I’m sorry for my comments on your personal Substack regarding this same topic because I misunderstood. I interpreted your post to be a defense/justification for the scientific fraud committed by the Stanford President but I see now that I was mistaken. This is an area I get easily triggered; specifically when I see someone with the courage to speak out, which then gives me a reason to be hopeful that some sort of truth might finally be revealed- but then you realize, nothing is going to change. And this cycle has been going on for some time now more in reference to this fraud. This massive, unimaginable, horrific fraud that is so far to the left that you need an entirely new spectrum for criminal, deliberate fraud that destroys human life.
And then, where this story leaves off is Denmark and that’s Poul Thorsen, the OIG’s most wanted fugitive felon. Maybe one day we can all face it. But not today. I know.
You mention the conflict created by taking money from pharmaceutical companies for real scientists. Here’s a great example. Check out this woman’s cognitive rot. At minute 13 he starts the questioning about CoVid vaccine/ Pfizer and she’s completely oblivious she’s contracting herself. Or she’s a good actress. I can’t quite tell what’s going on there. I do wonder.
Special request: I understand the spectrum and accept that yes, this is true. It’s a spectrum. But one of two options: can you draw a clear line between fraud and truth, and/or create two different spectrums(?). The spectrum of true and the spectrum of fraud. There is less accurate truth and mild fraud, but we still need a line. It can’t just be be a blurry spectrum. We would get lost in the infinity between 1 and 2. The arrow does reach the tree. Would it go to the right of “photoshopping western blots”? If so, I’ll take it. But could you tell us and draw the line? A big fat one. That’s my request. And I’m going to be quiet now.
I'm with Charlie Bruns. If we put the wrong times on our time sheet that's fraud and we get fired. Period. The end. Right is right and wrong is wrong. I don't understand why the person/people who fraudulently posted a trial which really test anything isn't fired. What's so difficult?
Vinay,
I’m sorry for my comments on your personal Substack regarding this same topic because I misunderstood. I interpreted your post to be a defense/justification for the scientific fraud committed by the Stanford President but I see now that I was mistaken. This is an area I get easily triggered; specifically when I see someone with the courage to speak out, which then gives me a reason to be hopeful that some sort of truth might finally be revealed- but then you realize, nothing is going to change. And this cycle has been going on for some time now more in reference to this fraud. This massive, unimaginable, horrific fraud that is so far to the left that you need an entirely new spectrum for criminal, deliberate fraud that destroys human life.
https://web.archive.org/web/20161224231536/http://www.putchildrenfirst.org/index2.html
And then, where this story leaves off is Denmark and that’s Poul Thorsen, the OIG’s most wanted fugitive felon. Maybe one day we can all face it. But not today. I know.
You mention the conflict created by taking money from pharmaceutical companies for real scientists. Here’s a great example. Check out this woman’s cognitive rot. At minute 13 he starts the questioning about CoVid vaccine/ Pfizer and she’s completely oblivious she’s contracting herself. Or she’s a good actress. I can’t quite tell what’s going on there. I do wonder.
https://thehighwire.com/videos/the-cross-examination-of-the-godmother-of-vaccines/
Special request: I understand the spectrum and accept that yes, this is true. It’s a spectrum. But one of two options: can you draw a clear line between fraud and truth, and/or create two different spectrums(?). The spectrum of true and the spectrum of fraud. There is less accurate truth and mild fraud, but we still need a line. It can’t just be be a blurry spectrum. We would get lost in the infinity between 1 and 2. The arrow does reach the tree. Would it go to the right of “photoshopping western blots”? If so, I’ll take it. But could you tell us and draw the line? A big fat one. That’s my request. And I’m going to be quiet now.
I'm with Charlie Bruns. If we put the wrong times on our time sheet that's fraud and we get fired. Period. The end. Right is right and wrong is wrong. I don't understand why the person/people who fraudulently posted a trial which really test anything isn't fired. What's so difficult?
Very well said Vinay. Agree with you 100% and everything you say has been my experience in other fields of scientific endeavor as well.
Isn't there a science panel that verifies that a study was performed properly and issues a seal of approval?