The Gibroney Hunter: Virtually all vaccine safety research has been conducted by the vaccine producers themselves. The FDA does not conduct its own independent studies on this issue. Therefore, the manufacturers of the vaccines themselves are the sole source of information. Also, double-blind studies, which are essential to any good science, have never been conducted. Watch the documentary "vaccine nation." It should be on youtube. The mainstream scientific community is just another corrupt and toxic institution.
The Hutch: Another corrupt and toxic institution? really? I don't feel very corrupt or toxic. I don't think any of my scientist friends are corrupt or toxic. Mostly I think everyone I've met in either community are primarily concerned with discovering things and helping people.
Regardless of how invalid you think the research is giving vaccines the clear, there is absolutely NO good research that damns them. You're operating purely on speculation. There is, however, a great deal of research on the new outbreaks and deaths of old, curable diseases caused by communities of parents opting out of vaccines. Autism isn't a life sentence. Polio is.
Lastly, there have been double-blind studies on just about every vaccine out there. I don't know where you get your info, but it seems far less reliable than the so-called corrupt and toxic medical and scientific communities.
The Gibroney Hunter: I disagree that proper double blind studies were conducted. The studies conducted by vaccine makers were pervasively flawed and incomplete. And even if they weren't, it doesn't change the fact that the makers themselves were the ones testing. And you know as well as I do that good science cannot be biased in such a way.
Interesting you should mention Polio. If you observe the line graphs on Polio statistics in the months and years leading up to the vaccination, you may be as surprised as I was to learn that the death rate and diagnosis rates had been steadily DECLINING during this time. Quite contrary to most people's basic assumptions, there is actually a huge jump in the numbers immediately after vaccinations, then the natural steady decline continues until Polio ceases to be an epidemic. This is a very telling fact because it seems to support the assertion that the Polio vaccine was ineffective at best, and completely poisonous at worst, and also that the Polio virus, like so many other viruses throughout human history, was working itself out naturally.
A couple points regarding your claim of a lack of evidence supporting skepticism of vaccines. Look up Guillain-Barre syndrome, if you're not already familiar. It's actually a disease caused by tainted flu vaccines in the 1970's. For an entire year, the Establishment denied any connection between mounting deaths and the vaccinations, but they finally had to admit that yes, they had been poisoning people. There's much more to be said on this, but my second point is one I believe I've basically made before, in facebook comments. It's that the lack of well-funded research contradicting vaccine makers should come as a surprise to no one, since the makers of vaccines are part of a Eugenicist agenda that owns and operates mainstream science. They censor science just like they censor the news. There is a long list of honest professionals who were blacklisted and never funded again for research, after coming out publicly against things like fluoridation of our water supply, aspartame, vaccinations, and so on.
The Hutch: " It's that the lack of well-funded research contradicting vaccine makers should come as a surprise to no one, since the makers of vaccines are part of a Eugenicist agenda that owns and operates mainstream science."
DUDE. Come ON. Really?
Why is it that conspiracy theorists are so skeptical of damn near everything, but always so sure of the crackpot theories they come up with?
The Gibroney Hunter: "DUDE. Come ON. Really?"
What an articulate and well formulated response.
You are to scientific debate what Lil John is to hip hop.
The Hutch: It ceases to be a scientific debate when you bring up global conspiracies. It's like trying to discuss biology and someone chimes in "well what about the unicorn!?" I can't prove there are no unicorns. I'm just have to common sense to assume that they're fairly improbable.
Again, I don't understand why you can be so skeptical of so many things, yet so accepting of these crackpot theories you keep coming up with.
The Gibroney Hunter: But you can state a comprehensive case as to why it seems highly improbably that unicorns exist. In fact, this should be rather easy to do from a scientific perspective. And this is precisely what you haven't done. Sadly, much of what you're saying pretty much boils down to "you're crazy" Which may or may not be true.. but as an intellectually sound rebuttal? Just doesn't cut it.
"It ceases to be a scientific debate when you bring up global conspiracies."
Why? Is the subject of global conspiracies somehow beyond the scope of science? I'm assuming your answer would be 'no' so what exactly is it that leads you to reject this idea on it's face.
Fun Fact: BOTH predominant views of the events of 9/11 are in fact conspiracy theories. Some believe the richest people in the world conspired to ensure the next century would be one firmly in their control, and some believe that a rag-tag group of muslims CONSPIRED to simultaneously hijack four airliners, permeate NORAD, the most technologically advanced air-defense system in the solar system, crash those planes into 2 buildings and make 3 of them fall down.
Regarding my skepticism, and seeming lack of it in certain areas.. I disagree. I'm skeptical of every and any thing that crosses my path. The difference is that instead of suckling from the withering teat of NPR or Scientific American, I've actually begun using my own skepticism and applying it independently. And y'know what? Alot of the stuff that alot of people are convinced is immutable fact? Turns out to be shit, rather than shinola. I did not choose to become a 'conspiracy theorist.' My loyalty to the facts and the truth has led me to a place that (not very surprisingly) is viciously opposed by the massive hordes of lemmings known as the average American citizen.
Friday, October 30, 2009
Monday, October 26, 2009
My Silence Cannot Be Bought
"I've chosen to go to court, rather than accept a payoff from the 9/11 victims compansation fund. Instead I want to know what went so wrong with our intelligence and security systems that a band of religious fanatics was able to turn four U.S passenger jets into an enemy force, attack our cities, and kill 3,000 civilians with terrifying ease. I want to know why two 110 story skyscrapers collapsed in less than two hours, and why escape and rescue options were so limited.
"I am suing because unlike other investigative avenues, including congressional hearings and the 9/11 commision, my lawsuit requires all testimony be given under oath, and fully uses powers to compel evidence. The victim's fund was not created in a spirit of compassion. Rather, it was a tacit acknowledgment by congress that it tampered with our civil justice system in an unprecedented way. Lawmakers capped the liability of the airlines at the behest of lobbyists who descended on Washington while the September 11th fires still smoldered. And this liability cap protects not just the airlines but also World Trade Center builders, safety engineers, and other defendants. The caps on liability have consequences for those who want to sue to shed light on the mistakes of 9/11. It means the playing field is tilted steeply in favor of those who need to be held accountable.
"With the financial consequences, other than insurance proceeds removed, there is no incentive for those whose negligence contributed to the death toll to acknowledge their failings, or implement reforms. They can afford to deny culpability and play a waiting game. By suing, I forfeited the 1.8 million dollar average award for a death claim I could have collected under the fund. Nor do I have any illusions about winning money in my suit. What I do know is I owe it to my husband, who's death, I believe, could have been avoided, to see that all of those responsible are held accountable. If we don't get answers to what went wrong, there will be a next time. And instead of 3,000 dead it will be 10,000. What will congress do then?
"So I say to congress, big business, and everyone who conspired to divert attention from government and private sector failures: My husband's life was priceless. And I will not let his death be meaningless. My silence cannot be bought." - Beverly Eckert, 9/11 widow and activist. She herself died in the crash of flight 3407, seven days after meeting with president Barack Obama.
"I am suing because unlike other investigative avenues, including congressional hearings and the 9/11 commision, my lawsuit requires all testimony be given under oath, and fully uses powers to compel evidence. The victim's fund was not created in a spirit of compassion. Rather, it was a tacit acknowledgment by congress that it tampered with our civil justice system in an unprecedented way. Lawmakers capped the liability of the airlines at the behest of lobbyists who descended on Washington while the September 11th fires still smoldered. And this liability cap protects not just the airlines but also World Trade Center builders, safety engineers, and other defendants. The caps on liability have consequences for those who want to sue to shed light on the mistakes of 9/11. It means the playing field is tilted steeply in favor of those who need to be held accountable.
"With the financial consequences, other than insurance proceeds removed, there is no incentive for those whose negligence contributed to the death toll to acknowledge their failings, or implement reforms. They can afford to deny culpability and play a waiting game. By suing, I forfeited the 1.8 million dollar average award for a death claim I could have collected under the fund. Nor do I have any illusions about winning money in my suit. What I do know is I owe it to my husband, who's death, I believe, could have been avoided, to see that all of those responsible are held accountable. If we don't get answers to what went wrong, there will be a next time. And instead of 3,000 dead it will be 10,000. What will congress do then?
"So I say to congress, big business, and everyone who conspired to divert attention from government and private sector failures: My husband's life was priceless. And I will not let his death be meaningless. My silence cannot be bought." - Beverly Eckert, 9/11 widow and activist. She herself died in the crash of flight 3407, seven days after meeting with president Barack Obama.
Saturday, October 17, 2009
A Gibroney Hunter Salute To: The Original Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle movie
One of the crowning achievements of Hollywood, hands down. This is by no means a complete review or summary of the film (for that, I'd recommend the Angry Video Game Nerd, who reviews the film in depth in his youtube films), just a few comments.
For a children's film it achieves the perfect balance of harsh reality and fantasy. New York is portrayed as the grimy crime-toilet that it is. Everyone's poor, and everyone's job and life sucks. Just like real life. Except crazy shit happens sometimes, like having to battle the Foot Clan. Just like real life. (crazy shit happening, not the Foot Clan) April O'Neil tries her best to expose this hidden crime syndicate, but her Establishment shill of a boss is afraid to touch it and eventually fires her for her insistence on exposing the truth.
This film captures the popular culture of the late eighties/early nineties perfectly. The Foot Clan's indoctrination of the youth is a reflection of the gang and urban violence problem which was exploding exponentially at the time. We are shown a world in which evil runs rampant and one of the world's only sources of light and goodness are forced to live underground, lest they be exposed and labeled as 'freaks'. One of the best movies ever.
For a children's film it achieves the perfect balance of harsh reality and fantasy. New York is portrayed as the grimy crime-toilet that it is. Everyone's poor, and everyone's job and life sucks. Just like real life. Except crazy shit happens sometimes, like having to battle the Foot Clan. Just like real life. (crazy shit happening, not the Foot Clan) April O'Neil tries her best to expose this hidden crime syndicate, but her Establishment shill of a boss is afraid to touch it and eventually fires her for her insistence on exposing the truth.
This film captures the popular culture of the late eighties/early nineties perfectly. The Foot Clan's indoctrination of the youth is a reflection of the gang and urban violence problem which was exploding exponentially at the time. We are shown a world in which evil runs rampant and one of the world's only sources of light and goodness are forced to live underground, lest they be exposed and labeled as 'freaks'. One of the best movies ever.
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
The Gibroney Hunter Vs. The Hutch
The Hutch: Art _is_ culture. His cure is the disease he's railing against.
McKenna has his head so far up his ass, so enamored with his struggle against society, that he barely understands how the rest of the world lives and thinks; like an angsty teenager railing against the 9-5 world when he's never worked a day in his life. He's a perfect example of how psychedelics can ruin person -- a hippie Dr. Jeckle permanently stuck as a wacked-out Mr. Hyde. And this is coming from someone who very much likes psychedelics.
How and why anyone would elevate the words of a man who equates science -- the pursuit knowledge through experimentation and research -- as some sort of "paternalistic metaphor ... extrapolated into toys for healthy children" is beyond me. He's quite clearly detached from any reality we exist in and he discredits whatever good ideas he happens to stumble upon simply by having them.
The Gibroney Hunter: Most of this statement is antagonistic and devoid of any actual content, but I'll try to respond to the little that is response-worthy. To start, it should be obvious that art is not culture. To conclude simply that "art is culture" is like saying that food is culture, just because the two are closely related. The particular spices and recipes, ... yes of course that's culture, but the food itself? Clearly not. The same can be said of art. Art is shaped, amplified, hindered, destroyed, exalted, by culture, but to say that art is merely equitable to and wholly subservient to culture reveals a very limited perspective on what art is and what art means to the human species.
The next few comments are generalized attacks on Terrence Mckenna, which can only reasonably warrant a defensive response, so forgive me. But Terence Mckenna has numerous books under his belt, along with a decades-long history of lecturing and public speaking, not to mention having lived long periods of time among tribal peoples in Central and South America. Not exactly behavior easily associated with a "Mr. Hyde hippie" unwilling to work the "9-5" (which, by the way, is a way of life that is obviously deeply flawed and unrewarding for the overwhelming majority of its participants, and only to be defended by true conformists.)
The Hutch: I would say food is culture, as would even the most conservative reading of the definition and spirit of the word. And to clarify, I wasn't saying that all culture is art, but that art is, again by definition, a defining feature of culture. But art isn't the problem, it's the solution. To culture. Which encompasses art? Right. He's not even challenged and he doesn't explain. He simply offers his nonsensical solution to his nonsensical problem and people cheer and ask how they can aid in his nonsensical crusade. And I'm the conformist?
I'm not usually one to go to the ad hominem attack, but I make exceptions when I think the person holding the idea is insane. And I do think McKenna is insane, regardless if it was because of the psychedelics, the massive brain tumor that killed him, or pure genetics. But your right, perhaps I should simply focus on the idea he's presenting and leave it at that.
I mean... extropy? Come on!
The Gibroney Hunter: Food: Food is any substance, usually composed of carbohydrates, fats, proteins and water, that can be eaten or drunk by an animal, including humans, for nutrition or pleasure. This is the most conservative reading of the definition and spirit of the word 'food' that i could find. There is no mention of culture. Simply because something is articulated through culture does not mean that it is culture. This is like saying that because culture plays a huge role in the way we express the emotion of love, then the emotion of love is culture. Obviously false. Love is an inevitable component of human nature and culture is merely the mechanism through which it either flourishes or is hindered. Take away culture and human love does not disappear, it simply is stifled, as it is not as able to be freely articulated.
It's important to keep in mind that there is a longer speech, and a larger context than is available in the youtube clip [the popular "culture is not your friend" youtube clip floating around], and Terrence Mckenna offers art not as the sole and central solution to a sick culture, but merely as one way to solve the problem. Perhaps if asked, he would also have other suggestions. Remember, he's speaking at an art school, which should help explain his focus on art as a solution to some of the world's problems.
Your choice of words throughout your comments is perplexing. Crusade? Saying that art can change the world for the better is a 'crusade'? Also you seem quick to jump to conclusions and put words into Mckenna's mouth. For example, you describe him as 'railing against' culture. Saying that culture is not your friend is quite different from railing or crusading against it. I think the obvious point he was making is that sometimes we forget that our true selves are entirely separate from culture, and culture is attached to us, like computer software. All of culture is alot like religion, in the sense that the whole thing really only exists as a metaphorical pair of training wheels for the human species, while we come to grips with our newfound emotional, intellectual, and spiritual capabilities, evolved over the past few hundred thousand years.
You may or may not be a conformist. I'm simply pointing out that in my experience, anyone willing to use the "lazy hippie" argument usually is. It usually reflects a jealousy at the individual, who is brave, clever, resourceful or maybe just plain lucky enough to brake free from the monotonous, potential-squandering grind of the "9-5" Which no one wants to take part in. They may be able to throw enough trinkets and baubles at you to make you say "this ain't so bad" But the sad reality is that culture is now overgrown, and being used by the ruling elite as a mechanism of control over the rest of us.
Calling someone crazy, and then citing that as reason enough not to engage in debate or discussion of their ideas, is one of the oldest and lamest tricks in the book. (see 9/11 truth movement, Prof. Steven Jones, Physicist)
McKenna has his head so far up his ass, so enamored with his struggle against society, that he barely understands how the rest of the world lives and thinks; like an angsty teenager railing against the 9-5 world when he's never worked a day in his life. He's a perfect example of how psychedelics can ruin person -- a hippie Dr. Jeckle permanently stuck as a wacked-out Mr. Hyde. And this is coming from someone who very much likes psychedelics.
How and why anyone would elevate the words of a man who equates science -- the pursuit knowledge through experimentation and research -- as some sort of "paternalistic metaphor ... extrapolated into toys for healthy children" is beyond me. He's quite clearly detached from any reality we exist in and he discredits whatever good ideas he happens to stumble upon simply by having them.
The Gibroney Hunter: Most of this statement is antagonistic and devoid of any actual content, but I'll try to respond to the little that is response-worthy. To start, it should be obvious that art is not culture. To conclude simply that "art is culture" is like saying that food is culture, just because the two are closely related. The particular spices and recipes, ... yes of course that's culture, but the food itself? Clearly not. The same can be said of art. Art is shaped, amplified, hindered, destroyed, exalted, by culture, but to say that art is merely equitable to and wholly subservient to culture reveals a very limited perspective on what art is and what art means to the human species.
The next few comments are generalized attacks on Terrence Mckenna, which can only reasonably warrant a defensive response, so forgive me. But Terence Mckenna has numerous books under his belt, along with a decades-long history of lecturing and public speaking, not to mention having lived long periods of time among tribal peoples in Central and South America. Not exactly behavior easily associated with a "Mr. Hyde hippie" unwilling to work the "9-5" (which, by the way, is a way of life that is obviously deeply flawed and unrewarding for the overwhelming majority of its participants, and only to be defended by true conformists.)
The Hutch: I would say food is culture, as would even the most conservative reading of the definition and spirit of the word. And to clarify, I wasn't saying that all culture is art, but that art is, again by definition, a defining feature of culture. But art isn't the problem, it's the solution. To culture. Which encompasses art? Right. He's not even challenged and he doesn't explain. He simply offers his nonsensical solution to his nonsensical problem and people cheer and ask how they can aid in his nonsensical crusade. And I'm the conformist?
I'm not usually one to go to the ad hominem attack, but I make exceptions when I think the person holding the idea is insane. And I do think McKenna is insane, regardless if it was because of the psychedelics, the massive brain tumor that killed him, or pure genetics. But your right, perhaps I should simply focus on the idea he's presenting and leave it at that.
I mean... extropy? Come on!
The Gibroney Hunter: Food: Food is any substance, usually composed of carbohydrates, fats, proteins and water, that can be eaten or drunk by an animal, including humans, for nutrition or pleasure. This is the most conservative reading of the definition and spirit of the word 'food' that i could find. There is no mention of culture. Simply because something is articulated through culture does not mean that it is culture. This is like saying that because culture plays a huge role in the way we express the emotion of love, then the emotion of love is culture. Obviously false. Love is an inevitable component of human nature and culture is merely the mechanism through which it either flourishes or is hindered. Take away culture and human love does not disappear, it simply is stifled, as it is not as able to be freely articulated.
It's important to keep in mind that there is a longer speech, and a larger context than is available in the youtube clip [the popular "culture is not your friend" youtube clip floating around], and Terrence Mckenna offers art not as the sole and central solution to a sick culture, but merely as one way to solve the problem. Perhaps if asked, he would also have other suggestions. Remember, he's speaking at an art school, which should help explain his focus on art as a solution to some of the world's problems.
Your choice of words throughout your comments is perplexing. Crusade? Saying that art can change the world for the better is a 'crusade'? Also you seem quick to jump to conclusions and put words into Mckenna's mouth. For example, you describe him as 'railing against' culture. Saying that culture is not your friend is quite different from railing or crusading against it. I think the obvious point he was making is that sometimes we forget that our true selves are entirely separate from culture, and culture is attached to us, like computer software. All of culture is alot like religion, in the sense that the whole thing really only exists as a metaphorical pair of training wheels for the human species, while we come to grips with our newfound emotional, intellectual, and spiritual capabilities, evolved over the past few hundred thousand years.
You may or may not be a conformist. I'm simply pointing out that in my experience, anyone willing to use the "lazy hippie" argument usually is. It usually reflects a jealousy at the individual, who is brave, clever, resourceful or maybe just plain lucky enough to brake free from the monotonous, potential-squandering grind of the "9-5" Which no one wants to take part in. They may be able to throw enough trinkets and baubles at you to make you say "this ain't so bad" But the sad reality is that culture is now overgrown, and being used by the ruling elite as a mechanism of control over the rest of us.
Calling someone crazy, and then citing that as reason enough not to engage in debate or discussion of their ideas, is one of the oldest and lamest tricks in the book. (see 9/11 truth movement, Prof. Steven Jones, Physicist)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
