Alone Against The Establishment

https://drmalcolmkendrick.org/2019/07/29/a-second-look-at-vaccination-answers-that-cannot-be-questioned/?replytocom=143171#respond 

Martin Black - Semmelweis connected dissecting cadavers with possible contamination to mothers in childbirth. He found washing hands made a BIG difference and told the Gentlemen Surgeons and was cast out and if I recall incarcerated and beaten to die of his wounds.

In the hierarchy of power one should know one's place - including what can and cannot be said to experts in their field and defenders of the right to power.

Wakefield saw gut dysbiosis in autistic kids with possible (parentally asserted) links to the early injection of the combined MMR vaccine and suggested further research while recommending the single vaccine to be applied at a later timing in a child's development. He maybe could have died in an asylum too - but found the way to stand regardless of being smeared, thrown out and made an example by which to terrorise others into compliance or restate their unquestioning conformity.

Of course the one who stands against an establishment is not right thereby. It is also the way in which they stand and set their case as well as the what of it.

I don't care for persuasion or PR with regard to science - unless of course you make your own journey of discovery and are 'persuaded' by your own honesty of enquiry relative to a range of evidences that inform your currently accepted view, model or belief.

Those who are already 'persuaded' may be aligned in self-interest without any conscious sense of so doing - just as those who are supposed to regulate vaccinnes may make millions of dollars as a result of owning patents and yet assert they are without a conflict of interest. 

If you cant smell a rat re Climate propaganda running thick and fast as emotional manipulation coupled with top down regulatory impositions that are 'incentivised' with bribes or threats to effectively bypass the dictate of a false consensus over a lack of willing consent - then you have taken the bait as far as I am concerned and see only in the framing of assertions that are targeted at environmental guilt and catastrophe but do not stand up - (genuine toxicity would).But so what! - Make new ones, and new one etc. It helps to effectively own or control the means of framing the narrative.You can tell when the patient is under, because even the most outrageously transparent fallacies evoke not a whisper of a question. Spellbinding stuff eh!

There are some who risk a lot to speak out and others who dare not risk anything and so comply with what is in their survival response to 'understand' and get behind. I don't feel to make moral judgements. Younger professional with real career opportunity or family dependencies don't see any benefit in sticking their neck out.

Ancel Keys was part of a PR campaign and perhaps believed his handlers. But like many who are feted - are ignored when they recant or voice anything that does NOT support the narrative that is essentially a marketising and weaponising technologism.

Whole seeming cynical I am simply noticing that possession and control are put before truth - because anything that threatens dispossession or loss of control is defended against and often pre-emptively attacked, to perhaps be subverted or allowed to run as a limited hangout or captured opposition.