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

[Scott]

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.

Good point. I agree that both logic -and- premises/facts are important. If you find flaws in logic, premises or facts, those are all valid things to discuss.

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.

It seems you haven't understood me. My belief, as well as that of the group of doctors and other professionals that I've pointed out previously, is that a Covid virus has never existed.

 

[Hawkeye10]

Good point. I agree that both logic -and- premises/facts are important. If you find flaws in logic, premises or facts, those are all valid things to discuss.



It seems you haven't understood me. My belief, as well as that of the group of doctors and other professionals that I've pointed out previously, is that a Covid virus has never existed.

That is correct. The virus is SARS-COV2.....the illness it sometimes causes is COVID.

 

[Paradoxical]

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

You are the rare breed of human that is willing to examine why they believe what they believe and change your thoughts and beliefs when you see and consider evidence that tends to conflict with what you currently believe. I don't think there is any other trait in humanity that is better than thoughtfully thinking about why one believes what one does. The Hunter Biden situation is just one of the examples which, when one looks at the circumstances and probabilities, should and must conclude that Hunter acted as a bagman for his father. There was a story yesterday of email exchanges where Hunter was sent bills for work on his dad's house that needed to be paid. That alone should tell someone who thinks logically and rationally that Hinter was expected to pay back Joe for the jobs he got solely because his dad was a politician.

When I post about problematic situations and contradictions, it is generally those on the far left that ask for "proof". Invariably, you will never get a picture or video of someone setting a fire, murdering someone, stealing, robbing, etc. and the majority of cases are convictions based on mounds of circumstantial evidence and probabilities. Basically, if it walks like a duck, acts like a duck, and quacks like a duck it most likely IS a duck in spite of someone insisting there is no "proof". When a person can "convict" someone that is on their side, so to speak, by carefully examining the evidence and circumstances and say to himself "Yea, most likely that person did it even though he is (fill in the blanks) like me" that kind of person can and will never be led by group think, others, those in authority or anyone else.

 

[Scott]

True, but that's not the only argument I've used. I've also included articles that appeal to logic:

The overwhelming bias of the mainstream media | Julian Almanza

The first link starts out with the debunked claim that the Mueller report found no evidence collusion.

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.

[snip]

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.
**

Time, mainly. I only have so much. As things stand, I'm already fairly behind in responding to posts in this thread. However, I did take the time to download a copy of the report and verify that the 2 passages you quoted were in the 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.

So we agree that Mueller looked for evidence that the Trump campaign was involved in a crime and couldn't find enough to charge Trump with a crime. As to what the Mueller report -did- conclude, I don't agree with at least some of it, starting with part of its opening:

**
The Russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion. Evidence of Russian government operations began to surface in mid-2016. In June, the Democratic National Committee and its cyber response team publicly announced that Russian hackers had compromised its computer network. Releases of hacked materials-hacks that public reporting soon attributed to the Russian government-began that same month. Additional releases followed in July through the organization WikiLeaks, with further releases in October and November.
**

I doubt this is true. I suspect that poster Matt Dillon was right in his belief that it was Seth Rich who leaked the DNC files, and for good reason too, and that they were in fact involved in his assassination.

 

[Scott]

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?

Making vague statements like that doesn't do you any favours. In order to respond to your allegation, I think it's best to first define the terms involved. The American Heritage dictionary has multiple definitions of the term opinion. I think the first one in Wordnik.com's list of them applies here:

**
noun A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof: synonym: view.
**

Source:
https://www.wordnik.com/words/opinion

I believe that anyone without sufficient information regarding a given subject wouldn't be able to tell the difference between an opinion and a fact on said subject. The key is having sufficient information.

 

[Scott]

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.

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

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.

This may be true- you need to understand that when I cite an article, I tend to cite it for very particular information, which I point out, frequently outright quoting said information. The fact that I cited an article does -not- mean that I agree with everything it says by default.

 

[Scott]

Do you have a double standard then? You don't like mainstream media because of what you claim are inaccuracies but you like RT in spite of their inaccuracies

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.

You don't need to attack a country in order to provoke it. The U.S.'s wars in Afghanistan and Iraq make this abundantly clear. To a lot of people, it's abundantly clear that Russia was in fact provoked into starting its military operation in Ukraine.

Russia was not threatened in any way.

Yes, it was. Putin gave 2 reasons for his military operation in Ukraine on the day that it started. He sums them both up almost immediately:
"I consider it necessary today to speak again about the tragic events in Donbass and the key aspects of ensuring the security of Russia."

Source:
Here Is the Full Text of Putin’s Speech This Morning, Feb 24, 2022 | paulcraigroberts.org


He then explains both reasons in detail.

Russia invaded Ukraine without provocation [snip]

You really believe that, don't you? For 8 years, Russia tried to find a diplomatic solution to the Ukraine war and the U.S.'s wish to add Ukraine to NATO. Putin pointed out his frustration with the tragic situation in Donbass, as well as his frustration with what NATO countries were doing there on the day he began his military operation. Again from his February 24th speech:

**
This brings me to the situation in Donbass. We can see that the forces that staged the coup in Ukraine in 2014 have seized power, are keeping it with the help of ornamental election procedures and have abandoned the path of a peaceful conflict settlement. For eight years, for eight endless years we have been doing everything possible to settle the situation by peaceful political means. Everything was in vain.

As I said in my previous address, you cannot look without compassion at what is happening there. It became impossible to tolerate it. We had to stop that atrocity, that genocide of the millions of people who live there and who pinned their hopes on Russia, on all of us. It is their aspirations, the feelings and pain of these people that were the main motivating force behind our decision to recognise the independence of the Donbass people’s republics.

I would like to additionally emphasise the following. Focused on their own goals, the leading NATO countries are supporting the far-right nationalists and neo-Nazis in Ukraine, those who will never forgive the people of Crimea and Sevastopol for freely making a choice to reunite with Russia.

They will undoubtedly try to bring war to Crimea just as they have done in Donbass, to kill innocent people just as members of the punitive units of Ukrainian nationalists and Hitler’s accomplices did during the Great Patriotic War. They have also openly laid claim to several other Russian regions.

If we look at the sequence of events and the incoming reports, the showdown between Russia and these forces cannot be avoided. It is only a matter of time. They are getting ready and waiting for the right moment. Moreover, they went as far as aspire to acquire nuclear weapons. We will not let this happen.
**

I also think that an article from Former Swiss Intelligence Officer Jacques Baud did an excellent job of explaining why Putin decided to start his military operation when he did. I actually dedicated a thread to his article as I thought it was very well done. It's here:

Former Swiss Intelligence Officer blows the whistle on West's Ukraine War Narrative | justplainpolitics.com

 

[Paradoxical]

Time, mainly. I only have so much. As things stand, I'm already fairly behind in responding to posts in this thread. However, I did take the time to download a copy of the report and verify that the 2 passages you quoted were in the report.



So we agree that Mueller looked for evidence that the Trump campaign was involved in a crime and couldn't find enough to charge Trump with a crime. As to what the Mueller report -did- conclude, I don't agree with at least some of it, starting with part of its opening:

**
The Russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion. Evidence of Russian government operations began to surface in mid-2016. In June, the Democratic National Committee and its cyber response team publicly announced that Russian hackers had compromised its computer network. Releases of hacked materials-hacks that public reporting soon attributed to the Russian government-began that same month. Additional releases followed in July through the organization WikiLeaks, with further releases in October and November.
**

I doubt this is true. I suspect that poster Matt Dillon was right in his belief that it was Seth Rich who leaked the DNC files, and for good reason too, and that they were in fact involved in his assassination.

There are CLAIMS of Russian hacking and the indictment of Russians was just a cover. as I recall, the DNC claimed they were hacked but there was evidence that the hack was faked by either Perkins Coie or the FBI so they could have a narrative that Russia was interfering with our elections. As for "Russians" disseminating misinformation, this is allegedly some FaceBook posts of all things. A few teenagers posted nonsense and were critical of Trump and Hillary.

This government lies to indoctrinate the masses. they are just like the Soviet KGB. We are seeing this with the new revelations about Baker.....more on a post below about Baker.

 

[Paradoxical]

Jim Baker, the liar and political assassin who had a high position in the FBI and used it to go after Trump and Republicans somehow worked at Twitter as head of deciding which posts were disinformation after the FBI. Go figure that someone like him would be hired in a key position at Twitter, eh? Musk can't know everything and he didn't know this until it came to light that HE, Jiom Baker was vetting the information given to Matt Tabbi who Musk asked to get to the bottom of the scam and report his findings to the people. Matt is a liberal and one who is known to be fair in his reporting and because he reports the truth, the liberals now despise him. But, get this.....Jim Baker, the Trump and conservative hater, was screening the info that Matt Tabbi was getting. In other words, Baker was deciding what the public would see and Musk believes he deleted many files and fired his a$$.

This thread though is about the new "Ministry of Truth" called CISA and I would not have been aware of CISA until this thread by Phoenyx but I have since done lots of checking as we cannot just believe posts or news anymore without verifying. Nearly all of the people on the CISA commission are far-left liberals. One of those is a guy named Bobby Chesney and he and two others have a blog site called Lawfare. How this background is needed in order to combat disinformation is unknown. He used to be on Twitter but can't stand that Musk now allows free speech and is moving to Mastodon where they cancel people for offending anyone. This just shows what a snowflake this guy is.

Guess who is one of their bloggers from time to time? You got it. None other than Jim Baker.

The members of that commission all know each other and are no friends of free speech unless it is from the left. You should also see the number of people they are looking to hire. It is mind-boggling. We will be a police state in 10 years or less. The IRS with 80,000 new people and this new CISA group planning to add hundreds of thousands on the guise of "foreign" interference when they are seeking out Americans.

 

[Scott]

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).
**

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

[snip]

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

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.

As I explained in a previous post to you, I don't believe everything in articles I link to. I do admit that until the last post, I hadn't made that clear in the past. I hope it's clear to you now that I don't believe any contagious biological viruses exist, and that what is labelled as contagious viruses are in fact other microbes, perhaps exclusively exosomes.

This is exactly why your sources are bullshit.

More insults to my sources, really -.-? We'll see how many are in in this post.

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/

I cited this article mainly because it picks apart the evidence that the Cov 2 virus exists. You'll note that he also expresses skepticism that the original cov viruses is real as well:
"Unfortunately it isn’t clear how accurate the original SARS-CoV genome is either."

He then goes into a lengthy explanation as to why that is.

https://vaccinechoicecanada.com/specific-vaccines/smallpox-a-historical-perspective/

Have you noticed that Mr. Krasner doesn't use the word virus once? I suspect he has his suspicions as to whether viruses really cause the diseases they are alleged to cause, but I acknowledge that I'm not sure. What he -does- provide a lot of evidence for is that vaccines provided little if any help with the diseases he mentions, and he also provides evidence that they caused a great deal of harm as well.

https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/202...y-of-china-epidemic-falls-apart-completely-2/

Here you're simply mistaken. Read the article carefully. Jon Rappoport has made it repeatedly clear that he doesn't believe in the Cov 2 virus, or any other virus for that matter.

https://www.amazon.com/Vaccine-Illu...cine+illusion,stripbooks-intl-ship,171&sr=1-2

At least at the time of publishing her book, Tetyana did indeed claim to believe in viruses, a claim which I no longer believe myself as you know. Her book was focused on the innefectualness and even harm done by vaccines, which is why I brought her book up.

Are there pictures of viruses taken with electron microscopes? Yes or no.

No, I don't believe they are. Like the group of doctors I've mentioned in the past, I believe they're simply other microorganisms that have been falsely labelled as contagious viruses.

If you say no, then you are an idiot for denying reality.

Alright, that's a blunt ad hominem attack, I'll stop right there.

 

[Scott]

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.

Prove that viruses don't exist.

You are the one who claimed that "actual science" shows that your view is correct. Thus, it is up to you to prove your case, not me.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

This may be true- you need to understand that when I cite an article, I tend to cite it for very particular information, which I point out, frequently outright quoting said information. The fact that I cited an article does -not- mean that I agree with everything it says by default.

If you cite an article and don't indicate what you believe in it and what you don't believe then you are not making valid arguments. You are just throwing shit at the wall and hoping some of it sticks.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Making vague statements like that doesn't do you any favours. In order to respond to your allegation, I think it's best to first define the terms involved. The American Heritage dictionary has multiple definitions of the term opinion. I think the first one in Wordnik.com's list of them applies here:

**
noun A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof: synonym: view.
**

Source:
https://www.wordnik.com/words/opinion

I believe that anyone without sufficient information regarding a given subject wouldn't be able to tell the difference between an opinion and a fact on said subject. The key is having sufficient information.

A child may not be able to tell the difference. A thinking human being that is not attempting to disguise their motives and agenda would have no problem. When it comes to factual articles vs opinion articles it is also fairly easy to tell the difference. At this point we are left with your sputnik attempt to go around the world while denying that reasonable people can make reasonable conclusions based on objective criteria.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

You don't need to attack a country in order to provoke it. The U.S.'s wars in Afghanistan and Iraq make this abundantly clear. To a lot of people, it's abundantly clear that Russia was in fact provoked into starting its military operation in Ukraine.

Both of those wars were actually predicated on attacks on other countries.
In the case of Afghanistan, the US was attacked on 9/11. Afghanistan then harbored the group that attacked the US and refused to turn them over. To claim there was no attack is to deny reality.
In the case of Iraq, Iraq attacked Kuwait. They lost that war and agreed to certain conditions for the ending of hostilities. One can certainly question whether they were abiding by those conditions or not but the second Iraq war was predicated on Iraq's attack of Kuwait.
Ukraine didn't attack Russia or any other country. Ukraine didn't harbor fugitives that had attacked another country. Trying to claim they are the same is ridiculous.

Yes, it was. Putin gave 2 reasons for his military operation in Ukraine on the day that it started. He sums them both up almost immediately:
"I consider it necessary today to speak again about the tragic events in Donbass and the key aspects of ensuring the security of Russia."

Source:
Here Is the Full Text of Putin’s Speech This Morning, Feb 24, 2022 | paulcraigroberts.org


He then explains both reasons in detail.



You really believe that, don't you? For 8 years, Russia tried to find a diplomatic solution to the Ukraine war and the U.S.'s wish to add Ukraine to NATO. Putin pointed out his frustration with the tragic situation in Donbass, as well as his frustration with what NATO countries were doing there on the day he began his military operation. Again from his February 24th speech:

**
This brings me to the situation in Donbass. We can see that the forces that staged the coup in Ukraine in 2014 have seized power, are keeping it with the help of ornamental election procedures and have abandoned the path of a peaceful conflict settlement. For eight years, for eight endless years we have been doing everything possible to settle the situation by peaceful political means. Everything was in vain.

As I said in my previous address, you cannot look without compassion at what is happening there. It became impossible to tolerate it. We had to stop that atrocity, that genocide of the millions of people who live there and who pinned their hopes on Russia, on all of us. It is their aspirations, the feelings and pain of these people that were the main motivating force behind our decision to recognise the independence of the Donbass people’s republics.

I would like to additionally emphasise the following. Focused on their own goals, the leading NATO countries are supporting the far-right nationalists and neo-Nazis in Ukraine, those who will never forgive the people of Crimea and Sevastopol for freely making a choice to reunite with Russia.

They will undoubtedly try to bring war to Crimea just as they have done in Donbass, to kill innocent people just as members of the punitive units of Ukrainian nationalists and Hitler’s accomplices did during the Great Patriotic War. They have also openly laid claim to several other Russian regions.

If we look at the sequence of events and the incoming reports, the showdown between Russia and these forces cannot be avoided. It is only a matter of time. They are getting ready and waiting for the right moment. Moreover, they went as far as aspire to acquire nuclear weapons. We will not let this happen.
**

Nothing in there about Ukraine having attacked Russia. There are only claims that they might attack in the future.

Your comments do raise serious questions about your motivations and why you are spending so much time defending Russia.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Good point. I agree that both logic -and- premises/facts are important. If you find flaws in logic, premises or facts, those are all valid things to discuss.



It seems you haven't understood me. My belief, as well as that of the group of doctors and other professionals that I've pointed out previously, is that a Covid virus has never existed.

You have only pointed to one nut that thinks viruses don't exist. All your other links have been to people that DO believe viruses exist.

Claiming viruses don't exist is an extraordinary claim since for over 100 years general science has shown they exist. People who make extraordinary claims are required to provide support for that claim.
If the virus doesn't exist then why have several different labs been able to sequence the genetic code of viruses?
If viruses don't exist then why do we have pictures of viruses taken with electron microscopes?

Explain what this is a picture of since you think it isn't a virus.

https://www.thekashmirmonitor.net/covid19-first-electron-microscope-image-of-virus-released/

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

You are the one who claimed that "actual science" shows that your view is correct. Thus, it is up to you to prove your case, not me.

Explain what this is in the photo since you think it isn't a virus.

https://analyticalscience.wiley.com/do/10.1002/micro.2707/full/

 

[Scott]

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).
**

[Source: Smallpox – A Historical Perspective | vaccinechoicecanada.com ]

I have read that text and already pointed out that it says nothing about vaccines not working.

How you can believe that, I have no idea. The entire article provides evidence that strongly suggest that the vaccines had little if any positive effect, and plenty of harmful effects. The paragraph above itself doesn't even -mention- vaccines as helping with any of the zymotic diseases. The second paragraph only adds to the evidence that vaccines had little if any positive effect with these zymotic diseases:

**
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.”
**

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.

I never claimed anyone had made that claim. My stance is the exact opposite, that vaccines are completely innefective, as well as harmful.

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

If you'd like to quote from your link, by all means do so. I'll quote the passage you're referring to from Gary Krasner's article:

**
By 1919, England and Wales had become one of the least vaccinated countries, and had only 28 deaths from smallpox, out of a population of 37.8 million people. By contrast, during that same year, out of a population of 10 million—all triply vaccinated over the prior 6 years—the Philippine Islands registered 47,368 deaths from smallpox. The epidemic came after the culmination of a ruthless 15-year compulsory vaccination campaign by the U.S., in which the native population—young and old— were forcibly vaccinated (several times), literally against their will. In a speech condemning the smallpox vaccine reprinted in the Congressional Record of 12/21/37, William Howard Hay, M.D. said, “ . . . the Philippines suffered the worst attack of smallpox, the worst epidemic three times over, that had ever occurred in the history of the islands, and it was almost three times as fatal. The death rate ran as high as 60 per cent in certain areas, where formerly it had been 10 and 15 per cent.” In the province of Rizal, for example, smallpox mortalities increased from an average 3 per cent (before vaccination) to 67 per cent during 1918 and 1919. All told, after 10 years (1911-1920) of a compulsory U.S. program which administered 25 million vaccinations to the Philippine population of 10 million, there had been 170,000 cases, and more than 75,000 deaths from smallpox.
**

 

[Scott]

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.

Quite a bold claim. Can you prove it?

 

[Scott]

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.

A lot of claims are made above. Is the only one you disagree with the last one, aka the "Within weeks" one?

**
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.

Do you have any evidence that this claim from the New York Post has been debunked?

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

It would seem you're confusing investigations. The Reuters article is talking about an investigation that was still ongoing in 2019. From their article:

**
The National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) said an investigation was ongoing into permits granted by officials at the Ministry of Ecology for the use of natural resources to a string of companies managed by Burisma.

But it said the period under investigation was 2010-2012, and noted that this was before the company hired Hunter Biden.

“Changes to the board of Burisma Limited, which are currently the object of international attention, took place only in May 2014, and therefore are not and never were the subject of (the anti-corruption bureau’s) investigation,” the bureau’s statement said.
**

All NABU is saying is that they are -not- investigating anything related to Hunter Biden's time in Burisma. They make no claim that Burisma wasn't previously under investigation during Hunter Biden's time there.

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.

I believe it exists because the New York Post said it did. That doesn't mean that it should be easy to find.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

As I explained in a previous post to you, I don't believe everything in articles I link to. I do admit that until the last post, I hadn't made that clear in the past. I hope it's clear to you now that I don't believe any contagious biological viruses exist, and that what is labelled as contagious viruses are in fact other microbes, perhaps exclusively exosomes.

Perhaps you can explain why the human body doesn't see exosomes as a threat and target and attack them but does target and attack viruses.

More insults to my sources, really -.-? We'll see how many are in in this post.

Your sources deserve to be insulted since they make extraordinary claims without evidence.

I cited this article mainly because it picks apart the evidence that the Cov 2 virus exists. You'll note that he also expresses skepticism that the original cov viruses is real as well:
"Unfortunately it isn’t clear how accurate the original SARS-CoV genome is either."

How is anyone supposed to know which claims he makes are the ones we should think you believe in vs the ones you don't believe in since you have never specified any?

Here you're simply mistaken. Read the article carefully. Jon Rappoport has made it repeatedly clear that he doesn't believe in the Cov 2 virus, or any other virus for that matter.

So when he says this, he is lying? The coronavirus could have existed for a long time in humans—causing no damage or harm whatsoever. Or this The virus could have ALREADY been present in MANY different places. It didn’t spread. It was THERE. How can he claim something that doesn't exist is THERE?
I think you need to reread what he wrote. He is claiming the coronavirus has existed in humans long before 2019 and recently mutated to become dangerous.

At least at the time of publishing her book, Tetyana did indeed claim to believe in viruses, a claim which I no longer believe myself as you know. Her book was focused on the innefectualness and even harm done by vaccines, which is why I brought her book up.

How is anyone supposed to know which claims she makes are the ones we should think you believe in vs the ones you don't believe in since you have never specified any?

No, I don't believe they are. Like the group of doctors I've mentioned in the past, I believe they're simply other microorganisms that have been falsely labelled as contagious viruses.

That's some funny stuff. Viruses are microorganisms. You don't believe viruses exist. What science calls viruses are really microorganisms but they shouldn't be named viruses. In other words your only argument is with calling the microorganisms viruses instead of poopythings.