That's why I said that Breggin's attacks read like they were crafted by gov't propagandists Edelman, Danya, Air, etc. They reminded me of the attacks against Peter Duesberg, Andrew Wakefield and Celia Farber.
David Lewis Ph.D. wrote the definitive investigation on the Wakefield case... http://omsj.org/reports/Lewis%202012.pdf
That's why I said that Breggin's attacks read like they were crafted by gov't propagandists Edelman, Danya, Air, etc. They reminded me of the attacks against Peter Duesberg, Andrew Wakefield and Celia Farber.
... the usual suspects contrived "56 errors" to attack Farber, Harpers, and anyone else who dared to legitimize her heretical two-year, heavily fact-checked report.
The attack signatories were all Fauci HIV grantees.
Their absurd attack and names were enough for effortless skepticism, which was enough for the propagandists.
So when I read the Breggin report, I recognized the style. No real scientist would go out of their way to write what they claim to have written.
I've grilled plenty of docs under oath and am not impressed with more than a few - especially "virologists" who rely on divining rods like flow cytometry and PCR testing (PCR is real, PCR tests are not) instead of Koch's Postulates or electron microscopy.
I'm skeptical of them ALL, but Dr. Malone and his peers have broken their silence and raised legitimate questions that must be heard as part of their moral obligation to "informed consent". Their modest exposure of that ongoing, trillion-dollar-pseudoscientific-theocratic money-laundering operation (that they all played a part of) understandably challenges the lives, careers, and credibility of thousands of bent pseudo-scientists and universities - the churches, temples, clerics, theologians, apostles, disciples, and mullahs who, if faced with their day of reckoning in this world would not be reputable enough to drive cabs or dig ditches (without watchful direct supervision).
So yeah, Breggin's attacks serve the purpose because the majority of the global population is afflicted by life and characteristics described by Asch, Milgram, Desmet and others - people who are too addled, stressed, and distracted to study the arguments from one side or another. In that cacophony, the noisiest mob wins. Like Duesberg, Wakefield and Farber, casual observers will hear that Malone "was discredited", shrug their shoulders and think to themselves, "well, who really knows?"
Well said. You know your stuff. You think Breggin is controlled opposition then? but what about all his prior work being the conscience of psychiatry etc. I don't trust his facts though anymore, I don't care what side he's on--even if he's on our side, I don't want to be fed lies to bolster arguments against the other side either. Just want the truth and he doesn't seem to wedded to that.
Oh okay well he I think brought lawsuits out or fought in court regarding Prozac. He's said to be the conscience of psychiatry. ...which certainly seemed laudable. But he's not behaving well right now, in my opinion. Here's a typical snippet about him: "Commenting on the study, Dr Peter Breggin – known as “the Conscience of Psychiatry” for the last five decades – said, “There are no known biochemical imbalances in the brains of mental patients until they are put there by the neurotoxic effects of psychiatric drugs.”
‘At its heart, psychiatry is about damaging the brain’ – Dr Peter
and there's this description also: Peter R. Breggin, M.D. Chief Expert For All 150 Prozac Lawsuits Against Eli Lilly
Seems like a great guy, has good rep, so but his statements about Malone and Desmet again are so distorted, it's unbelievable. So, there it is. Not sure what to make of it.
And that's the tack to take: Everyone has opinions. We quietly take what we can and weigh them against our own observations and intuition. To weaponize such an attack seems inexplicable. The fact (up through today) that they won't debate their critique with Desmet or Malone is suspicious. Unresponsiveness is how the clerics and mullahs behave. So unseemly for "our side".
That's why I said that Breggin's attacks read like they were crafted by gov't propagandists Edelman, Danya, Air, etc. They reminded me of the attacks against Peter Duesberg, Andrew Wakefield and Celia Farber.
David Lewis Ph.D. wrote the definitive investigation on the Wakefield case... http://omsj.org/reports/Lewis%202012.pdf
... and their attack on Celia Farber was classic. After Harper's published Celia Farber's explosive report about the NIH murder of Joyce Hafford...
https://www.omsj.org/reports/HarpersOutofControl2006.pdf
... the usual suspects contrived "56 errors" to attack Farber, Harpers, and anyone else who dared to legitimize her heretical two-year, heavily fact-checked report.
The attack signatories were all Fauci HIV grantees.
https://aidstruth.org/sites/aidstruth.org/files/documents/ErrorsInFarberArticle.pdf
Their absurd attack and names were enough for effortless skepticism, which was enough for the propagandists.
So when I read the Breggin report, I recognized the style. No real scientist would go out of their way to write what they claim to have written.
I've grilled plenty of docs under oath and am not impressed with more than a few - especially "virologists" who rely on divining rods like flow cytometry and PCR testing (PCR is real, PCR tests are not) instead of Koch's Postulates or electron microscopy.
I'm skeptical of them ALL, but Dr. Malone and his peers have broken their silence and raised legitimate questions that must be heard as part of their moral obligation to "informed consent". Their modest exposure of that ongoing, trillion-dollar-pseudoscientific-theocratic money-laundering operation (that they all played a part of) understandably challenges the lives, careers, and credibility of thousands of bent pseudo-scientists and universities - the churches, temples, clerics, theologians, apostles, disciples, and mullahs who, if faced with their day of reckoning in this world would not be reputable enough to drive cabs or dig ditches (without watchful direct supervision).
So yeah, Breggin's attacks serve the purpose because the majority of the global population is afflicted by life and characteristics described by Asch, Milgram, Desmet and others - people who are too addled, stressed, and distracted to study the arguments from one side or another. In that cacophony, the noisiest mob wins. Like Duesberg, Wakefield and Farber, casual observers will hear that Malone "was discredited", shrug their shoulders and think to themselves, "well, who really knows?"
Mission accomplished!
Well said. You know your stuff. You think Breggin is controlled opposition then? but what about all his prior work being the conscience of psychiatry etc. I don't trust his facts though anymore, I don't care what side he's on--even if he's on our side, I don't want to be fed lies to bolster arguments against the other side either. Just want the truth and he doesn't seem to wedded to that.
I don't know Breggin, his motives or career. I've only written that his attacks read like attacks by others whose motives I am familiar with.
Oh okay well he I think brought lawsuits out or fought in court regarding Prozac. He's said to be the conscience of psychiatry. ...which certainly seemed laudable. But he's not behaving well right now, in my opinion. Here's a typical snippet about him: "Commenting on the study, Dr Peter Breggin – known as “the Conscience of Psychiatry” for the last five decades – said, “There are no known biochemical imbalances in the brains of mental patients until they are put there by the neurotoxic effects of psychiatric drugs.”
‘At its heart, psychiatry is about damaging the brain’ – Dr Peter
and there's this description also: Peter R. Breggin, M.D. Chief Expert For All 150 Prozac Lawsuits Against Eli Lilly
And then a book called The Conscience of Psychiatry: reform work by Peter Breggin has description of his work also: https://www.amazon.com/Conscience-Psychiatry-Reform-Peter-Breggin/dp/098245600X
Seems like a great guy, has good rep, so but his statements about Malone and Desmet again are so distorted, it's unbelievable. So, there it is. Not sure what to make of it.
And that's the tack to take: Everyone has opinions. We quietly take what we can and weigh them against our own observations and intuition. To weaponize such an attack seems inexplicable. The fact (up through today) that they won't debate their critique with Desmet or Malone is suspicious. Unresponsiveness is how the clerics and mullahs behave. So unseemly for "our side".
I COMPLETELY agree. He's talking out the side of his neck AND won't have civil discourse, so he's lost merit and credibility.