They can "spin" it any way they want. The real test is when we have due process restored and the data that RFK/HHS clearly presents the evidence of harm to a jury in a Court of Equity.
Will structural transparency stop the dirty scrubber waste fluoride being added to most of America's tap water? Will structural transparency let today's healthy well nourished children get measles (like the pre-1960s) so they can have lifetime immunity and protect their future babies from measles until they reach the age of handing it well? Will structural transparency mean Jay B. can stop lying about the measles vaccine (WHICH DOES NOT EXIST, the only available shots are dangerous polyvalents) being the best way to prevent measles outbreaks?
Is there any way to get a link to the recording of his speech? Sounds inspirational and would be helpful to expose it to the public. The write up is great but I want the whole thing. Thanks.
We also need epistemic humility. No matter how we approach the conundrum of scientific truth or certainty, man and his tools of cognition will never achieve omniscience. For that very reason, medical interventions, no matter how bolstered by peer review or repetition or some other technique, must never be mandated or coerced. Man, as an individual, must be free to choose his own values to pursue using his own rational judgment, including the value of medical intervention.
Agree, but the information available to make that choice must be free and true. How many studies I read during the plandemic that showed this or that was damaged by the jab, yet at the end a disclaimer that, despite this study, taking the jab is advisable. It was clearly entered so the study could be published, not based on anything else.
Yes, but just to be precise, the government should not be in the business of funding or producing, in any way, such information. The government’s only proper role in this regard is to police fraudulent behavior AND to not obstruct liability suits in common law between private parties when fraud is alleged. The government needs to get out of the recommendation business; that’s the purview and prerogative—and liability—of a trusted medical professional who treats individuals, not statistical averages. Secondly, everyone should be cognizant of the double-edged sword that characterizes the relationship between epistemology and ethics. The more that a government agency can claim the mantle of perfect scientific understanding and truth, the more they can justify coercive policies based on “indisputable certainty.” In other words, the reason why man must be free to choose his own values to pursue, including medical treatments, is precisely because the government, or anyone else, does NOT have perfect understanding. It’s precisely because man is NOT omniscient. So while it’s important that we all strive for the “truth,” at the end of the day the medical freedom movement must remember that the freedom to choose (for which they properly advocate) does NOT stem from their better grasp of epidemiology or vital statistics or vaccinology, etc. On the contrary, medical freedom follows from a humble understanding that no one in either camp has an understanding that is so perfect, so complete, that they can judge and mandate the medical values of all individuals.
While I would like to agree, it has been my observation that access to information is not provided by most journals and other organizations without a costly subscription. I read studies posted on the government hosted sites. Those sites indicate that the information is not necessarily government aprproved. I would be just fine for my taxpayer dollars to provide such sites, just as I am fine with them providing public libraries. You assume doctors keep up on information such that they alone should be trusted. That has not been my experience.
Looking forward to all the life supporting changes you report. Thank you. Jay is a great man, who admits he wants and needs our input. An important point he should consider: Theresa Deisher, PhD, pioneer of using adult stem cells rejected the use of pluripotent stem cells. Theresa has been a great friend to Health Freedom with her great quote: anyone who says that injecting billions of foreign DNA fragments is safe is either lying or doesn't know what anything about immunology -- from ChatGPT:
She intentionally avoids pluripotent stem cell technology
She warned early about cancer risk from reprogramming
Her work stayed firmly in adult, lineage-restricted stem cell biology
Nextstar runs The Hill. Key pharmaceutical companies that advertise with Nexstar include:
Novo Nordisk: Frequently advertises its GLP-1 products, Wegovy and Ozempic, on television, often using their recognizable "Oh, Oh, Oh" jingle.
Eli Lilly: A major spender promoting medications like Mounjaro, Trulicity, and Zepbound.
AbbVie: A top spender for immunology drugs, specifically Skyrizi and Rinvoq, often replacing its previous, long-term advertiser Humira.
Sanofi and Regeneron: Co-marketers of the blockbuster immunology drug Dupixent.
Pfizer: Known for advertising products such as Eliquis and various other medications.
GlaxoSmithKline (GSK): Advertises products such as Breo Ellipta.
Amgen: Promotes medications like Otezla.
These companies frequently target the local, broad-reach audiences that Nexstar, as the largest owner of local television stations in the U.S., provides. The ads often include financial assistance information, especially during periods of economic uncertainty.
I think this is a great start, because it moves the Overton Window of allowable public opinion. It is no longer unacceptable to question medical authority and to seize control over one's personal health.
p.s., That "show me the attempted replications of this study" button feature added to the PubMed interface would be friggin' awesome if they ever put it together!
They can "spin" it any way they want. The real test is when we have due process restored and the data that RFK/HHS clearly presents the evidence of harm to a jury in a Court of Equity.
The Hill is an opinion machine. I want justice.
Me too
Eventual, if, cautiously, . . . . not fast enough for abruptly autistic babies and young children.
PS and what's the "low down $" on autistic treatment facilites and services?
You mean someone in the media lied???? Oh my god what’s next? I didn’t know that big pharma advertise in the “HILL”.
Nextstar runs The Hill. Key pharmaceutical companies that advertise with Nexstar are included in my previous comment.
There are an awful lot of NIH backed bird flu GOF operations still occuring in the States to take the claim of tabling gof seriously
Will structural transparency stop the dirty scrubber waste fluoride being added to most of America's tap water? Will structural transparency let today's healthy well nourished children get measles (like the pre-1960s) so they can have lifetime immunity and protect their future babies from measles until they reach the age of handing it well? Will structural transparency mean Jay B. can stop lying about the measles vaccine (WHICH DOES NOT EXIST, the only available shots are dangerous polyvalents) being the best way to prevent measles outbreaks?
Is there any way to get a link to the recording of his speech? Sounds inspirational and would be helpful to expose it to the public. The write up is great but I want the whole thing. Thanks.
michellerabin@gmail.com
https://live.childrenshealthdefense.org/chd-tv/events/committee-hearings/modernizing-the-national-institutes-of-health-faster-discoveries-more-cures/
We also need epistemic humility. No matter how we approach the conundrum of scientific truth or certainty, man and his tools of cognition will never achieve omniscience. For that very reason, medical interventions, no matter how bolstered by peer review or repetition or some other technique, must never be mandated or coerced. Man, as an individual, must be free to choose his own values to pursue using his own rational judgment, including the value of medical intervention.
Agree, but the information available to make that choice must be free and true. How many studies I read during the plandemic that showed this or that was damaged by the jab, yet at the end a disclaimer that, despite this study, taking the jab is advisable. It was clearly entered so the study could be published, not based on anything else.
Yes, but just to be precise, the government should not be in the business of funding or producing, in any way, such information. The government’s only proper role in this regard is to police fraudulent behavior AND to not obstruct liability suits in common law between private parties when fraud is alleged. The government needs to get out of the recommendation business; that’s the purview and prerogative—and liability—of a trusted medical professional who treats individuals, not statistical averages. Secondly, everyone should be cognizant of the double-edged sword that characterizes the relationship between epistemology and ethics. The more that a government agency can claim the mantle of perfect scientific understanding and truth, the more they can justify coercive policies based on “indisputable certainty.” In other words, the reason why man must be free to choose his own values to pursue, including medical treatments, is precisely because the government, or anyone else, does NOT have perfect understanding. It’s precisely because man is NOT omniscient. So while it’s important that we all strive for the “truth,” at the end of the day the medical freedom movement must remember that the freedom to choose (for which they properly advocate) does NOT stem from their better grasp of epidemiology or vital statistics or vaccinology, etc. On the contrary, medical freedom follows from a humble understanding that no one in either camp has an understanding that is so perfect, so complete, that they can judge and mandate the medical values of all individuals.
While I would like to agree, it has been my observation that access to information is not provided by most journals and other organizations without a costly subscription. I read studies posted on the government hosted sites. Those sites indicate that the information is not necessarily government aprproved. I would be just fine for my taxpayer dollars to provide such sites, just as I am fine with them providing public libraries. You assume doctors keep up on information such that they alone should be trusted. That has not been my experience.
Looking forward to all the life supporting changes you report. Thank you. Jay is a great man, who admits he wants and needs our input. An important point he should consider: Theresa Deisher, PhD, pioneer of using adult stem cells rejected the use of pluripotent stem cells. Theresa has been a great friend to Health Freedom with her great quote: anyone who says that injecting billions of foreign DNA fragments is safe is either lying or doesn't know what anything about immunology -- from ChatGPT:
She intentionally avoids pluripotent stem cell technology
She warned early about cancer risk from reprogramming
Her work stayed firmly in adult, lineage-restricted stem cell biology
Nextstar runs The Hill. Key pharmaceutical companies that advertise with Nexstar include:
Novo Nordisk: Frequently advertises its GLP-1 products, Wegovy and Ozempic, on television, often using their recognizable "Oh, Oh, Oh" jingle.
Eli Lilly: A major spender promoting medications like Mounjaro, Trulicity, and Zepbound.
AbbVie: A top spender for immunology drugs, specifically Skyrizi and Rinvoq, often replacing its previous, long-term advertiser Humira.
Sanofi and Regeneron: Co-marketers of the blockbuster immunology drug Dupixent.
Pfizer: Known for advertising products such as Eliquis and various other medications.
GlaxoSmithKline (GSK): Advertises products such as Breo Ellipta.
Amgen: Promotes medications like Otezla.
These companies frequently target the local, broad-reach audiences that Nexstar, as the largest owner of local television stations in the U.S., provides. The ads often include financial assistance information, especially during periods of economic uncertainty.
I think this is a great start, because it moves the Overton Window of allowable public opinion. It is no longer unacceptable to question medical authority and to seize control over one's personal health.
p.s., That "show me the attempted replications of this study" button feature added to the PubMed interface would be friggin' awesome if they ever put it together!