Any article which begins with the term ‘anti-science’ movement is demonstrating high levels of subjectivity and bias which one would have thought, had no place in the realms of supposedly objective and rigorous science.
The label ‘anti-science’ is as silly as calling someone anti-Australian or anti-American simply because they challenge orthodox beliefs and do not simply fall into line with mass thinking.
In reality, many of history’s greatest scientists should be called ‘anti-science’ because they dared to think out of the box. Quantum Physics could only have arisen because some scientists challenged conventional thinking in Classical Physics and were, for their time, what is now called ‘anti-science.’
The author also completely overlooks the fact that many of those who question conventional, orthodox scientific dogma, theory or practice, are perfectly aware that basic chemistry ‘facts’ are elementary, they simply take the view that classical chemistry, as was shown in regard to classical physics, is one way of ‘thinking’ and theorising but not the only way.
Yes, these chemistry facts are fundamental, but not so much to science in any general or true sense, but simply to classical chemistry as it is now understood and materialist-reductionist science as it now functions.
What on earth is an ‘anti-scientist’ position? Is that like an ‘anti-priest’ or ‘anti-religious’ position where because you don’t follow like a brainwashed sheep, but ask questions and make up your own mind you are vilified?
How does asking questions and demanding accountability of a system constitute wilful ignorance?
And what is a science denier? Is that like a religious denier? It sounds very similar which is why many now perceive the debasement of science into Scientism, or rather, the religion of science where dissenters are burned at metaphorical stakes for challenging. Well, those within science can be more literally ‘burned’ in terms of losing jobs, professional prestige, peer approval and profits.
Then again, more within the world of science are speaking out about the terrible and dangerous flaws within science as a system.
Are they ‘science-deniers?’
Quote: Slay peer review ‘sacred cow’, says former BMJ chief
Richard Smith, who edited the BMJ between 1991 and 2004, told the Royal Society’s Future of Scholarly Scientific Communication conference on 20 April that there was no evidence that pre-publication peer review improved papers or detected errors or fraud.
Referring to John Ioannidis’ famous 2005 paper “Why most published research findings are false”, Dr Smith said “most of what is published in journals is just plain wrong or nonsense”. He added that an experiment carried out during his time at the BMJ had seen eight errors introduced into a 600-word paper that was sent out to 300 reviewers.
Quote: The1960 Nobel laureate in physiology or medicine, Peter Medawar, famously remarked in 1983: “In terms of fulfilment of declared intentions, science is incomparably the most successful enterprise that human beings have ever engaged upon.”
Compare Medawar’s sentiment with the 2009 statement made by Marcia Angell, former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine and quoted in PLOS Medicine in October 2010: “It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published or to rely on the judgement of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines.”
And okay, everything is made of chemicals but not all chemicals are equal. There are naturally occurring chemicals in the natural world and in our body and then there are synthesized chemicals produced in a laboratory.
There are chemicals which occur in our food and our body which we either ingest or produce and then there are chemicals which are injected into our bodies through vaccination or synthesized chemicals ingested in medication.
And why is it that research has never been done into the COMBINED effect of various chemicals in vaccines? Sure, each has been looked at in isolation and deemed safe but what about together? More to the point, what about the completely artificial process of not just having such a collection of chemicals received by the body, but having it received in a way impossible in nature, i.e. injected for quick uptake by the bloodstream, thereby bypassing the first lines of immune defence?
We eat salt on our food but would we inject it into the body of a baby? Probably not.
No-one is talking about a chemical-free lifestyle but the sensible people are talking about chemical-reduced and chemical-minimal lifestyles.
Beyond the arrogant and patronising nature of the article to all those ‘non-scientific’ sorts, the fact is that human beings in general are generally smarter than some might suppose and some of the most stupid people have a string of academic degrees a mile long and PhD’s in plenty.
And yes, there are only toxic doses, but, where you inject a myriad of chemicals at non-toxic levels in ways utterly impossible in nature, surely someone should be wondering just what the cocktail effect might be doing?
….”everyone reading this currently has mercury, arsenic, cyanide, formaldehyde, aluminum, lead, and a host of other “toxic” chemicals in your body right now.”
but, the interesting study would be on the unvaccinated compared to the vaccinated where the former only have levels which can be acquired naturally and which are in natural form and the latter have levels which are acquired unnaturally, in unnatural (synthesized form) and which have been injected into small babies and children in ways for which the human body has never evolved.
And no, those chemicals are not normally in the environment because what is normally in the environment has not been concocted in a laboratory. This is where science gets disingenuous at best and dishonest at worst.
And yes, our body does produce formaldehyde but it does not produce synthetic formaldehyde and neither does it inject it into the body of a baby or small child along with (comments in brackets are mine):
Live and dead, synthesized and ‘natural’ DISEASE in bacterial and viral form;
ALUMINIUM (linked to dementia and Alzheimers);
MERCURY thimerosal( and yes still used in some vaccines);
GELATIN FROM PIGS;
SERUM FROM HUMAN BLOOD;
SORBITOL a stabiliser (used in food which is not meant to be injected because it is a cardiac toxin and diabetes exacerbater )
EMULSIFIERS,( the sort of thing which holds processed mayonnaise together and which has links to obesity);
EGG AND YEAST PROTEINS;
FORMALDYHYDE(a chemical linked to cancer and used to preserve corpses);
ACIDITY REGULATORS (another food additive);
HUMAN CELL LINES FROM ABORTED FOETUSES grown in laboratories;
ANIMAL CELL LINES;
GENETICALLY MODIFIED INGREDIENTS
3). There is no difference between “natural” and “synthetic” versions of a chemical
That is the conventional or orthodox view but it is the view which suits the pharmaceutical industry which pays for most research and which makes the most profits. It’s a bit like the difference between the original Mona Lisa and a copy – they look the same but they are not the same. They have not been created in the same way and they are not applied in the same way.
Herbal medicines offer chemical treatments in natural combination. Allopathic medicines offer synthetic chemical treatments, unnaturally created and delivered in unnatural form.
But not all agree there is no difference:
Quote: Herbs are medicinal plants (also called phytomedicinals) that can be administered as the whole plant or plant parts or by extracting one or more ingredients with solvents to yield tinctures, tea or other extracts. Synthetic drugs (what the drug industry calls “pharmaceuticals”) are synthesized chemically in the laboratory to produce drugs not found in nature. One quarter of these drugs used in the U.S. are derived from plants (i.e., opiates, digitalis, Taxol) by extracting the active ingredient from a plant, replicating its structure in the lab and mass-producing it.
Herbal drugs are considered less potent than prescribed medicines. The latter usually contain one highly concentrated active ingredient, while herbs may have several active ingredients that are chemically similar. Herbal ingredients work synergistically to contribute to, or detract from, the therapeutic effect of each individual ingredient.
– See more at: http://www.doitgreen.org/…/herbal-and-synthetic-drugs-compa…
You said: Further, if given a vial of pure water, there isn’t a chemist anywhere in the world who could tell you how that water was produced because it would be completely identical to all of the other water everywhere on the planet.
Well, no, there is no proof it is completely identical but yes, no chemist at this point in scientific knowledge and history could tell you how or where it was produced but that does not mean that there are no differences. It just means science is not advanced enough to detect them in the same way that bacteria existed long before science developed enough to identify its existence and then to see it.
There is not a shred of proof that all water is the same. There is only proof that using current knowledge and technology it all appears to be the same.
4). “Natural” chemicals are not automatically good and “artificial” chemicals are not automatically bad.
That is not what people are saying. Your so-called ‘science-deniers’ are saying that the body has evolved to work with natural chemicals, in natural form but it has not evolved to deal with synthetic chemicals delivered in unnatural forms. Ergo, erring on the side of caution would be wise.
The point is not whether a natural chemical at certain doses is dangerous as is a synthetic chemical, but that natural chemicals found in nature or produced by the human body are different to synthetic chemicals contrived in a laboratory and ingested or injected into the body in ways impossible and unknown in nature and for which the body has not evolved. Not yet anyway.
Your patronising tone indicates high levels of either ignorance or prejudice in regard to the mental capacity and knowledge base of many if not most of those who question science in this regard.
The point is not that nature has produced the best the point is that which nature has produced is better than what scientists concoct in laboratories, in the same way that butter is vastly better than the chemical concoction called margarine.
5). A chemical’s properties are determined by the other chemicals that it is bound to…
Which validates my point that it is the combination of chemicals, experimental combination I might add, in vaccines which is questionable and which should be thoroughly tested and has not been.
As to your explanation of why mercury is not dangerous in vaccines, it fails to address the issue that the body receives the mercury in ways impossible in nature and it does so while a human organism is a baby or small child, before viable immune function has been reached. Full immune function arrives around the age of fourteen.
Not only that, babies and small children receive the mercury in an ‘eye of newt and toe of toad’ brew which few of us would drink if it were offered and yet which science/medicine considers appropriate to introduction to a baby’s bloodstream.
Particularly in the US which does everything to excess, including vaccination, a baby within hours of birth and through the next five years may have 40 or 50 vaccinations. Overkill don’t you think – and perhaps literally given that forty years ago children survived and thrived on three or four and given at much older ages?
And given the fact that the US has the worst infant mortality rate of any developed nation and worse than some Third World nations, logic suggests some pondering on the vax-max approach might be wise.
If one runs the terrible risk of being called ‘anti-science’ by questioning such theory and practice then logic and common sense suggest it is a risk worth running.
By the way, would you inject sodium into a baby’s body?