cholera, dysentary, typhus, plague, in the past that are popularly attributed to mass vaccination campaigns, had actually been due to improvements in diet, hygiene, sanitary measures, non-medical public health laws, and to a host of new non-medical technologies, like refrigeration, faster transportation, and the like (McKinlay, 1977; McKeown, 1979; Moberg & Cohen, 1991; Oppenheimer, 1992; Dubos, 1959).
**

His arguments are ridiculous since it completely ignores how viruses spread.

More insults, no evidence. Not a good start.

If the virus is not present in an area then there will be no deaths.

Like a certain group of doctors, I don't even believe that viruses exist, so this is a non starter. For the audience, who might have missed the post that PRS is responding to, I presented him with the following paper that challenges the current dogma that viruses are contagious foreign bodies:
The “Settling The Virus Debate” Statement | drsambailey.com

I know a lot of people share your view, but as you say, Argumentum ad populum is not strong enough by itself to be a valid argument.

I am not arguing I am right because many people share my view. I am arguing that actual science shows my view to be correct.

Anyone can say that "actual science" supports their point of view. It's one thing to say it, quite another to prove it.

I suggest reading the article I linked to above from Off Guardian. If you're like my father, you may point out that he's not a doctor- I'd counter that -because- he's not a doctor, he's easier to understand, following a path of discovery that anyone can make. However, there are certainly doctors that don't believe in the Covid virus (or any virus for that matter).

A group of people, mainly doctors, outlined how the virus debate could be settled:
The “Settling The Virus Debate” Statement | drsambailey.com

Complete bullshit that deserves to be called bullshit.

Alright, 3 strikes (insults) and you're out. Get back to me when you can talk like a civilized individual. Or consider just opting out of this conversation altogether if that's too much for you to handle.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

The issue is quantity, repetition and size of innacuracies. The western mainstream media's parroting of Russia's attack being "unprovoked" is so patently untrue that I generally stop reading any story that contains such a line.

Since you are claiming Russia was provoked. Please provide us with your evidence of Ukraine attacking Russia. I can hardly wait to see what you think is a "provocation." My guess is you will parrot Russia's reason for saying they invaded.

Russia was not attacked. Russia was not threatened in any way. Russia invaded Ukraine without provocation in order to expand their borders which they have proven by their illegal attempt to claim Ukrainian territory as now being part of Russia.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Insulting my sources only provides evidence that you're a boor. I'll let it go this time, but the more of this you do, the less of your material I'll respond to.



I'm wondering if you actually read the text I quoted from Gary Krasner's article. I can't fathom how you can say that the author provides no source for his claims. He provides -multiple- sources for his claims. In the first paragraph alone, he provides 5 sources for his claims. I'll quote it again, I'm sure you'll be able to notice them now that I've pointed them out:

**
But in fact, the consensus among leading medical historians that have studied the question have concluded that the eradication of the zymotic, or “filth” diseases, like cholera, dysentary, typhus, plague, in the past that are popularly attributed to mass vaccination campaigns, had actually been due to improvements in diet, hygiene, sanitary measures, non-medical public health laws, and to a host of new non-medical technologies, like refrigeration, faster transportation, and the like (McKinlay, 1977; McKeown, 1979; Moberg & Cohen, 1991; Oppenheimer, 1992; Dubos, 1959).
**



More insults, no evidence. Not a good start.



Like a certain group of doctors, I don't even believe that viruses exist, so this is a non starter. For the audience, who might have missed the post that PRS is responding to, I presented him with the following paper that challenges the current dogma that viruses are contagious foreign bodies:
The “Settling The Virus Debate” Statement | drsambailey.com




Anyone can say that "actual science" supports their point of view. It's one thing to say it, quite another to prove it.



Alright, 3 strikes (insults) and you're out. Get back to me when you can talk like a civilized individual. Or consider just opting out of this conversation altogether if that's too much for you to handle.

Tell us how viruses can not exist as your one link claims and yet the Covid virus can have existed in humans for years before 2019 as your other link claims. This is exactly why your sources are bullshit. And you don't even seem to understand that it is impossible for viruses to exist and not exist at the same time.
You argue that viruses don't exist and yet you have posted the following links as supporting you which all say the viruses DO exist.
https://off-guardian.org/2020/11/17/covid19-evidence-of-global-fraud/
https://vaccinechoicecanada.com/specific-vaccines/smallpox-a-historical-perspective/
https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/202...y-of-china-epidemic-falls-apart-completely-2/
https://www.amazon.com/Vaccine-Illu...cine+illusion,stripbooks-intl-ship,171&sr=1-2


Are there pictures of viruses taken with electron microscopes? Yes or no.
If you say no, then you are an idiot for denying reality. If you say yes, then you are an idiot for relying on a source that says viruses don't exist and there are no such pictures.
https://www.gettyimages.com/photos/virus

What conversation are we having? We aren't having one because you are simply posting conspiracy bullshit and then when I call it out as the bullshit it is you get snippy. You post things that contradict your claimed opinion. Your opinion is complete nonsense. It is in direct contradiction to reality. At this point you are proving you belong in an insane asylum because you don't live in reality.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Anyone can say that "actual science" supports their point of view. It's one thing to say it, quite another to prove it.

Prove that viruses don't exist. That means you have to prove that all these pictures of viruses are faked.
https://www.gettyimages.com/photos/virus

I look forward to your evidence.

 

[Scott]

I actually read a fair amount of articles to completion, especially if it's from an author that I already know and like. In this case, I didn't think it was worth the time to read the entire article. There are a lot of articles out there and only so much time in the day for reading them.

Hint - don't present articles as evidence if you haven't read them.

Reading an article is not necessarily a black and white affair. I always make sure to read at least -part- of an article before using it as a source of information. As far as I can tell, there is no requirement to read even part of an article to voice one's beliefs here. I don't believe I've ever started a thread here without referring to at least one article and I frequently refer to articles in responses to others, whether in my own thread or in others.

For starters, the article is not labelled an opinion piece. Secondly, it links to sources from mainstream news articles.

I'll bet you can't find a single article from the NYTimes or BBC that is labelled "propaganda" by the author. And yet without that label you are able to come to the conclusion it is propaganda. Just because an article is not labelled as something doesn't mean it isn't. Use objective criteria that you can apply equally.

I agree that we can label articles however we like. Your problem is in assuming that others will agree with your own assessments of what constitutes objective criteria.

Now that you bring it up, I actually remember looking into the firing of this investigator in the past myself and I believe I came to the same conclusion you did on this one. So let's move on to the other claims in the excerpt from the New York Post article, namely Burisma using Hunter Biden's son to curry favour with Joe Biden. The excerpt, once more:

OK. let's do that.
**
Hunter Biden introduced his father, then-Vice President Joe Biden, to a top executive at a Ukrainian energy firm less than a year before the elder Biden pressured government officials in Ukraine into firing a prosecutor who was investigating the company, according to emails obtained by The Post.
**

We both agree that the claim that the prosecutor was not investigating Burisma.

I didn't say that, though I can see how you could come to that conclusion. I did say that I believed I came to the same conclusion that you did on this one, but now that you mentioned a specific claim, I decided to double check to see if the evidence fit your claim. The article that the New York Post article links to in the quote above suggests that Biden was actually guilty of firing the prosecutor who was investigating Burisma. Quoting from the linked article:

**
Hunter Biden became a board member of Burisma Holdings in 2014, soon after President Barack Obama placed his father in charge of managing U.S. relations with Ukraine.

The younger Biden’s company, Rosemont Seneca Partners, was paid up to $166,000 a month, The Hill has reported — even though Hunter Biden had no experience in the fuel industry and no prior business dealings in the Ukraine.

“Not one single outlet has given any credibility to [Trump’s] assertion” that Biden intervened for his son’s benefit, he said Friday. “Not one single one.”

But in 2018, Biden himself talked about pushing the Ukraine to remove Shokin in a speech to the Council on Foreign Relations — without disclosing his son’s ties to the Ukrainian company.

In March 2016, Biden recalled, he told Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko that the US government would cancel $1 billion of loan guarantees unless Shokin, who was facing his own charges of corruption, was removed from office.

“I said, ‘You’re not getting the billion,’” Biden said in the videotaped speech. “I looked at them and said: ‘I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money.’”

“Well, son of a bitch, he got fired,” Biden concluded. Shokin was formally ousted from his post by the Ukrainian Parliament that same month.

Within weeks, the investigation into Burisma was dropped. Hunter Biden remained on its board until April 2019, severing his ties with the company days before Joe Biden announced his White House run.
**

Source:
Biden accuses Trump of an ‘overwhelming abuse of power’ following Ukraine allegations | New York Post

**
The never-before-revealed meeting is mentioned in a message of appreciation that Vadym Pozharskyi, an adviser to the board of Burisma, allegedly sent Hunter Biden on April 17, 2015, about a year after Hunter joined the Burisma board at a reported salary of up to $50,000 a month.
**

That is a loaded sentence. It doesn't just provide facts but instead includes things to paint a picture that may not be true. "Never-before-revealed" is a loaded phrase that would seem to imply the meeting was purposely hidden. Including Hunter's salary in the same sentence is also a loaded attempt to paint the payment as nefarious. The salary could be important but I can think of multiple ways to get all that information out in a non biased way. Pozharskyi doesn't appear to even work for Burisma in 2015 since they list him as an advisor to the board.

You don't think that being an advisor to the board, which the New York Post describes as "reportedly Burisma’s No. 3 exec", suggests that he was working for Burisma?

**
“Dear Hunter, thank you for inviting me to DC and giving an opportunity to meet your father and spent [sic] some time together. It’s realty [sic] an honor and pleasure,” the email reads.
**

The email is unclear whether the author spent time with Hunter or spent time with his father because the grammar is fractured. It is likely it was thanks for Hunter spending time with him and then introducing him to his father. The email certainly isn't evidence of any nefarious activity since Hunter and the author of the email are in business together. Was it an honor and a pleasure to meet Joe or an honor and a pleasure to spend time together? Unclear. Even if it was an honor and a pleasure to meet Joe it again isn't evidence of any nefarious activity. People often say it is an honor and a pleasure to meet someone when they only spoke briefly.

It certainly suggests that that Pozharskyi was thanking Hunter Biden for the opportunity to meet his father, who just happened to be the Vice President of the U.S. at the time.

**
An earlier email from May 2014 also shows Pozharskyi, reportedly Burisma’s No. 3 exec, asking Hunter for “advice on how you could use your influence” on the company’s behalf.
**

Is the only influence Hunter has his father? Or is Hunter a US lawyer with many contacts?

Irrelevant. The point is that this is a clear signal that Pozharskyl, and by extension Burisma, was paying Hunter Biden his salary of up to $50,000 a month for the sole purpose of getting Hunter Biden to use his influence on his father. You'll note that the timing of Hunter being put on Burisma's payroll and Pozharskyl's question quoted above are pretty close. It would be nice to know just how close.

The vagueness of the statement is not evidence that the influence is his father.

That sentence doesn't work gramatically.

This email is from almost a year earlier. What is there to tie it into the meeting almost a year later? Not really anything from an evidence standpoint.

The fact that Hunter Biden was successful in getting Pozharskyl a meeting with Joe Biden after a year suggests that Burisma may have considered the money on Hunter well spent.

**
The blockbuster correspondence — which flies in the face of Joe Biden’s claim that he’s “never spoken to my son about his overseas business dealings” — is contained in a massive trove of data recovered from a laptop computer.
**

There is nothing blockbuster about the correspondence since there is no smoking gun.

You don't need a smoking gun to realize that there's evidence that Hunter Biden used his influence to get his father to support Burisma in some way. Evidence is certainly not proof, but it's certainly gotten me curious if there is in fact more evidence that would in fact suggest that Joe Biden did help Burisma in some way. It would also explain why Joe Biden would want to shut down the prosecutor who was investigating Burisma.

All there is is an attempt to create something that isn't in the evidence. There is certainly no evidence in those 2 emails that Joe Biden talked business when he stopped by the table as his son was having lunch. The fact that the email thanking Hunter doesn't mention talking business would seem to point to it not happening.

I remember a great line that my father once told me: "A lack of evidence is not evidence of its lack". It applies here. And it gets me more curious to know why Biden was so keen on getting the prosecutor who was investigating Burisma fired.

Source:
Smoking-gun email reveals how Hunter Biden introduced Ukrainian businessman to VP dad | New York Post

Finally, a good reporter and editor would not have made such allegations without asking for comment from the person they were alleging had done wrong. Then they would have included that response near the allegations in the story so that the reader would see both sides. The fact that this was not done points to this being bad journalism. No wonder the journalist that wrote most of this refused to put his name on it if what the NYTimes reported about this is true. The journalist knew it wasn't up to journalistic standards.

Assuming that what the New York Times reported is true, the journalist didn't even want his name on the piece. Have you considered the possibility that the journalist who wrote this story was afraid that trying to get a comment from Biden would have put him in a very uncomfortable and perhaps even dangerous position?

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

I'm wondering if you actually read the text I quoted from Gary Krasner's article. I can't fathom how you can say that the author provides no source for his claims. He provides -multiple- sources for his claims. In the first paragraph alone, he provides 5 sources for his claims. I'll quote it again, I'm sure you'll be able to notice them now that I've pointed them out:

**
But in fact, the consensus among leading medical historians that have studied the question have concluded that the eradication of the zymotic, or “filth” diseases, like cholera, dysentary, typhus, plague, in the past that are popularly attributed to mass vaccination campaigns, had actually been due to improvements in diet, hygiene, sanitary measures, non-medical public health laws, and to a host of new non-medical technologies, like refrigeration, faster transportation, and the like (McKinlay, 1977; McKeown, 1979; Moberg & Cohen, 1991; Oppenheimer, 1992; Dubos, 1959).
**

.

I have read that text and already pointed out that it says nothing about vaccines not working. The zymotic diseases are diseases that are spread through poor sanitation. By cleaning up the sanitation, those diseases can be controlled. No reasonable person has ever claimed that those diseases were eradicated because of vaccine. In fact we know they haven't been eradicated because they still exist. I challenge you to find popular claims that typhus and cholera were eradicated by vaccine alone.

https://www.who.int/emergencies/disease-outbreak-news/item/2022-DON415

Then your author cites a speech on the floor of Congress as his evidence of deaths in the Philippines. I did a little research. It seems the facts given to Congress were wrong. While the deaths in 1919 were over 40,000 the numbers given by Dr Hay were the number who contracted smallpox in 1918 not the deaths in 1919.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/20422367
Here are historically recorded deaths in the British medical journal. They also point out that prior to the start of the vaccination the number of deaths was typically over 40,000 per year. We see the deaths drop as the vaccination program is taken up, from the 40,000 per year under Spanish rule to less than 20,000 to less than 1,000 before there is a sudden increase in deaths in 1918-1919 and then it is less than 6,000 in 1920.

Your author cherry picks one year to try to make it appear that vaccines don't work while ignoring the other 15 years that prove they do work.

But you still need to explain why you even believe this article since you believe viruses don't exist. How can sanitation affect something that doesn't even exist? Do viruses exist or not? Explain that to us.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

R


I agree that we can label articles however we like. Your problem is in assuming that others will agree with your own assessments of what constitutes objective criteria.

My problem is that you have no criteria at all. What criteria do you use to tell if something is an opinion vs a fact? Simply tell us what your criteria is and then we can see if you actually use that criteria or not.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

I didn't say that, though I can see how you could come to that conclusion. I did say that I believed I came to the same conclusion that you did on this one, but now that you mentioned a specific claim, I decided to double check to see if the evidence fit your claim. The article that the New York Post article links to in the quote above suggests that Biden was actually guilty of firing the prosecutor who was investigating Burisma. Quoting from the linked article:

**
Hunter Biden became a board member of Burisma Holdings in 2014, soon after President Barack Obama placed his father in charge of managing U.S. relations with Ukraine.

The younger Biden’s company, Rosemont Seneca Partners, was paid up to $166,000 a month, The Hill has reported — even though Hunter Biden had no experience in the fuel industry and no prior business dealings in the Ukraine.

“Not one single outlet has given any credibility to [Trump’s] assertion” that Biden intervened for his son’s benefit, he said Friday. “Not one single one.”

But in 2018, Biden himself talked about pushing the Ukraine to remove Shokin in a speech to the Council on Foreign Relations — without disclosing his son’s ties to the Ukrainian company.

In March 2016, Biden recalled, he told Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko that the US government would cancel $1 billion of loan guarantees unless Shokin, who was facing his own charges of corruption, was removed from office.

“I said, ‘You’re not getting the billion,’” Biden said in the videotaped speech. “I looked at them and said: ‘I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money.’”

“Well, son of a bitch, he got fired,” Biden concluded. Shokin was formally ousted from his post by the Ukrainian Parliament that same month.

Within weeks, the investigation into Burisma was dropped. Hunter Biden remained on its board until April 2019, severing his ties with the company days before Joe Biden announced his White House run.
**

Source:
Biden accuses Trump of an ‘overwhelming abuse of power’ following Ukraine allegations | New York Post
?

Simply citing the same disputed claims doesn't suddenly make them true. It only shows you don't know how to construct an argument that is supported by facts.

Within weeks, the investigation into Burisma was dropped. Hunter Biden remained on its board until April 2019, severing his ties with the company days before Joe Biden announced his White House run.

This statement is factually untrue. There was no investigation of Burisma happening at the time. There was no investigation of Burisma that was dropped. You are guilty of simply repeating debunked claims without finding original sources.

Burisma was under investigation from 2010-2012. Biden joined the board in 2014. The prosecutor in Ukraine was out in 2016. Can you explain how an investigation that ended in 2012 existed in 2016? The prosecutor was forced out because he was NOT investigating corruption but was enabling it.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-whistleblower-ukraine-buris-idUSKBN1WC1LV

https://nabu.gov.ua/sites/default/files/reports/report_eng.pdf
This is the report from the Ukranian NABU whose job it is to find corruption. There are at least 3 instance of corruption in the Prosecutor's office mentioned. There is no mention of Burisma.

I remember a great line that my father once told me: "A lack of evidence is not evidence of its lack". It applies here. And it gets me more curious to know why Biden was so keen on getting the prosecutor who was investigating Burisma fired.

What investigation? Find me the exact investigation that was being done of Burisma. It should be easy to find since you think it exists. The prosecutor was fired for corruption not to stop investigations. Lack of evidence is not proof of anything other than the gullibility of someone that thinks lack of evidence is proof.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

It certainly suggests that that Pozharskyi was thanking Hunter Biden for the opportunity to meet his father, who just happened to be the Vice President of the U.S. at the time.

Please present your proof that every time anyone meets someone else they always discuss business. Meeting someone is not proof they talked business. Only a fool would claim that was true. Are you a fool?

Irrelevant. The point is that this is a clear signal that Pozharskyl, and by extension Burisma, was paying Hunter Biden his salary of up to $50,000 a month for the sole purpose of getting Hunter Biden to use his influence on his father. You'll note that the timing of Hunter being put on Burisma's payroll and Pozharskyl's question quoted above are pretty close. It would be nice to know just how close.

How is it a clear signal? 2 emails a year apart are connected how? I am guessing you have never conducted business if you think 2 emails a year apart show a business plan.

That sentence doesn't work gramatically.

It works just fine. Is English not your first language?

 

[Paradoxical]

Seth Rich leaked the dastardly things the DNC was doing (I.E. rigging the primary for Hillary among many other things) and got killed for it.

No question about it but the FBI again kept it under wraps because the FBI is primarily a propaganda arm of the Democrats.

 

[Matt Dillon]

Why rely on the media when you can read the original?

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5955118-The-Mueller-Report




The Mueller report does not say they found no evidence of collusion. It says they looked for criminal liability and didn't find enough to charge a crime.

Saying the Mueller report found no evidence of collusion is about as relevant as claiming the Mueller report found no evidence of Trump eating strawberry jam. Mueller didn't look for evidence of either.

Russia Russia Russia!

The only "Russian collusion" in 2016 was Zuckerberg allowing Russian troll ads on Facebook for rubles.

https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/press/senate-intel-releases-volume-5-bipartisan-russia-report

https://archive.ph/RcDBu

That's right! All that time wasted by Mueller & friends in an efffort to get something, anything on Trump was wasted tax dollars.

It's not right that tax dollars were used for partisan purposes like that, but Democrats do it all the time.

Now is where you bring up Benghazi and Ken Starr.

The Ken Starr BS could have been done without, but the Benghazi lying to the public because the midterms were right there thing, and lack of security for that ambassador should have been prosecuted.

If Hillary had not assassinated Khadaffi for the world bankers, it never would have happened. She destabilized Libya and now 100s of thousands have died or been who knows what because of that.

 

[Scott]

It is amazing to me to see the apologetics used for the Buirisma situation, where the lefty simply says "There's nothing to see HERE, folks" as buildings are burning in the background, cop cars are being blown up, planes crashing". Apologetics is the business of explaining things away and claiming that contradictions really aren't by using hypotheticals, maybes and "coulds". It amounts to people still believing that Trump colluded with Russia even though a two-year-long investigation found no evidence but did find that the high-powered attorney firm set it all up for Hillary Clinton. IOW, apologetics uses excuses that strain credulity. The left always wants "p[roof' when it is their guy and when it is Trump or a conservative, a mere wild claim is more than enough to convict.

Someone with zero experience making $50-80K a month on the board of a company whose business he knew nothing about? For what exactly? His dad claiming he knew nothing about it in spite of evidence of meetings and photos of him with the heads of Burisma? A company that KNEW they were under investigation and the prosecutor was closing in. Lo and behold, Hunter's dad somehow is able to deny Ukraine a billion in aid all on his own without consulting Obama or Congress if Zelensky himself doesn't take care of the prosecutor? This amounts to a mafia "hit' on a rival to kill an investigation.

Your post made me rethink what I thought I knew about Joe Biden on this, thanks.

 

[Scott]

Seth Rich leaked the dastardly things the DNC was doing (I.E. rigging the primary for Hillary among many other things) and got killed for it.

I hadn't heard of this. I quick internet search brought me to Wikileak's page on Rich's murder. It classifies his murder as a "conspiracy theory", but Wikileaks tends to follow the mainstream narrative so I wouldn't be surprised if they're mistaken. Here's what they said on the theory that the DNC was behind it:

**
Conspiracy theories

Origins

Beginnings on social media

Political conspiracy theories and racially charged comments started to appear on social media the day after Rich's death.[66][67] Within days, right-wing conspiracy theories began circulating,[68][69][70] including false claims that his murder was connected to the DNC email leak of 2016[4] or the FBI's investigation of the Clinton Foundation.[70][71]

A post on Twitter before Rich's memorial service spread the idea that his killing was a political assassination.[68] Subsequently, the conspiracy theory was spread on the subreddit /r/The Donald, and on July 29, 2016, the website Heat Street reported on these Reddit posts.[71][72] Reddit users attempted to tie the homicide to prior "Clinton Body Count" conspiracy theories.[69] The conspiracy theory was later popularized by Donald Trump political adviser Roger Stone via his Twitter account.[68]

According to British journalist Duncan Campbell, the Russian intelligence agency, GRU, tried to implicate Rich as the source of the stolen DNC emails in order to draw attention away from themselves as the real perpetrators of the theft.[73] Datestamps on the DNC files were altered to show the data had been obtained on July 5, 2016, five days before Rich's death, and the time zone was changed to Eastern Time, within which Washington, D.C., falls. Guccifer 2.0, the alleged GRU front that provided the emails to Wikileaks, then reported that Rich had been their source. Based partly on their acceptance of the false dates, some experts then concluded that the emails had been copied in the DNC offices, and had not been hacked from outside.[74]
**

Source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Seth_Rich#Conspiracy_theories