Total minefield, this is

The first thing to point out in a much needed rebuttal of a certain “doctor” is that there’s all out war for hearts and minds going on … and I do mean “all out” war.

https://dailysceptic.org/2022/11/23/died-suddenly-is-typical-trash-from-stew-peters/

The second is that we … you, me … have information overload … if you glance at the amount we post at our site across the way (N.O.), it can get up to twenty or thirty items a day … and even that’s mostly linking or summaries.

The third is the cursory reader … the one who works full time and who holds a mix of “healthy” scepticism as a rule, plus a bullish mindset I call “Colonel Harrumph (retired)” who asserts, “I’ve read all the literature and nowhere does it say …” which really means “nowhere did I find coz I wasn’t looking with any degree of laser penetration, I just wanted to be able to debunk the conspiracy theorists, a priori.”.

This latter, this mindset, the absolute importance, in your public field, of your bona fides being wholly accepted because upon that lies your very livelihood … this causes anyone in Britain at least, called “doctor”, to be scrutinised to the nth degree by retired people like us who are very much distrustful in the wake of the covid and vaxx debacle, esp. of Ferguson, Whitty and the NHS.

Remember, I mentioned hearts and minds, rather than the “science itself being settled” … they can diverge.

And as a consequence of all the above factors combined, we get a fourth factor … the 80-20 syndrome.  

This is where a person, quite disinclined to have his trust in what and whom he personally knows and trusts upturned, comes in, a priori, and commits confirmation bias simply through dislike, detestation of the messenger/ferreter, along with not being up to date, not being at the cutting edge for that last 20%.  

How could he be up to date if he works fulltime in a different area to that which we work in … our field being investigation 24/7, 7/52.  Yet he “bowls in” (my own emotive word construct) and opens with “typical trash from”.  

Now, we do not quote Stew Peters as a rule for the same reason we do not touch Before it’s News, Epoch, multiple johnny-come-lately “conservative” sites which look and sound good, except that there is something iffy in the manner, the poor navigation, the 24/7 demand for money “to keep us afloat”, a host of reasons we’ve learnt bitterly over time.  We’re still wiping egg off our faces.

We’re talking here of those “cashing in” or if not that, then at least infiltrating in order to steer debate, and using our own nomenclature and buzz phrases in order to control our output.

Which gets into a highly dangerous field … defamation.  Rightly or wrongly, this “doctor” has defamed Stew Peters and his article goes into why.  I was open to this “doctor” for a few reasons.  One is that the Daily Sceptic has a good name on our side, he has an article in that publication, on the strength of his being a “doctor”.

Doctor of what though?  I do not personally like that Naomi Wolf, a feminist author, calling herself doctor, which she is … a doctor in academia but not a medical doctor in the least … does not go out of her way to underscore that point, unlike Dr. Simone Gold, recently released from prison, who is very much a medical doctor.

But is she a doctor within this field of epidemiology?  

And can someone working in labs equally see that something is untoward in the research, someone for example like Judy Mikovits whom the Woke Wikipedia has in first place on ggl search, “… an American former research scientist who is known for her discredited medical claims …”

… which in itself is highly suspect but to know why, you’d need to wade through the former sites of ours now taken down from above, now a plethora of sites, all involving digging and input from readers.  

In short, this thing is a minefield, the fifth factor.  

If you are 100% in this line of work … ferreting, aggregating, sifting, discarding, keeping, gradually building lists of the trustworthy, the iffy and the downright discredited, then you can perhaps nail 80% of it but still not get that last 20% … there are endless twists and turns.

For example, even if you establish this man’s medical qualification as being within this field of epidemia, he’s still of a certain name, from a certain continent and from a certain ethnic/religious group which OoL for one is neither openly touching nor condemning … it’s simply too dangerous for this site, for me, for our other people.  You have eyes and a scrolling finger … do it, find out for yourself.

And the sixth factor (six factors being by no means complete and exhaustive, given the constant twists and turns) is the iceberg factor.

Meaning that what people say, write, do, in the open public space by no means says anything about the rest of the iceberg below.  Which leads to a seventh factor … ancient enmities and a person needing to be of a certain caste, group, ethinicity, beluef system, to know thst bullsh is being perpetrated here.

Look at two things … firstly the good “doctor’s” title … from which discipline it is, from where, geographically, from where they themselves emanated … and then look at whom he attacks immediately in the heading.

If I say that I’d lay odds he’d also attack Andrew Torba, are you any closer to tumbling to it?  A new testament scholar certainly would be … instantly.  But try telling that to the secular, rationalist or Woke masses.  And as I say, it’s too dangerous for me to continue.

My concluding request is … be very much aware of that iceberg and all the other factors. There is an expression about “knowing them by their fruits”, by those they hang around with.  Nuff said.