by William Skink
I believe more and more people are waking up to the unprecedented power grab happening before our eyes and starting to realize the time to push back is now.
One of the best two hours you can spend is this episode of Union of the Unwanted. It features DOCTOR Brian Hooker, DOCTOR Kendra, and DOCTOR Scott Jenson.
I am yelling about the credentials of the featured guests to make sure you understand these people know what they are talking about, so when they get into the nitty gritty details of how this scam is being perpetrated, it’s from their EXPERTISE and DIRECT EXPERIENCES.
Yes, people are organizing despite the best efforts of very dark forces to keep us isolated and afraid.
The people speaking up are an inspiration and the doctors risking their careers are showing what real courage looks like.
If you’re on the fence, listen to the episode. If you’re not, but know someone who is, share it.
JC
More anti-vax doctor interviews. Great! Let’s just share the Plandemic video again and call it good. Or let’s talk about the “real courage” of Brian Hooker whittling down the sample sizes, omitting entire races, and more to reach his conclusions.
It took real courage to share this. Thank you for your blog service, William. Have you considered moving to the Bitterroot to find more like-minded people?
I would love for this comment to be from our actual Mayor.
A quick Google shows that:
* DOCTOR Scott Jensen (I corrected the spelling for ya) is a Trump sycophant republican senator who is being investigate by the medical board for spreading misinformation about Covid-19.
* DOCTOR Brian Hooker is famously an anti-vaxxer doctor who is roundly dismissed in the medical community due to the fact that he makes claims that cannot be proven while promoting information that the entire medical field disagrees with.
* DOCTOR Kendra is…well I don’t know because you didn’t list their last name but, I’d doubt they are a respected doctor at Johns Hopkins.
Listened to the podcasts too. So yes, they are doctors (whether practicing still or not) but, they also are outweighed by essentially the entire medical community. So, if you’re willing to say “hey these are doctors, listen to them!” then why on earth do you choose to just ignore the rest of the doctor/scientific community’s message?
The idea that everything is a conspiracy at all times and the only people to be believed are the fringe members of a group is dangerous. And it’s stupid quite frankly. Should you be skeptical of information and try to poke holes in it to see if it adds up? Yes. But when you already WANT there to be a conspiracy that you’re magical enough to “see through” and you go on the internet and find a few folks that say something that lines up with that – that is not how finding “the truth” works, Billy Skink. That’s how making shit up works. It’s fun but, you aren’t “seeing something” that the rest of the world doesn’t – you’re connected dots that are not connected which is why…wait for it…the rest of the medical community completely disagrees.
So, keep being skeptical of information but my god, try be a fraction as smart as you think you are when doing so – both yourself AND your readers will be better off for it.
The problem I have with your points here is that they all seem to rely heavily on the thought that the medical or scientific consensus is correct at all times, which is pretty much the opposite of how most medical breakthroughs have happened throughout history. From Copernicus to a guy like Barry Marshall who discovered the cause of stomach ulcers by self-experimentation because his ideas were “dismissed by the medical community,” the idea that science is just something to be voted on like American Idol or used to bully those with dissenting views is atrocious. I thought might makes right was a concept we left behind at least a few hundred years ago.
Even Fauci admitted that he misrepresented the numbers about herd immunity and low-balled them for easier public consumption. He also started out the pandemic saying we didn’t need to wear masks. Forgive people in a year when they’ve been lied to non-stop for so long for being skeptical.
Sure, and a lot of that is definitely things we can/do have different opinions on.
But please let’s not confuse scientific consensus with the voting system of American Idol. Scientific consensus comes from being able to show a given set of work that you have achieved, have it reviewed by peers in your field so that they can attempt to both replicate the results and poke holes in any part of it that don’t work work – with the idea that if there is something to it, that many people working on it can make something more effective and more accurate. That is decidedly not “voting” on it. Are there medical and scientific breakthroughs that have happened outside of that? Sure. I’m also not saying medical consensus is 100% right at all times or that sometimes they don’t change their minds on things, I’m simply saying that it’s irresponsible to choose to believe the minority of doctors who have yet to make a compelling case to the rest of the medical community, just because folks want there to be a “truth” that only they and a small group of others can see.
And yes, Fauci did start out saying we didn’t need to wear masks. Then he said we should wear masks – because we learned new information and he adapted his recommendation. So what? I am frankly shocked at the amount of people that get hung up on this, as it’s somehow proof of The Grand Lie being perpetrated upon us. His recommendation adapted to new information – that’s how science works. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
Also, look, I’m right there with ya on being skeptical: BE SKEPTICAL. But being skeptical doesn’t mean just finding the voice that’s the opposite of the status quo and then ignoring the blatant holes in those stories or theories because we like how it feels to say we’re skeptics. It means being critical of information and using media literacy to parse through information and then share it responsibly in a tone of voice that isn’t childish.
If the tone was something more like “Hmmm, this is interesting. Worth taking a listen to hear from some front line workers who disagree with the medical establishment” this would be an entirely different dialogue down here in the comments section. But in his very short post sharing this podcast, he uses phrases like “unprecedented power grab, very dark forces, and showing what real courage looks like” which reveals a lot about the intent of sharing the information and the perspective of the person sharing it having been decided regardless of the information.
To be fair, it is totally his publishing platform to say what he wants and I sort of bumbled into typing a whole lot of words on this page that I had no intention of doing when my day started, nor that I studied up on to write about, nor that I had intended to write as a means of conflict. But the word choice, verbiage, and lack of research by the author just seems problematic for something that he is so gung ho about promoting – particularly when that thing is about a disease that affects other people.
I am also one of those people dealing with covid everyday for almost a year. I am a healthy skeptic of all things and all information – but skepticism doesn’t go to infinity. It’s too easy without a little restraint to push skepticism into made-up-conspiracy-land. I think that was really all I was meaning to get at – that the author should be better about finding and presenting the information he seems to believe so whole heartedly. Anyway, I’ll start shutting up now.
I think you’re making some broad generalizations here that don’t align when you look at things in more detail. What do you consider “consensus?” Is it 51% of a population believing something to be true? 100%? 99%?
The real problem I have here is you seem to be finding reasons to discredit people not based upon their arguments, evidence or facts, but based upon the opinions of others in their field. Are the people at Fox News not doing journalism correctly purely because other journalists say they aren’t? There is an objective set of ethics and principles that go along with journalism, if 99% of journalists forego those for their own agendas, is that “consensus” journalism?
If someone goes through the trouble studying for 4-6 years to get a degree, then applies and goes to medical school for 6-10 years (including residency), are they not a doctor who is qualified to judge science or medical studies? If they come to a different conclusion does that make their backgrounds invalid unless they are of the majority opinion of their chosen profession?
I’m going to guess you are of an older generation, mostly because I see this divide among people who went to college pre-1990-2000 when universities were still functioning under these norms you suggest such as peer-review, transparency and reproducibility of work, etc. However, there has been a huge fracturing of the scientific community since it’s been flooded with work that can’t be reproduced, is peer-reviewed by people close to the subjects of the paper, doesn’t include transparency of methods, etc. Here’s a link to information from Wikipedia about this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis
People have actually tested this system by submitting fake papers or AI generated studies and been accepted into peer-reviewed publications. There are also examples of people doing perfectly suitable science being “discredited” by public interest groups when the results don’t fall in line with social justice paradigms currently advocated by universities. Often people even seeking funding get no where because the funding is provided primarily by special interest groups who only want results that match their predetermined outcomes.
Here’s a piece from the New York Times concerning studies that could only reliably point to 31% of “gayness” being directly related to genes. One of the gay authors of the study rallied to keep the study from being published because the results might go against the argument that all of homosexuality is determined by genetics and not environment. Is this science? Is suppressing a study because you don’t like the results “consensus?”
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/29/science/gay-gene-sex.html
Should we even talk about all the incestuous relationships between government and industry that exist solely to make Big Pharma tons of money? The revolving door in government between industries and the regulations and oversight that are supposed to govern them? The medical textbooks and “continuing education” American doctors go through written by drug makers? The “drug salespeople” who regularly get doctors perks by having them put more people on pills? Since this is the norm, is it also the consensus of all medical providers? Just because everyone is doing one thing doesn’t mean they even all want to, but might feel powerless to make a change in such a large system without sacrificing their own careers or well being.
We live in a country where you can’t even sue a vaccine maker if you are harmed by it. Our government for decades has maintained a “vaccine court,” where you have to sue the government run court and win against the U.S. Justice Department to have any claim. You think an average citizen is ever going to even go down that road? Yet the relationship where our tax dollars go to protect big industry from liability seems fine to everyone. Where is the accountability when the process is deliberately built to avoid you from ever engaging it, even if you have a legitimate claim?
Your own argument has some cracks in it. Why is Fauci “learning new information and adapting his recommendations” but someone with a differing view is “sycophant,” “being investigated by medical board for misinformation,” “famous anti-vaxxer,” “roundly dismissed,” … all these things you seem to know. How, exactly do you know them? One company controls 90% + of the search results in America, a company which is actively involved in politics at every level, and has a track record of censorship and controls a huge amount of the advertising revenue. We broke up AT&T for far less than these major tech companies are guilty of, yet when you use their algorithm, services and come to their conclusion they allow you to see, that’s not suspicious at all to you? I would think even a person with a base sense of objectivity would see problems in the information control at play here. They literally censored a negative story about Biden and his family’s international dealings for two weeks until the Election was over, but you think you can trust them to give you good information about health care? That’s a large amount of faith, my friend.
Conservatives have been whining about this for years because they are the most public targets and easy to malign, but it’s happening in almost every field. The people who toe the line stay and get awards and promotions and the people who don’t either keep their heads down and mouths shut or are made examples of. Don’t become part of the “mob” who dogpiles on those with different opinions, especially on the word and trust of a 3rd party source like Google or what opinions are still allowed to be expressed in the scientific community. You might find your “consensus” looks a lot more like mafia or authoritarian control than scientific inquiry in practice.
I’d like to amend slightly, a reply I just sent as it needs to be a little more accurate. Below is the amended version. //
A quick Google shows that:
* DOCTOR Scott Jensen (I corrected the spelling for ya) is a republican senator who is being investigated by the medical board for spreading misinformation about Covid-19 so…already anything he says is to be taken with a grain of salt the size of a pickup truck.
* DOCTOR Brian Hooker is famously an anti-vaxxer doctor who is roundly dismissed in the medical community due to the fact that he makes claims that cannot be proven while promoting information that the entire medical field disagrees with.
* DOCTOR Kendra Becker (I also added her last name to your copy and paste from the website you took the description from, because for some reason neither they nor you could be bothered to take 35 seconds to Google her and add her last name to the descriptio) is roundly viewed as someone who sounds and acts intelligently, but participates in encouraging misinformation about vaccines based on the fact that her ideas are unproven and roundly disagreed with by the medical community.
Listened to the podcasts too. So yes, they are doctors (whether practicing still or not) but, they also are outweighed by essentially the entire medical community. So, if you’re willing to say “hey these are doctors, listen to them!” then why on earth do you choose to just ignore the rest of the doctor/scientific community’s message?
The idea that everything is a conspiracy at all times and the only people to be believed are the fringe members of a group is dangerous. And it’s stupid quite frankly. Should you be skeptical of information and try to poke holes in it to see if it adds up? Yes. But when you already WANT there to be a conspiracy that you’re magical enough to “see” and you go on the internet and find a few folks that say something that lines up with that – that is not how finding “the truth” works, Billy Skink. That’s how making shit up works. It’s fun but, you aren’t “seeing something” that the rest of the world doesn’t – you’re connecting dots that are not actually connected which is why…wait for it…the rest of the medical community completely disagrees.
So, keep being skeptical of information but my god, try be a fraction as smart as you think you are when doing so – both yourself AND your readers will be better off for it.
I haven’t searched the internet to find reasons to dismiss all the people in the podcast like you have. good on you for doing your due diligence. are you going to get one of the vaccines that Big Pharma can’t be sued over if it harms you?
Considering you referred to listening to these folks as “one of the best two hours you can spend,” that sure makes you look like you don’t know how to do any homework, Mr. Skink.
Also, just for the record here, I didn’t search the internet to find reasons to dismiss them – I simply Googled their name because I was curious who they were. What came up was articles about each of them being discredited by their various communities at large. If I can take less than 5 minutes to find that out just because, you know, I’m curious about the background of these folks you’re saying we should listen to, then why aren’t you doing the same before telling people that these folks are “an inspiration” ?
You want to commend me for my due diligence (though possibly sarcastically) but, you are the person sharing this podcast and telling people it’s for those on the fence and that these are DOCTORS for chrissake so we need to listen to their bravery – yet they’re dismissed by their entire industry not because of what their conclusions are, but because of how they come to their conclusions (ie not scientifically).
It’s willful ignorance and it’s unhelpful to everyone involved – including yourself. Because you shoot yourself in the foot when you miss the basics while espousing larger messages. I don’t even care if I agree with you or not, just get your research game together so you have a tiny bit a leg to stand on.
To your question: am I going to get one of the vaccines? Yeah, more than likely I will. Just like I got all of my other vaccines as a kid and didn’t end up with polio. I’m guessing from the use of “Big Pharma” that you’ll have a snarky follow up about the other ways that vaccines might cause me long term damage and that you are against vaccines (this may not be entirely true, but it seems a fairly likely perspective given your tone and comment).
So let’s play a game and say that vaccines do in fact contain unnatural elements that can increase the risk for various other issues in humans and that there is proof of this (there’s not though). Have you ever been to a 3rd world country and watched people drag themselves around on the dirty ground because they didn’t get a polio vaccine, their legs don’t work, and so they cannot work but instead have to beg in the streets? I’d bet dollars to donuts that person would take the risk of a vaccine and whatever you are afraid happens from vaccines to avoid that life on the streets – without for a second wondering if they could sue Big Pharma. Remember the measles? The insanely contagious disease that is particularly dangerous for children? Yeah, me neither – cause it’s essentially eliminated in the United States. How about cutting yourself on something rusty and then getting lockjaw? Or what about Diphtheria? That’s a classic. If you got it, you could barely breathe or swallow because of how it would infect and coat your throat. Oooh, oooooh – how about smallpox?!? Ooooh, yeah, that’s a classic. Remember Smallpox? It would cause severe rashes and bumps on your entire body, had a 30% fatality rate, and for the 70% that survived there were long term issues such as blindness. Pretty fun stuff. FUN FACT: it’s considered the only disease that has been officially eradicated from humans by the use of vaccines.
So go ahead and just compare whatever potential risk you want to come up with about vaccines (usually these arguments are dubious but, I’m always interested in learning facts) to the side effects and long term impacts of diseases themselves (particularly the highly contagious ones that if we didn’t eliminate them would then spread like wildfire across humanity) and then ask yourself:
If you were to talk to the people that died, suffered long term health effects, and whose quality of life was incredibly decreased (i.e. the 3rd world folks crawling around in the dirt on their hands with their legs dragging behind them) by those diseases (something we would be able to ascertain with 100% certainty was caused directly due to the disease through science) and ask them if they’d want to risk the potential fears that you’re espousing are inherent with the vaccines to prevent those diseases; damn good chance every single one of them would go back in time and get a shot as a kid. Me? Yeah, I’m also in that camp.
So don’t get the vaccine, keep talking like these doctors are some kind of heroes without doing any research on them, and keep being extra Skinky I guess?
I originally thought I’d come check out your blog to see what it was all about despite probably not agreeing with your perspectives, because I was interested. But the methods by which you come to say things like “yelling about the credentials of the featured guests to make sure you understand these people know what they are talking about, so when they get into the nitty gritty details of how this scam is being perpetrated, it’s from their EXPERTISE and DIRECT EXPERIENCES” are so amateurish that it undermines everything you say as being bullspit. Learn how to find, deduce, and understand facts before spreading information – it’s really not that hard. Peace out.
TL:DR
Wake up sheeple: correlation does not imply causation and it’s not hard to Google for objective facts.
my Grandma trusted the medical community back in the day and they killed two of her babies with their anti-nausea pills.
I’m glad you’re five minutes with Google told you what you need to know, but in all the words you piled on there, you haven’t been very specific with the misinformation you claim these doctors are spreading. could you be more specific please?
speaking of misinformation, it doesn’t appear you are too concerned about the modeling from the imperial college that turned out to be shit, and the self-admitted lies from Fauci about masks, and the cycle threshold of the PCR tests cooking up false positives, and the failure of the vaccines to impact infection rates because that’s not what they mean when they talk up the “efficacy”, and lots of other things, like financial incentives.
that said, I support your choice to take the vaccine.
do YOU support my choice to NOT take a vaccine, or should I be put on a list, barred from public life, and/or be labeled a bio-security threat?
I’m not trying to present do a research treatise here on those doctors – I never said 5 minutes on Google did tell me everything I needed to know – just pointing out that if you’re so astounded by these doctors that you want to write a glowing blog post talking about how these brave folks know “the truth” that you should maybe appear to have done more than the 5 minutes of searching that I did which pretty quickly begins to paint a picture that these are not credible sources.
Also, “self-admitted lies from Fauci” ? Do you mean how he changed his mind on best practices based on further understanding how the virus spread over time? Like how science tends to work?
And yes, I do support your right NOT to take a vaccine…if you have the strength of spirit to check out of the society you live in that requires them as part of the larger social contract. If you want to live in the woods, kill your own food, and raise your family susceptible to diseases the rest of us don’t live with because we get vaccinations, then more power to you. I’m all for that. In fact, if you live that courageously, you should also be able to hunt whenever you want and do whatever you want – but I doubt that’s the case.
If you are going to generally exist within society then there are community trade offs that have to be made – that includes not willingly ignoring medical science that can potentially cause outbreaks of diseases that hurt/injure/kill OTHER PEOPLE besides yourself. I don’t know that you should be labeled a bio-security threat because that feels like a slippery slope but, at the same time, you’re kind of being an a jerk that puts the ahole system at risk. So if you want to go down that road and you stand behind your beliefs enough to go totally against the grain of the rest of society by not getting vaccinated for diseases that can easily spread to the rest of your community, then frankly you should have no problem sharing that you don’t get vaccinated with everyone you meet and letting them know that about you right away. Put your money where your mouth is if you believe in it so much – wear your “I don’t get vaccinated” jacket to the grocery store and then deal with the labels – since you’re so convinced about it. Why is okay for you not to get vaccinated and put everyone at risk, but then not want to be “labeled” because of it?
To put it another way, this is how you sound: I totally support your right to drive around sober, but would you support my right to drive around town drunk everyday or should I be barred from public life, and/or be labeled as a threat to those around me just because I’m drunk behind the wheel?
I think this lecture is starting to sound familiar, so let me make something clear “Karl”.
I consider your intent to exclude me and my family from participating in social life to be a threat.
continue to justify your position if you feel so compelled. I know where I stand.
Well I never said I had any intention of excluding you – in fact I even went out of my way to make that clear so not sure where you’re getting that. I just said that if you feel that strongly against vaccines, that it’s a bit ironic you don’t want the general community to know you don’t get vaccinated.
So I’m a bit shocked at how you wanna say that you feel threatened by anything I said whatsoever. Seems more like an excuse to continue not actually engaging but, it’s also your blog site so, do your thing.
Just…dear god…please be better about figuring out how to look up information. And maybe try to be a little more responsible about the information you spread so that people, even if they disagree, can actually talk about things.
Later.