What made it far worse for me as an observer, but moreso for Cancer patients, was that during the hysteria, Cancer therapy was refused until jabbed.
This whole post it, then retract it, proves powerful people are pulling strings, and we the public must be quick to note, download and distribute new information, to bypass their efforts at censorship.
But it also means that there are good people doing their best inside - allowing the posting, knowing full well the inevitable takedown to come after. And maybe hoping that people like you notice and carry on after they are silenced.
Yes it's really troubling that science that is really important to very vulnerable groups is getting blocked in this way. I know multiple people with cancer and they are always advised to jab themselves to the eyeballs for 'protection.' What is the 'protection' has cancer-promoting effects? It's so important and a massive scandal that the science is being blocked from publication and distribution.
The flip side of this is the quality of journal articles that so get published and don't get retracted.
Having been reading medical journal paprs for over 40 years, I have witnessed the descent into a mire of pseudo-scientific waffle, hopeless conflicts of interest, peer review that has completely lost its original meaning, and journals that don't even attempt to hide their Big Pharma love fest.
Unfortunately it's now a case of caveat emptor.
Or as I said to my registrar yesterday, eat well, exercise, and get plenty of fresh air!
For reasons that you documented, this can be expected to be one of the biggest stories of the next decade and beyond. I think you're in a minority on the right side of history.
What is the appropriate treatment for "public servants" who mandate cancer-causing injections and punish citizens who don't submit? This question will be answered at some point.
I forget who's Substack it was I read today, but they made the case that peer review and gatekeeping by the publishers is a waste of time, and ALL papers should be freely published and get community noted as junk or good, with the community noter's being required to disclose any conflicts of interest. (If people didn't disclose I suspect they'd get community noted for that). Sounds like a much better way than the current 'pal review' and commercial interests blocking or retracting papers.
In principle, peer review should improve the paper. I informally seek out peer review by soliciting feedback on important pieces of work before publishing, as I’m sure many writers do. But in practice, it really does seem to be broken. Kevin McKernan speaks often about decentralising science publishing, something like what you’re talking about I guess.
Interesting, although somewhat underwhelming from a vax apocalypse viewpoint. So the great plague (and all that that involved) seemed to halt the Japanese decline in cancer rate (a decline which had been steady at about 4 per 100 000 per year) ... according to the graph with the suppressed origin.:)
The UK oncologist, meanwhile, seemed certain that stress was a significant trigger for cancer relapse. Well, the government and media certainly served up plenty of EXTRA stress (they can of course be counted on producing stress at the BEST of times) for the public during the plague years. It seems (to me) plausible that such stress accounts for the vast majority of the excess deaths and cancers. At the very least this conjecture deserves to be seriously entertained. When mental health tanks, so does physical health.
What made it far worse for me as an observer, but moreso for Cancer patients, was that during the hysteria, Cancer therapy was refused until jabbed.
This whole post it, then retract it, proves powerful people are pulling strings, and we the public must be quick to note, download and distribute new information, to bypass their efforts at censorship.
But it also means that there are good people doing their best inside - allowing the posting, knowing full well the inevitable takedown to come after. And maybe hoping that people like you notice and carry on after they are silenced.
Yes it's really troubling that science that is really important to very vulnerable groups is getting blocked in this way. I know multiple people with cancer and they are always advised to jab themselves to the eyeballs for 'protection.' What is the 'protection' has cancer-promoting effects? It's so important and a massive scandal that the science is being blocked from publication and distribution.
The flip side of this is the quality of journal articles that so get published and don't get retracted.
Having been reading medical journal paprs for over 40 years, I have witnessed the descent into a mire of pseudo-scientific waffle, hopeless conflicts of interest, peer review that has completely lost its original meaning, and journals that don't even attempt to hide their Big Pharma love fest.
Unfortunately it's now a case of caveat emptor.
Or as I said to my registrar yesterday, eat well, exercise, and get plenty of fresh air!
Outstanding work! Many thanks!
For reasons that you documented, this can be expected to be one of the biggest stories of the next decade and beyond. I think you're in a minority on the right side of history.
What is the appropriate treatment for "public servants" who mandate cancer-causing injections and punish citizens who don't submit? This question will be answered at some point.
I forget who's Substack it was I read today, but they made the case that peer review and gatekeeping by the publishers is a waste of time, and ALL papers should be freely published and get community noted as junk or good, with the community noter's being required to disclose any conflicts of interest. (If people didn't disclose I suspect they'd get community noted for that). Sounds like a much better way than the current 'pal review' and commercial interests blocking or retracting papers.
In principle, peer review should improve the paper. I informally seek out peer review by soliciting feedback on important pieces of work before publishing, as I’m sure many writers do. But in practice, it really does seem to be broken. Kevin McKernan speaks often about decentralising science publishing, something like what you’re talking about I guess.
[In principle, peer review should improve the paper]
What was it Yogi Berra said about theory and practice :)
Interesting, although somewhat underwhelming from a vax apocalypse viewpoint. So the great plague (and all that that involved) seemed to halt the Japanese decline in cancer rate (a decline which had been steady at about 4 per 100 000 per year) ... according to the graph with the suppressed origin.:)
The UK oncologist, meanwhile, seemed certain that stress was a significant trigger for cancer relapse. Well, the government and media certainly served up plenty of EXTRA stress (they can of course be counted on producing stress at the BEST of times) for the public during the plague years. It seems (to me) plausible that such stress accounts for the vast majority of the excess deaths and cancers. At the very least this conjecture deserves to be seriously entertained. When mental health tanks, so does physical health.